LaxPower Back-Up Stick

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:36 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:20 am

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 9:41 pm But that's all short term. What's the medium and long term plan, OS?

You know, AT SOME POINT, you have to start looking at Putin's problems. Problems that are growing, not shrinking. Those Russian soldiers have to survive the front this winter, too.

AT SOME POINT you have to start looking at the impact of prolonging this war.
WaIt until the diesel & home heating oil shortages take effect in the US.

Ok, what's your solution if we have diesel & home heating oil shortages? What's your modest proposal?

What’s YOUR solution?

Conversation like Steve Carrell was trained to rap in 40yr old virgin…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jm1qOT1FCzk

NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:36 am

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:20 am

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 9:41 pm But that's all short term. What's the medium and long term plan, OS?

You know, AT SOME POINT, you have to start looking at Putin's problems. Problems that are growing, not shrinking. Those Russian soldiers have to survive the front this winter, too.

AT SOME POINT you have to start looking at the impact of prolonging this war.
WaIt until the diesel & home heating oil shortages take effect in the US.

Ok, what's your solution if we have diesel & home heating oil shortages? What's your modest proposal?

Don't disrupt global energy markets as a weapon against Russia. Sanctions are not defeating Russia.
Superior US weapons, ISR & training provided to motivated, resourceful Ukrainian forces are winning this war.

Chip Wars. This author will be on CSPAN-2 Book TV, Sun, 30 Oct, 10AM & 10PM EDT
https://www.c-span.org/video/?523287-1/ ... ris-miller
I heard him interviewed for 1 hr today by Rep Jim Himes, D-CT.
Listen to him & you'll understand why arming & defending Taiwan is much more important than our proxy war in Ukraine.
We can't (or won't) do both adequately. Ukraine is a bottomle$$ $ink hole.

Chip War describes the decades-long battle to control what has emerged as the world’s most critical resource—semiconductor technology—with the West and China increasingly in conflict. Many would be surprised to learn that microchips are the new oil—the scarce resource on which the modern world depends. Today, military, economic, and geopolitical power are built on a foundation of computer chips. At stake is not only economic prosperity but also military superiority.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:24 am Chip Wars. This author will be on CSPAN-2 Book TV, Sun, 30 Oct, 10AM & 10PM EDT
https://www.c-span.org/video/?523287-1/ ... ris-miller
I heard him interviewed for 1 hr today by Rep Jim Himes, D-CT.
Listen to him & you'll understand why arming & defending Taiwan is much more important than our proxy war in Ukraine.
We can't (or won't) do both adequately. Ukraine is a bottomle$$ $ink hole.

Chip War describes the decades-long battle to control what has emerged as the world’s most critical resource—semiconductor technology—with the West and China increasingly in conflict. Many would be surprised to learn that microchips are the new oil—the scarce resource on which the modern world depends. Today, military, economic, and geopolitical power are built on a foundation of computer chips. At stake is not only economic prosperity but also military superiority.

Have the alert set....looks like an intriguing read.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:20 am

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Oct 28, 2022 9:41 pm But that's all short term. What's the medium and long term plan, OS?

You know, AT SOME POINT, you have to start looking at Putin's problems. Problems that are growing, not shrinking. Those Russian soldiers have to survive the front this winter, too.

AT SOME POINT you have to start looking at the impact of prolonging this war.

For whom?

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:20 am WaIt until the diesel & home heating oil shortages take effect in the US.

Actual, real leaders will step up and find new paths for energy. Or not. What did we learn from the 70's energy crisis? Nothing, apparently.

Speaking of actually working to fix problem..... I'm sure you "forgot" to praise him for correcting out obviously dangerous reliance on the Pacific Rim for our entire economy. Biden actually DID SOMETHING about the problem with the Chips Act. I hope it's just step #1 in a chain of moves.

You've managed to convince yourself that no matter what happens with any subject, our "enemies" have the upper hand. What's going to wind up happening, is that no one is going to want to trade with Russia, and EU leaders will pivot to other energies and other energy supplies.

If China messes with Taiwan, for example? They'll kill the cash register and important trading partner. A partner that relies on global demand for its work. If China makes Taiwan an unreliable partner? Business will simple move their orders elsewhere. Yep, it might be a PIA for a few quarters. But long term? It's a POINTLESS play for China, just as Ukraine was for Putin.

