If China was to attack Taiwan, now would be the time. The current world order is at least in part based around the notion of the US (and allies) having the military capacity to fight any plausible combination of foes at all times. That this military capacity was used in accordance to a set of rules with input from allies and partners made the system tolerable.
If the US lacks the munitions to fight all of these conflicts, and is unreliable to allies or foes leads to a high likelihood of conflict.
Why give munitions to an unreliable partner? why rely on an unreliable partner for munitions? the Japan/Australia/SK-US-EU/NATO alliance depends on the US being sensible and broadly aligned with the goals of the other countries.
Granted, patriot missiles are still manufactured across the alliance and I'm sure arms will be available for purchase.
There is so much BS on both sides of the aisle so it seems impossible to get a clear picture but didn't Iran prepare better than Venezuela in terms of deployment of Chinese radar and other security defenses? Seems like there has been no conversation whatsoever about Chinese defenses, were they bypassed again? If so, then China must be reassessing. (Again dont know whats real and whats fake anymore)
China is being very careful to provide enough support not to be seen as abandoning their trading partners/allies, while keeping the support at a low enough level to not get entangled in conflict or create expectations for future conflicts. They want to be able to paint this as "just business", in spite of any rhetoric they may publicly have. In some cases they'll help more in covert ways (Russia), while others they'll do the bare minimum (Venezuela).
So yes, China did give (note: sell) Iran some hardware, but it's not the most cutting edge tech China has, and it's not in sufficient quantity to make much of a difference.
The US is still ahead of China in a lot of military tech, even if the gap keeps getting narrower.
This sounds like a cop out. The second biggest loser of Iran being invaded is China. The US already took out Venezuela and now Iran. I know China has made excellent strides in renewables but they still depend on oil to fuel their over capacitized factories. Now they have lost their number 1 and number 2 supplier.
Combined with 25% youth unemployment things are looking more grim for China.
If any of this tech had any value it should have done something. Now people aren't even bashing it like they did in venezuela they just seem to be accepting that it is not worth talking about.
Like I said there is so much BS on both sides and well your argument isn't convincing: There is this cutting edge tech that no one has seen and no one knows anything about but just trust me China is saving it for the perfect moment. :/
>The US is still ahead of China in a lot of military tech, even if the gap keeps getting narrower.
We need to take a step back and reassess: is the hardware effective against the US or is it not? If it is not, then it is no better than a paperweight. Second place finishers are not with us any longer as the victor wrote the history books.
I'm starting to think maybe WW3 has already started and we are so bogged down in the day to day nonsense that many don't realize it yet.
VZ and IR constitutes like 15% of PRC oil, heavily discounted. 15% seems like a lot but keep in mind PRC imports more than they use for filling SPR - about 1B in storage, or 2-3 years of IR/VZ oil imports.
Meanwhile PRC imports oil primarily for transport that can be electrified. They produce 5mbd domestically, which covers industrial use (petchem), which can also be derived from coal, discount RU/VZ/IR oil simply cheaper. Ironically if oil prices rise past $80 PRC coal to olefin becomes profitable, that's a PRC unique techstack, it only makes their industry more competitive vs others.
25% youth unemployment is western cope stat - broad PRC unemployment is like 6%, i.e. youth find jobs, PRC youth simply gets to fuckarounditis at home until they decide enter workforce later because high home ownership and household savings rate - something US youths with student loans and paycheck to paycheck culture can't do.
> cutting edge tech ... have done something
It's just boring anti stealth / anti air tech where science is reasonably well understood. Which cannot be provided to VZ/IR vs US overmatch. But what can be done is preposition them for intel gathering vs US, i.e. PRC stealth radars likely gather telemetry on US stealth / order of battle / EW even if VZ/IR cannot integrate them into shooters effectively vs US air. Doing something including passive collection on US using premier assets in real scenario. If anything like past CENTCOM drama, there's PRC Type 815A's chilling in CENTCOM right now hoovering up intelligence.
> effective against the US or is it not?
It likely is in volumes that negate US overmatch. There's a reason US/IL is trying to strangle IR's shit tier missile complex now - 12 days war and houthis have shown even garbage IR hardware is enough to simply overwhelm US+IL+co through densest ABM defense in the world, after PRC eastern theatre command. Everything we're seeing last couple years has basically validated PRC model once extrapolate scale to natural conclusions. Consider US vacated most of CENTCOM to avoid IR counter fire. PRC has magnitude more highend missiles, million+ drones, loitering munition for 1/2IC, is US going to bail Okinawa/Yokosuka/Busan etc vs PRC with more fires than US has produced interceptors, ever, how are US going defend 1IC security obligations if IR penetrating MENA with crippled/puny missile complex.
