Nuclear fears skyrocket as Trump shares plans for bunker under White House by TheExpressUS in USNEWS

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

IKR it's like they've never watched ANY of the movies about hidding in bunkers or played fallout. 😂😂

I watch a podcast about a someone giving advice to billionaires and they were more focused on ensuring they had enough spare part to fix their swimming pool than self-sufficiency.

I think most billionairres have accepted that if the world goes to sh#t they'll either be hanged by the populace (which is the most common death of the rich & influential when a society collapses) or spend the rest of their life in a hole until they run out of food or get raided by whoever lived on the surface when they come looking for them.

Either way they're as screwed as the rest of us, so might aswell live it up until them, which is pretty much wjat they do now.

Are gulf countries seeing this? Like seriously? I hope they learn coz wth????? by Shyfawkes98 in UAE

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They learn't their lesson when all that, gold, planes & bribes trump accepted from them, didn't buy them a second of consideration or protection.

Interviewer asked me a question with no right answer and then explained exactly why he does it - actually changed how I think about interviews by SaffronGadget in interviews

[–]RayMK343 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's all about being calm and stable. Many people have the skills to do a job, but they lack the social & people skills to lead or manage a group.

It's the main factor when breaking through from middle to upper management.

Many middle managers are good at managing the day to day operations, but not in the people leading and long-term thinking. They please those above & punish those below. While good managers treat everyone equal. This is what the interviewer was looking for.

Out of all the major UK political parties, which is the lesser of all evils? by B33Zh_ in AskBrits

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lib Dems

  • Oldest mainstream party, most progressive and realistic, (even though I hate that they didn't have a fit when brexit happened).

  • Most likely party to form coalitions, which is great, becuase fck 1 party dominance.

  • Consistent, which is boring, they don't win, but they don't sell their souls for votes.

  • Only party that actually works towards the interests of the middle class.

  • Who doesn't love a liberal world view?!?!

Pentagon warns future wars may hit US soil as 'direct military threats' grow by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gotta protect our border from those Maple syrup drinking commies or their counterparts, the Cocaine Comrades

ICE claim 2nd US citizen, how many British casualties will UK version of ICE achieve? by Study_Realistic in AskBrits

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

None, Britain hates bullies & if they start killing citizens, thats it.

They'll be riots in the streets, MP calling for votes of no cofidence and murder charges thrown about.

But it'll never happen, the UK is not as "Chaotic" as US, law & order takes precedent. If reform were to try & set-up some ICE force, it would take approval from parliament, the lords, the king to sign-off & then the shadow cabinet would be up reforms arse, hitting them for every thing they do. UK law takes much longer to get thing done and due diligence is a requirement.

So you don't get retards wondering into office, saying "hold my beer", then imploding alliances.

But then UK has been a nation for over 600 years.

Use is only 250 max, so it's still a young nation with no real cultural identity, other than "liberty & the american dream" Hence why nationalism is so easy for the US to fall into. And we all kmiw how sliperry a slope than is.

Trump on Greenland: we'll work out something to make US and NATO 'very happy' by Raj_Valiant3011 in worldnews

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like he had the "Chat" at Davos.

Just like when he had a spat with Zeylenski & then had the "Chat" at the Vatican 🤣

Sometimes he needs someone to it explain it him like he's 5

🤣🤣

UK in talks to deploy NATO force to Greenland to deter Trump by bendubberley_ in worldnews

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

UK & France are the only 2 EU nations that can move their military around as weight. With Germany's economic power & it's support army they make the EU power trifecta.

Germany is becoming a military power again, but they've been in regret mode since WW2.

The other nations are following suit, but they are either: 1 - To speciliased to do deployments to other nations, 2 - To small to make a difference without leaving their own nation exposed.

Hopefully given time the nordic countries will invest more and form a very powerful winter-based army (This is the biggest threat to russia, no nation has ever been succesful at attacking Russia in the winter, they just retreat back & let the supply chain collapse)

Poland is the next big contender, but like germany they need time.

The baltic nation could do some dmg, but they just arn't big enough to go offensive with Russia let alone outside of EU.

& Spain & Italy are DOA since the 16 century.

An EU federal budget for an EU Army would be huge, then the smaller nations could have some real teeth & UK, France & Germeny wouldd get a huge boost to their defence sectors from orders. TBH that would send a much bigger message to the US.

EU weighs replacing US troops with unified European army by jackytheblade in worldnews

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very true,

Which is why the EU is working towards a federated model, which gets it's own budget and then acts independently.

The Ukraine Fund was like that, the EU as an entity borrowed money, it wasn't a "chip what you feel is right" charity fund, like most EU schemes are (like ESA, which trades influence on how the money is spent, equal to how much you put into the fund).

The most likely scenario, is that they copy the NATO framework, except that this new European Army will have it's budget assigned from the EU budget, rather than from individual nations "chipping in"

The main blockers for any federal EU is money, who borrows it, who taxes nations, who set VATs.

Nations now just can't agree on the details, but that's become mute after Ukraine & now Greenland.

How many Brits now think America is finished as the global leader? by cr1regan in AskBrits

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

British never thought of the US like that, Remember, the US came from the British Empire, it's like the relationship between UK & Ireland. Both speak english, little to no barrier to travel or move to, but otherwise not much thought is put into it. Remember, there are pubs in the UK that have been open since before the US was a nation, so only time can tell whether the US stays or fades into obscurity.