You don't get it, and that's fine.....I thought that the scoreboard that is 2022 would show you just how wrong you've been about Checkers Putin, but your stubbornness won't let you reassess your previously incorrect assumptions. And now you want to apply this same reasoning to China and Taiwan.

BTW...you already told me that we shouldn't defend Taiwan just a few weeks ago...now here you are, telling me you've changed your mind. What happened?

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:17 am Sanctions are not defeating Russia.

Yes. They are.

How many more times do I need to explain to you that all this stupidity that Putin is trying to accomplish costs BILLIONS of dollars. Dollars that he doesn't have. He's running out of arms, right? Now why do you supposed that is? Do think its because the Moscow Quarter Master forgot to carry the one? Or do you think it's because Putin couldn't buy the cr*p he needed for this war because he doesn't have the money (GDP) for it?

The Soviets failed because they went broke, OS. It's happening to Putin, again.

The decay of the industrial complex of the UsSR was far worse and depreciated than anyone knew or thought when we reviewed a few years after the fall of the wall.

The idea that someone could declare that sanctions aren’t working is just specious nonsense. What we know historically is that directionally when information is closed and controlled by a bad actor (by definition anyone who avoids the disinfectant of sunlight), we do know that it’s most likely directionally worse for that party than what we know.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:01 pm The decay of the industrial complex of the UsSR was far worse and depreciated than anyone knew or thought when we reviewed a few years after the fall of the wall.

The idea that someone could declare that sanctions aren’t working is just specious nonsense. What we know historically is that directionally when information is closed and controlled by a bad actor (by definition anyone who avoids the disinfectant of sunlight), we do know that it’s most likely directionally worse for that party than what we know.

And pretend you're Putin: after seeing the complete sh*tshow your army has been...how confident are you that your nuclear weapons won't just blow up on the pad? Have they been properly maintained?

And same applies to Xi: how confident do you think Xi is in his military after watching this mess. There's no such thing as a combat Veteran in China.

afan -- I'm still not confident that we will defend Taiwan, or that we should. Thus strategic ambiguity.
To deter China, we need to be ABLE to effectively defend Taiwan IF we choose to, & we need to equip them as we are equipping Ukraine,
only we need to do it in advance & (unlike Ukraine) Taiwan needs to pay for it, because they can afford it.
The forces & arms we still have tied down in E Europe fighting Russia were intended for our pivot to Asia by now.
China is gambling that we are so economically intertwined & dependent on them that we won't block them in Taiwan.
....just as Germany & the rest of the EUroburghers thought they could contain Putin via trade, & failing that - sanctions.

Listen to Chris Miller in Chip Wars & then consider the strategic significance of Taiwan,
We won't have "chip" independence for a decade.

We are in Ukraine for ideological reasons. There's only a return on investment IF it produces regime change in Russia & IF what emerges is not as bad or worse than what it replaces. We are repeating the same mistakes we've been making re. Russia for the past 3 decades, ...& look where it's brought us.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:01 pm The decay of the industrial complex of the UsSR was far worse and depreciated than anyone knew or thought when we reviewed a few years after the fall of the wall.

The idea that someone could declare that sanctions aren’t working is just specious nonsense. What we know historically is that directionally when information is closed and controlled by a bad actor (by definition anyone who avoids the disinfectant of sunlight), we do know that it’s most likely directionally worse for that party than what we know.

Sanctions have already failed. They did not deter Putin from invading Ukraine & taking another bite of territory, despite ongoing sanctions for his unopposed invasion in 2014, ...& now he's being armed by heavily sanctioned Iran.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:03 pm Sanctions have already failed. They did not deter Putin from invading Ukraine & taking another bite of territory, despite ongoing sanctions for his unopposed invasion in 2014, ...& now he's being armed by heavily sanctioned Iran.

Dunno if I can buy the notion that Iran is arming Iran. In fact Saudi Arabia has given it considerably more. Russia only spends about $65 billion per year on its military. Biden has sent that much to Ukraine. Interestingly, we have some right wing group that has made TV ads here in Lake Wobegone complaining about the billions he has given the Zelenskyy regime instead of solving domestic problems. This is the one time I'm going to agree with the right wingnuts - make USA priority One. We have enough problems here with the lack of universal health care, decaying infrastructure, police corruption and fomenting of social troubles, and corporate welfarism. Let's put a stop to and let's solve all this shtt before giving away our money to some homophobic tyrant who arrests media critics and opposition leaders just like Hitler did.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:48 pm afan -- I'm still not confident that we will defend Taiwan, or that we should. Thus strategic ambiguity.
To deter China, we need to be ABLE to effectively defend Taiwan IF we choose to, & we need to equip them as we are equipping Ukraine

What do you think XI is thinking when he sees what happened in Ukraine?