>effective against the US or is it not
As what was seen, see PRC tandem AShM tests a few years ago where they coordinated hypersonics launched from different sites to strike moving target at see, i.e. something US hasn't even demonstrated. What we see is US overmatch still effective against adversaries dramatically smaller with generations old hardware (because of course it is) but even those hardware, at limited scale is forcing US to adopt postures that would basically lead to defeat in westpac scenario. The fact that US has to preposition 1/3 of active fleet and airforce hardware for WEEKS vs minor adversaries fraction PRC size and fraction PRC tech/industrial output suggest US simply not capable of dealing PRC scale/tier adversary, that's without considering munition stockpile etc.
What people should think about is not how much US can stomp lighweight adversaries, but how much % of US force has to be committed to doing so.
Mostly agree, I will push back on the '25% youth unemployment is western cope stat - broad PRC unemployment is like 6%, i.e. youth find jobs, PRC youth simply gets to fuckarounditis at home until they decide enter workforce later'
Rural Chinese kids are getting shafted in every way possible. Most adults are there two days a month at best (basically almost all present adults are 50 or more), they are undereducated, and rural jobs pay a fifth to an eighth of what an unqualified factory job pays, and there isn't enough of them. It's probably a blip for Chinese employment numbers, but man, rural China seems harsher than rural Vietnam, at least for the new generations.
Rural situation is interesting, little opportunities, many in informal economy.
Yes historically very UNDERemployed, but at this point it's, and this will sound callous, matter of bootstraps, i.e. rural youth, despite having shittier education are more educated than their rural parents. AKA they are minimal competent to do migrant blue collar work - lots of well paying factory jobs if willing to relocate. But that also hard life style so many choose to not, because modern shit rural life is frequently not as laborious as shit migrant dormitory life.
It terms of stats, rural marginalization = contradictions.
Technically/theoretically rural employment is always 0%. Rural hukou = own small plot of farmland = by definition rural residence are bucketed as farmers. But in terms of useful stats, whatever their unemployment hardly matters because they make so little money, like the bottom 1-2 quantiles in PRC (predominantly rural) aggregates to like 5% of PRC GDP. It's a blip for PRC economic health, but urban/rural divide is irreconcilably unjust. Though also practically unjust especially for PRC demographic trends, TLDR rural is where most of the undereducated old are, it's going to be nice low cost dumping ground for retired people who wants to chill in their gardens.
All limited exchanges end in annihilation, parties are required to tit for tat the exchange and it's really easy to run out of targets when you are using nukes - forcing an escalation.
If Taiwan was invaded, the only military targets for the US are in close proximity to major population centers. The response would be nukes on US Naval bases (in close proximity to US population centers). This would rapidly escalate to a full exchange. Or China would just use their nukes to achieve all military objectives in Taiwan.
Neither China nor the US plan to invade each other, or engage in any non-limited conflict. There is no rational reason for either to ever use nukes.
MAD is actually a myth - especially when it was invented in the 60s, its more so now, in theory, but in all practical sense - nobody can use the massive nukes, they would prolly melt the polar ice and screw the climate for sure... but, having them means something else: nobody without an equivalent number can actually engage with you.
Which is why tactical nukes will be used in the future - likely by the US, Russia, or later on, maybe China. The British and French only have enough if we support them - India and Pakistan hardly have enough for each other...
Essentially - if we did take out say half a city somewhere and Russia doesnt go to their "final at bat" forever, for some country that isn't Russia - nobody else will attack us directly either bc they can't destroy our capacity to entirely remove them from existing.
China would want to fire back - but do you waste a billion people to make your enemy really, really angry and determined to use all of their remaining capabilities - which is more than everyone else (cept Russia), with just what is outside of the US in subs...
I'm not actually joking here - trading a part of an iconic city, to be taught an unwanted lesson, is superior to losing all the skylines of all the cities and learning no more lessons ever.
That modern understanding is actually entirely different than Mao originally approached an exchange - he said he wasn't worried - bc China has enough people and cities.
This is the real reason America has so many - bc with our large sprawled out country and global distribution of nuclear capabilities - we will always be the last one pushing red buttons. That is all that matters in an actual nuclear war/exchange - being the last one left IS Winning.
I wont explain more, bc it clearly is uncomfortable to people, but essentially, if the US and Russia were to "allow" each other to use tactical nukes (with rules, they set for each other) - like my example with Kiev (which would accomplish sooo many things - I wont elaborate further in case the Pentagon has somehow that) - with that one move, condoning "limited tactical nukes" bc they are "so weak" compared to the "real ones" - we would immediately return to a bipolar world split between the US and Russia.
All those conversations about the end of NATO would immediately stop, for example.
We’ve used nuclear weapons before when it made sense and we’ll use them again when it makes sense. Tactical nuclear weapons have downsides and generally don’t make much sense. Hitting population centers works.
