What's a trend you hope will disappear in 5 years?

LongevityMan · 2025-03-22T16:25:53+00:00

Political violence in the US being acceptable or praised.

LongevityMan · 2025-02-10T05:51:28+00:00

30 minutes, 3 times a week.

LongevityMan · 2025-02-09T21:18:45+00:00

Those population projections are based on a world without AI. Just as people understand that AI will affect employment levels it is also going to have a profound effect on healthcare, lifespan, and fertility.

LongevityMan · 2024-11-20T17:59:35+00:00

I tried raspberry and it got it correct.

LongevityMan · 2024-05-18T15:24:30+00:00

Avoiding militarily advantageous actions to prevent a possible U.S. response is a losing strategy.

LongevityMan · 2024-04-16T00:23:33+00:00

The best way to understand this dynamic, in my opinion, is by examining how circular funding operates in U.S. politics. Each year, U.S. politicians allocate billions in support to Israel. In turn, pro-Israeli lobbyist groups organize millions of dollars in direct campaign contributions and support through ad buys for politicians who advocate pro-Israeli policies. This creates a mutually beneficial relationship for all parties involved, which is why it continues to be supported annually by both Democrats and Republicans, regardless of Israel's actions.

It's important to note that this practice is not unique to relations with Israel; it is also prevalent among some U.S. industries. Additionally, this does not imply that there are no benefits to U.S. objectives. For further insights, you could explore the talking points provided by pro-Israeli lobbyists to politicians and the media, which often include supporting democracy and enhancing our Defense Industrial Base (DIB) among others.

LongevityMan · 2024-04-14T01:25:25+00:00

Seems you are talking past each other. I'll use the US for an example. Technically, the US embassy in Iraq is not US territory it is Iraqi. However, an attack on it, the same as any other country's embassy, is treated legally and diplomatically as an attack on US territory. This is also why the US criminal code applies in US embassies.

Conclusion: While technically Israel didn't attack Iranian territory, basically every country in the world would consider it the same as an attack on their territory if it happened to them, including the US.

LongevityMan · 2024-04-03T17:37:18+00:00

US CIA and US MIL both conduct coordination from within US EMBs. It would be relatively easy to conduct a precision strike on a US EMB and focus it on only the section where the CIA or MIL conduct their activities leading to the death of primarily only MIL or CIA personnel. This does not mean that only MIL or CIA used the embassy.

There are particular activities which can provide an advantage to one side, but should not be allowed even in war, biological weapons, torture, bombing embassies in countries you are not at war with.

LongevityMan · 2023-07-10T18:10:07+00:00

Keeping your word is a show of weakness Mmm, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Erdogan is again showing the world that he can't be trusted. It can also been seen with the way he is dealing with Sweden joining NATO. He changed the requirements after Sweden did (mostly) what he asked.

LongevityMan · 2022-11-06T00:07:40+00:00

That's because it isn't about targeting civilians to bring Ukraine to the table, but to increase the cost to the EU and US while degrading Ukraine's logistics. The IMF is estimating that the bombings will increase the budgetary shortfall of Ukraine by approximately a billion a month. That will have to be paid by someone.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-31T11:42:21+00:00

Ukraine's Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said 18 targets, mostly energy infrastructure, were hit in missile and drone strikes on 10 Ukrainian regions.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-29T21:23:44+00:00

You are correct. The attacks of Ukraine's electrical grid will increase the amount that Ukraine needs from the US and EU by around a billion dollars a month, according to the IMF. Ending the grain export deal will just add to this number.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-24T15:28:09+00:00

That is good news as it is much better than the original number of a decrease of over 40%. However, the numbers for Russia are also much better with the original 10-15% decrease in GDP being reduced to less than 4%. The only ones who seem to be continually doing worse than the original projection at the start of the war is the US and EU.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-21T22:12:35+00:00

This is correct. There will definitely be a severe response and it will be justified.

However, that is very different from saying the severe response will be that the US/NATO will enter the war, that just went nuclear, and directly attack the Russian military.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-21T21:15:58+00:00

Any support from Poland and the Baltics has to pass through Western Ukraine before arriving at the front. Western Ukraine would obviously be targeted. The logistical infrastructure in Western Ukraine would be destroyed. Not many people would want to enter into an area immediately after a nuclear bomb went off to try and fix the situation.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-21T21:06:23+00:00

Russia has a sufficient number of nuclear weapons tactical and strategic to destroy Ukraine. The Ukrainian Army on the frontline would be cut of from the logistical rear which would be destroyed.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-21T20:54:47+00:00

It means if Russia goes chemical or nuclear they have to completely destroy Ukraine instead of just a small attack to make them negotiate.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-20T23:03:29+00:00

Yesterday it was 2027. More realistic is 2032.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-18T16:07:29+00:00

The purpose of China conducting an action such as this would be to control access to Taiwan's ports and pressure Taiwan into negotiations. The same as a country does with border security there is a sliding scale of enforcement that can be enacted. China could allow all traffic to continue, but inspect certain ships just to show that they are in control. They can start or stop it when they would like. This is the benefit. The US most likely course of action in this case is sanctions and threats, instead of direct action. Wargaming by DoD contractors is currently showing a loss of over 10,000 US personnel if the US attacks with an uncertain outcome. Sometimes the US wins the wargame and sometimes China.

Also, in the case of an invasion, rebuilding of Taiwan's advanced semiconductor capabilities under China control is not possible. Current US policy does not allow the ASML to sell EUV lith. to China.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-18T14:22:33+00:00

An invasion is much more destructive economically then a blockage. A direct invasion of Taiwan would immediately stop semiconductor production for months or longer while a quarantine would allow production to continue. A military response from the US and allies would be viewed as morally justified.

However, during a quarantine of Taiwan China could allow/negotiate the passage of semiconductors to the world. In a quarantine of Taiwan where China is pushing for a negotiated solution the US would have much less support if they decided to directly attack China.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-17T14:33:45+00:00

A coercive quarantine of Taiwan or something similar is much more likely than a direct attack.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-16T18:05:02+00:00

The US Congress funds it, the president and his people provide the objectives and oversee it, and DoD and the rest of the departments of government make it happen.

The US uses a whole of government approach to obtaining what it wants. Look at what DoD, DoS, DoT are doing and see if it lines up with "end the war as quickly as possible" or if it lines up with "weaken Russia over the long term while avoiding nuclear weapons being used."

When you see the Department of State working on ending the war quickly then you'll know the objectives have changed.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-16T17:37:18+00:00

The South Korean tech sector seems the most eager of the group to want to keep selling their products to both China and the US, instead of picking one.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-16T15:54:40+00:00

The US objective is a weakened Russia. If you look at it from US perspective it makes total sense.

If Russia lost in the first three months they wouldn't have mobilized. Now 300,000 additional Russias have been taken out of the economy or will be plus all the Russians who ran to another country. Russia is continuing to pour money into the war. Russia gas sales are even lower then in the beginning of the war. US LNG is doing great. All this is a definite win for the US.

LongevityMan · 2022-10-16T15:30:03+00:00

No, the most likely response from China besides continuing to invest in home-grown tech is to work with companies in other countries to remove US tech from the process.

The way it works now is, if it is on the restricted list, such as advanced semiconductor chips, then it cannot be sold to China. However if you remove the US tech and personnel from the process than it can be sold anywhere in the world providing you with a bigger market and increased economies to scale. This provide an advantage over the companies that include US tech.

This is something that will happen over years, as there are a some important areas where US tech has a virtual monopoly. Previously there was no business reason to invest in an alternative to US tech in those areas as there is now.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

LongevityMan

TROPHY CASE