And Taiwan isn't Ukraine. What's Xi gonna do? Lob Cruise missiles until Taiwan is a pile of rubble?

And whats the FIRST thing that neo con Biden does if Xi is dumb enough to invade? Straight out of the box, no shots fired.

Hint: it will cost China a GENERATION of innovation.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:48 pm ......only we need to do it in advance & (unlike Ukraine) Taiwan needs to pay for it, because they can afford it.
The forces & arms we still have tied down in E Europe fighting Russia were intended for our pivot to Asia by now.

And this forces us into an instant confrontation for NO REASON.

Why would we care if Xi is stupid enough to kill the ONE center of innovation in the region? Let him. Let your enemy (supposed enemy) make dumb mistakes. Get out of their way, and point at Taiwan.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:48 pm China is gambling that we are so economically intertwined & dependent on them that we won't block them in Taiwan.

Pot. Meet kettle. All that this would do is to force the US to triple down on the CHips act. This would F*ck China in the long run. Let him do this.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:48 pm We won't have "chip" independence for a decade.

Sez the guy who was on the team that fulfilled Kennedy's impossible promise. You have no faith in our country anymore, and that's sad. Put my daughter in charge. It will get done.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 8:48 pm We are in Ukraine for ideological reasons.

Yes. I told you before he took office, OS, if you'll recall-------Biden will be global cop, like the neocon that he is.

How confident do you think Xi is in his troops. Either he's an utter moron....or he's thinking it over: are my troops, that have never seen combat, even worse than Putin's?

This, naturally, is a huge reason why Biden intervened: it sends a message to China.

The message SHOULD be: if you're dumb enough to set your country back by a generation when your economy is falling apart? By all means, give yourself a self inflicted migraine, and invade Taiwan.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:03 pm

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:01 pm The decay of the industrial complex of the UsSR was far worse and depreciated than anyone knew or thought when we reviewed a few years after the fall of the wall.

The idea that someone could declare that sanctions aren’t working is just specious nonsense. What we know historically is that directionally when information is closed and controlled by a bad actor (by definition anyone who avoids the disinfectant of sunlight), we do know that it’s most likely directionally worse for that party than what we know.

Sanctions have already failed. They did not deter Putin from invading Ukraine & taking another bite of territory, despite ongoing sanctions for his unopposed invasion in 2014, ...& now he's being armed by heavily sanctioned Iran.

I don’t think you get it. Sanctions aren’t solely a deterrent-that’s a fallacy. They foster consequences for behavior. This is a failure of analysis and philosophy to hold your position with such strident confidence. You, like all of us, have zero idea what’s it like boots on the ground economically inside their borders and ignore historical evidence.

You are also assuming that nothing has changed from what would’ve happened without sanctions. Again no idea and to argue otherwise is between wishful thinking to win an argument or some such small petty desire and/or just fantasy/counterfactual.

I can pound the table I’m right and try to steamroll people with confidence except I’ve been around far more powerful people who’ve used that tactic with (far far more) efficacy and know that Schtick well.

The military uses Monte Carlo/game theory on the reg. Do you understand how game theory works?

Effectiveness of economic sanctions
Edit
According to a 2015 working paper by Neuenkirch and Neumeier, UN economic sanctions had a statistically significant impact on targeted states by reducing their GDP growth by an average of 2.3%-3.5% per year—and more than 5% per year in the case of comprehensive UN embargoes—with the negative effects typically persisting for a period of ten years. By contrast, unilateral US sanctions had a considerably smaller impact on GDP growth, restricting it by 0.5%-0.9% per year, with an average duration of seven years.[18]

Imposing sanctions on an opponent also affects the economy of the imposing country to a degree. If import restrictions are promulgated, consumers in the imposing country may have restricted choices of goods. If export restrictions are imposed or if sanctions prohibit companies in the imposing country from trading with the target country, the imposing country may lose markets and investment opportunities to competing countries.[19]