In theory, these new "tactical" systems are better able to engage military targets. In practice, a 500-kiloton payload can also be used to blanket a wide area with total destruction.
Nagasaki was 21 kilotons, which means an average 500 kt MIRV warhead carries the energy equivalent of roughly two dozen individual Nagasaki sized detonations.
They can easily be used on population centers. The word "tactical" is more like a rebranding of nuclear weapons.
Well, my comment was flagged, so apparently it wasnt taken lightly by everyone.
You don't need a missile for everyone - I don't want to offend anyone but, you only have to use them in such a way that everyone else is affected.
Like how in America, our energy grid is so bad and interconnected - an air blast above Kansas would render most of our electrical grid and any connected/ancillary electronics completely unusable.
Anthropic is running a similar marketing campaign as AWS/Devops tools which were trying to replace in-house IT. Pitch to the few that you can be 10/100x as productive and valuable on the hopes that they will push their organizations in this direction.
I dunno, but if someone is saying they expect to spend a vast, unprecedented sum of money acquiring an interdependent set of resources that current production could not come anywhere close to accommodating in multiple dimensions, and which money they don’t have and aren’t making in their current operations so that it would also require unprecedented fundraising on top of the other issues, you’d probably want to do some work to verify the plausibility before putting your own resources at risk for the chance of profiting from that spending spree.
Tesla and similar companies really make me wonder if we still live in a capitalist system. If wealth is sufficiently concentrated - the value of anything becomes tied to the whims of the few who can transact at that level.
How a stock goes up while sales growth, profitability, and other measures go down on a multi-year trajectory defies my understanding.
Same as any other economic system: power is usually concentrated around a very small group of people. In socialism and communism, that concentration typically occurs within the party leadership or central planning apparatus.
However, in free-market capitalism, anyone is allowed to participate in capital formation and accumulation. Ownership is not formally restricted to a political class. Entry into markets is open in principle (unless it stops being a free market), and capital allocation is decentralized through free and voluntary exchange rather than administrative decree.
That does not mean capitalism eliminates power concentration, as Wealth can accumulate and translate into political influence. But the mechanism of power differs: In centrally planned systems, control flows from political authority. In market systems, control flows from voluntary transactions and competitive success.
I don't follow. Even now there is nothing preventing anyone here from making something for millions of dollars. While VC capital is closed to a select few, a person in a garage can still make it big.
Communist counties tend to gate keep even more. To the point that it is entirely who you know, with little concern to what you do.
> But the mechanism of power differs: In centrally planned systems, control flows from political authority. In market systems, control flows from voluntary transactions and competitive success.
This is a boilerplate theoretical explanation of capitalism which bears very little resemblance to how things actually work in most Western capitalist societies, particularly America.
A cursory glance at the majority of large markets reveals that they are dominated by a handful of massive companies, who use their enormous wealth and influence to steer (centrally planned) political policies, thereby stymying competition and entrenching their position.
Only if you limit yourself "capitalism" and "communism" as the two economic systems you are are considering. What we should be doing is noticing that these two systems fail in very similar ways (concentration of power in a small group of people), and think about what kind of system might not fail in that way.
One of the things I’ve noticed is that when leftists say “capitalism” they often mean “the ability of capital to set the rules of markets” rather than just “markets”. This causes people who use the latter interpretation and leftists to talk past one another quite a bit. Which is one of the reasons that leftists have sounded this alarm bell for at least twenty years and no-one has paid attention.
Capitalism is a big money party. Leftists are the party poopers, actually just slightly less drunk than the rest of the guests, and pointing out that lighting up fireworks indoors isn't a good idea. Booo-hooo, shut up lefty! *BANG*
Command economies break too. Capitalism has occasional fires like a forest. This is good. It allows things to shake out. New growth comes from the destruction. Command economies don't. They just continue to grow weeds and tall trees until everything is choked. Then they wonder why everything is garbage.
The US is moving to a fascist economy. That is a form of command economy. For example the FDA is controlled by big pharma.
Also - how can this be prevented? the AI labs can't seriously expect that each lab will filter LLM generated content from their training sets based on the source model. Leakage of AI behavior into public datasets is inevitable.
The question is how much further and faster can these tools evolve.
Right now, you may not be faced with a valid choice to vibe code your own hubspot, but maybe some contractor firm will do it for you and sell an ultra low cost version.
Will opus 6 do the same thing without the contractors while managing the deployment and maintenance as a claw?
Curious if part of this was the overall decline in government compensation relative to the private sector. The president makes roughly what the typical SV engineer makes after 5 years in big tech or as a fresh grad from a top PhD program. Meanwhile the people the president deals with have become unfathomably wealthy.