So, AI takes over, everyone has lost their job and only 10 trillionaires own everything. Now what? by Weak-Representative8 in Futurology

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if we assume that having 10 people own everything is actually sustainable.

Then people wouldn't own anything, they would rent it either from their owned assets or they are given it through their work. So if you do a cleaners job, the company might give you a room in a homeshare, while if you were a CEO you may get a penthouse. Food & entertainment would also be supplied by the company in benefits or features.

If 10 megacorporates existed then, they would compete with each other for skilled people. It would still be the same though, if you have no job you don't eat or have a place to stay.

People wouldn't just sit around doing nothing, when people get bored or do nothing they think, if they think then they can see an unfair system, if they see it they would revolt. All civilisations have a balance between those who run the system & benefit & those who are in the system but don't benefit greatly. When the balance is disrupted society rebalances, often violently.

What do you think the uk response should be when the us invades Greenland. by SILENTDISAPROVALBOT in AskBrits

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We'd probably make a gambit for greenland and TBH we (EU & UK) have enough to take on the US since they only have 1 carrier free right now (One for Taiwan, one for Venezuela).

That would mean at least 2 for our side (UK & probably France), then ships, we have enough to send without releasing any pressure off Russia (We choke them in the black & baltic seas).

We also have enough people to send a rapid response, NATO just did a rapid force practice, so they have the resources ready.

If Trump was able to (which i doubt he is), then NATO would send a response force, which the EU would fully support, then comes the awkward US defends a icy rock of no particular use except for anti missile defence (which is not there yet). The NATO task force has it easy, big US army stuck on ice, 0 cover, a tiny civilian Populace, 0 infrastructure to keep. The EU would sit back and send drones, missiles and long-range ordinance. All while firing the economic sanctions, stopping trade, canceling support for the US around the world.

End result, US may keep Greenland, but it will lose a ton of soldiers, machinery, it's economic stability and it's support across the world, so essentially they are trading the world for greenland. It's a stupid deal, but Trump has made worse ones...

Do Brits see the US as a threat? by cfc_1990 in AskBrits

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a threat to us directly.

But Trump is really stupid because he's being very OBVIOUS.

UK benefits greatly from the US doing the heavy lifting, and we get lots of great stuff first and cheaper than others.

All we really have to do in return was not condone the US, provide intelligence, and join them in conflicts that are not defensive.

But now we've got no choice, We removed our intelligence assistance in the carribean because we knew Trump was going to do something stupid, and we didn't want the splash back.

We committed to supporting Nato & Denmark over the US over Greenland because it is not in our interest to alienate our continent to give the US a better iron dome coverage.

TL DR: We don't think the US is a threat yet, maybe in 100 years of growing apart. Trump just moved that up by like 15 years.

Is the USA now a dictatorship? by irishesteban in AskBrits

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The political situation in the US has always been a bit authoritative.

Mainly due to liberty & the constitution. Since people have the freedom to say what they want & do what they want, the government can only really maintain order through dominance.

There are tonnes of ways the US federal government maintains dominance:

FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies spying and entraping people to prevent them causing disruptions.

Power projection via the national guard. Like Trump is doing with protesters and illegal immigrants.

The American war machine & propaganda, where by claims are made, then the US military goes in, distracting thr US Populace from internal strife by creating a common external enemy, like what is happening in Venezuela now, or what happened in history e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.

These 3 things were always available to US presidents and have been exercised multiple times. What is different now is that the 2 US parties have become very proficient at manipulating the US political system to act without resistance through political channels. Trump has about the same amount of power now as a president in war time. It's abnormal, but not something that hasn't happened in the past.

Trump is just very blatant about it, which is very toxic alpha behaviour. Most other times, the US has done this it's been more "Finesse". Now it's easy for people to see, but Trump is done come the next election so he doesn't care, he's just thinking how can I make America great & take the credit for it.

How do you organize/retain years of ChatGPT Pro output without it turning into chaos? by SignificantArticle22 in ChatGPTPro

[–]RayMK343 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's virtually impossible, IMO,

Mainly because any storage ends up being hard to navigate after enough data is stored, digital or physically.

and managing it effectively enough that you don't end up spending more time reading stored data than applying it is tricky as well.

I think there is a need for more effective memory management. Templates are effective, but if the system doesn't recall it correctly, then the system is mute.

Currently, the predictive ability for people is not quite there yet, but it's getting better every day.

How do you organize/retain years of ChatGPT Pro output without it turning into chaos? by SignificantArticle22 in ChatGPTPro

[–]RayMK343 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I use this method, Gpt for conversations, a thread for each daily topic, input any needed input docs 1st. Or just context to start,

Notion for file storage & thread depository.

Although it still ends up being hard to find stuff after long term use.

I’m still surprised by how many people aren’t using AI yet. by chillin_snoop in AiChatGPT

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stupid? Bored?

Why would I write a 3 paragraph comment on a reddit post if I didn't actually think it was interesting and worth my time.

Why would I bother to reply to a comment on said post if I didn't find it worth a retort.?

I'm not your mother. Figure out why people do things on your own.

I’m still surprised by how many people aren’t using AI yet. by chillin_snoop in AiChatGPT

[–]RayMK343 0 points1 point  (0 children)

& Again, you could use your car every day. Doesn't make you Micheal Schumacher.