Hufbauer, Schott, and Elliot (2008) argue that regime change is the most frequent foreign-policy objective of economic sanctions, accounting for just over 39 percent of cases of their imposition.[20] Hufbauer et al. claimed that in their studies, 34 percent of the cases studied were successful.[21] When Robert A. Pape examined their study, he claimed that only 5 of their reported 40 successes were actually effective,[22] reducing the success rate to 4%. In either case, the difficulty and unexpected nuances of measuring the actual success of sanctions in relation to their goals are both increasingly apparent and still under debate. In other words, it is difficult to determine why a regime or country changes (i.e., if it was the sanction or inherent instability) and doubly so to measure the full political effect of a given action.[23]

Offering an explanation as to why sanctions are still imposed even when they may be marginally effective, British diplomat Jeremy Greenstock suggests sanctions are popular not because they are known to be effective, but because "there is nothing else [to do] between words and military action if you want to bring pressure upon a government".[24] Critics of sanctions like Belgian jurist Marc Bossuyt argue that in nondemocratic regimes, the extent to which this affects political outcomes is contested, because by definition such regimes do not respond as strongly to the popular will.[25]

A strong connection has been found between the effectiveness of sanctions and the size of veto players in a government. Veto players represent individual or collective actors whose agreement is required for a change of the status quo, for example parties in a coalition, or the legislature's check on presidential powers. When sanctions are imposed on a country, it can try to mitigate them by adjusting its economic policy. The size of the veto players determines how many constraints the government will face when trying to change status quo policies, and the larger the size of the veto players, the more difficult it is to find support for new policies, thus making the sanctions more effective.[26]

Francesco Giumelli writes that the "set of sanctions ... that many observers would be likely to consider the most persuasive (and effective)," namely UN sanctions against "central bank assets and sovereign wealth funds," are "of all the types of measures applied ... the one least frequently used."[7] Giumelli also distinguishes between sanctions against international terrorists, in which "the nature of the request is not as important as the constraining aspect," and sanctions imposed in connection with "post-conflict scenarios", which should "include flexible demands and the potential for adaptation if the situation changes".[7]

Game Theory

Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents.[1] It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants. In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations; it is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, as well as computers.

Modern game theory began with the idea of mixed-strategy equilibria in two-person zero-sum game and its proof by John von Neumann. Von Neumann's original proof used the Brouwer fixed-point theorem on continuous mappings into compact convex sets, which became a standard method in game theory and mathematical economics. His paper was followed by the 1944 book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, co-written with Oskar Morgenstern, which considered cooperative games of several players. The second edition of this book provided an axiomatic theory of expected utility, which allowed mathematical statisticians and economists to treat decision-making under uncertainty.

Game theory was developed extensively in the 1950s by many scholars. It was explicitly applied to evolution in the 1970s, although similar developments go back at least as far as the 1930s. Game theory has been widely recognized as an important tool in many fields. As of 2020, with the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences going to game theorists Paul Milgrom and Robert B. Wilson, fifteen game theorists have won the economics Nobel Prize. John Maynard Smith was awarded the Crafoord Prize for his application of evolutionary game theory.

Monte Carlo

Monte Carlo methods, or Monte Carlo experiments, are a broad class of computational algorithms that rely on repeated random sampling to obtain numerical results. The underlying concept is to use randomness to solve problems that might be deterministic in principle. They are often used in physical and mathematical problems and are most useful when it is difficult or impossible to use other approaches. Monte Carlo methods are mainly used in three problem classes:[1] optimization, numerical integration, and generating draws from a probability distribution.

In physics-related problems, Monte Carlo methods are useful for simulating systems with many coupled degrees of freedom, such as fluids, disordered materials, strongly coupled solids, and cellular structures (see cellular Potts model, interacting particle systems, McKean–Vlasov processes, kinetic models of gases).