In 1909, the US president made 75k - roughly 2.76 Million in today's dollars. This is in comparison to the current 400k dollar salary of the president. As the president is the highest paid government employee by law/custom - this applies downward pressure on the rest of the governments payroll.
I see no reason why the president shouldn't be modestly wealthy given the requirements or the role and the skill required to do it well. Cutting the payscale to less than some new grads seems like a recipe for corruption.
Since 1958 with the Former Presidents Act [1] the Presidency guarantees you'll live very comfortably for the rest of your life with a lifetime pension (and even a small pension for your wife), funding for an office/staff, lifetime secret service protection, funded travel, and more. It was passed precisely because of the scenario you describe playing out with Truman who was rather broke, and ran into financial difficulties after leaving office.
Your source does not seem aware of the history of tax brackets. In Truman's era the top rate started at $100k income and was 90%. Even at $60k it was 80%. Those are figures from 1953, when Truman left office. [1]
This wasn't that big of a deal for the average person at a time when the median salary was somewhere around $3k, but for a person with significant overhead and large, but not enormous, income -- in other words, exactly like Truman -- it was devastating.
> Your source does not seem aware of the history of tax brackets.
"Beginning in 1949, the president was also granted a $50,000 (equivalent to $677,000 in 2025) expense allowance, which was initially tax-free, and did not have to be accounted for."[0] That's 4 years of $677,000 tax-free which I make to be about $2.7M which lines up with "Truman embezzled about two and half million dollars, in 2025 money, from the White House expense account"[1] - "tax-free", "did not have to be accounted for" -> tax brackets are meaningless.
But, you say, "the allowance became taxable later in his presidency"[0], and I reply "Truman never reported it on his tax return"[0], "and also didn’t pay the taxes he owned on the money."[1] which also somewhat scuppers the "history of tax brackets" angle, no?
Further, "In February 1953, Truman signed a book deal for his memoirs, and in a draft will dated December of that year listed land worth $250,000 (equivalent to $3,008,000 in 2025), savings bonds of the same amount, and cash of $150,000 (equivalent to $1,805,000 in 2025)"[0] which I reckon comes to about $8M which, again, lines up with "Truman had a net worth of about $8 million in 2025 dollars when he left the White House"[1].
Further, further, "In January 1959, Truman calculated his net worth as $1,046,788.86 (equivalent to $11,561,000 in 2025)"[0] which, to be fair, is slightly lower than the "$14 million in 2025 dollars when he was successfully shaking his tin cup to Sam Rayburn and John McCormack in 1958"[1] but in the same "NOT AT ALL POOR GTFO" ballpark.
In summary - he embezzled $2.5M, got $8M for your memoirs, and ending up being worth $11-14M within 6 years of leaving the White House and thus I rate the claim "Truman who was rather broke, and ran into financial difficulties after leaving office" as 100 Pinocchios.
Wikipedia is not a source. All of the dirt on that page is exclusively relying on one article [1] from a self-citing author, the same author you again cited in your post here, from 'lawyersgunmoney.' I don't find it compelling. It may indeed ultimately turn out to be accurate, but I find it generally unwise to rewrite history on the words of a single person, who seems to have a strong bias towards a certain narrative.
That bias could indeed just be because he believes he's discovered a truth which most people don't know, completely contrary to the 'official narrative', which is indeed quite a frustrating place to find oneself. But it can also cause one to be blind in some ways. For instance assuming everything as written is accurate, the author simply then jumps to malice (like tax evasion), seemingly without consideration of issues such as inconsistent or flawed record keeping which I imagine was extremely common in the days prior to computers.
Are most fresh grads from a top PhD program really making $400k/year? Sure, the ones hired by OpenAI are making at least that much, but the vast majority are not. However the broader point remains, that the president’s (and the rest of government’s) pay structure has not kept up with the private sector.
It's quite plausible to me that the difference is inference configuration. This could be done through configurable depth, Moe experts, layers etc. Even beam decoding changes can make substantial performance changes.
Train one large model, then down configure it for different pricing tiers.
I dont think thats plausible because they also just launched a high-speed variant which presumably has the inference optimization and smaller batching and costs about 10x
also, if you have inference optimizations why not apply them to all models?
This really points to a world where all services are too cheap to meter. The compute side of AI is a commodity, the usage of AI is a commodity, the model development of AI is a commodity. So far there is no evidence that a provider with heavy usage has any long-term advantage over a vendor with no usage. New top tier models come out every week from relative unknowns.
Other than a vast consolidation of what parts of the economy are "digital", what is going to have margin other than orphaned capital and "creative" efforts within 10 years?
EDIT: the top ranked model on openrouter based on traffic changes almost weekly now, I can't see how Amy claim of “stickiness” exists in this space.
If the US lacks the munitions to fight all of these conflicts, and is unreliable to allies or foes leads to a high likelihood of conflict.
reply