Other examples include modeling phenomena with significant uncertainty in inputs such as the calculation of risk in business and, in mathematics, evaluation of multidimensional definite integrals with complicated boundary conditions. In application to systems engineering problems (space, oil exploration, aircraft design, etc.), Monte Carlo–based predictions of failure, cost overruns and schedule overruns are routinely better than human intuition or alternative "soft" methods.[2]

In principle, Monte Carlo methods can be used to solve any problem having a probabilistic interpretation. By the law of large numbers, integrals described by the expected value of some random variable can be approximated by taking the empirical mean (a.k.a. the 'sample mean') of independent samples of the variable. When the probability distribution of the variable is parameterized, mathematicians often use a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampler.[3][4][5] The central idea is to design a judicious Markov chain model with a prescribed stationary probability distribution. That is, in the limit, the samples being generated by the MCMC method will be samples from the desired (target) distribution.[6][7] By the ergodic theorem, the stationary distribution is approximated by the empirical measures of the random states of the MCMC sampler.

In other problems, the objective is generating draws from a sequence of probability distributions satisfying a nonlinear evolution equation. These flows of probability distributions can always be interpreted as the distributions of the random states of a Markov process whose transition probabilities depend on the distributions of the current random states (see McKean–Vlasov processes, nonlinear filtering equation).[8][9] In other instances we are given a flow of probability distributions with an increasing level of sampling complexity (path spaces models with an increasing time horizon, Boltzmann–Gibbs measures associated with decreasing temperature parameters, and many others). These models can also be seen as the evolution of the law of the random states of a nonlinear Markov chain.[9][10] A natural way to simulate these sophisticated nonlinear Markov processes is to sample multiple copies of the process, replacing in the evolution equation the unknown distributions of the random states by the sampled empirical measures. In contrast with traditional Monte Carlo and MCMC methodologies, these mean-field particle techniques rely on sequential interacting samples. The terminology mean field reflects the fact that each of the samples (a.k.a. particles, individuals, walkers, agents, creatures, or phenotypes) interacts with the empirical measures of the process. When the size of the system tends to infinity, these random empirical measures converge to the deterministic distribution of the random states of the nonlinear Markov chain, so that the statistical interaction between particles vanishes.

Despite its conceptual and algorithmic simplicity, the computational cost associated with a Monte Carlo simulation can be staggeringly high. In general the method requires many samples to get a good approximation, which may incur an arbitrarily large total runtime if the processing time of a single sample is high.[11] Although this is a severe limitation in very complex problems, the embarrassingly parallel nature of the algorithm allows this large cost to be reduced (perhaps to a feasible level) through parallel computing strategies in local processors, clusters, cloud computing, GPU, FPGA, etc.[12][13][14][15]

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:31 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Oct 29, 2022 9:03 pm Sanctions have already failed. They did not deter Putin from invading Ukraine & taking another bite of territory, despite ongoing sanctions for his unopposed invasion in 2014, ...& now he's being armed by heavily sanctioned Iran.

Dunno if I can buy the notion that Iran is arming Iran. In fact Saudi Arabia has given it considerably more. Russia only spends about $65 billion per year on its military. Biden has sent that much to Ukraine. Interestingly, we have some right wing group that has made TV ads here in Lake Wobegone complaining about the billions he has given the Zelenskyy regime instead of solving domestic problems. This is the one time I'm going to agree with the right wingnuts - make USA priority One. We have enough problems here with the lack of universal health care, decaying infrastructure, police corruption and fomenting of social troubles, and corporate welfarism. Let's put a stop to and let's solve all this shtt before giving away our money to some homophobic tyrant who arrests media critics and opposition leaders just like Hitler did.

Somebody needs to pick up the board game Risk….

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:02 am
Somebody needs to pick up the board game Risk….

Never heard of it.

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:07 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:02 am
Somebody needs to pick up the board game Risk….

Never heard of it.

Obvious.

Echo chambers go both ways. Assuming positive intent and risk management/empirical skepticism aren’t not synonymous…

Never knew this before but OF COURSE the Europeans have a shortcut version to reduce the time of the game. (I’m guessing the shortcut is “prepare your streets for German military processions”, limited secret mission is steal the Jews stuff and hide it in the US)

Edit: my friends and I created the Winston Churchill version, which knocked copious alcohol, in our early 20s

Risk is a strategy board game of diplomacy, conflict and conquest[1] for two to six players. The standard version is played on a board depicting a political map of the world, divided into forty-two territories, which are grouped into six continents. Turns rotate among players who control armies of playing pieces with which they attempt to capture territories from other players, with results determined by dice rolls. Players may form and dissolve alliances during the course of the game. The goal of the game is to occupy every territory on the board and, in doing so, eliminate the other players.[2] The game can be lengthy, requiring several hours to multiple days to finish. European versions are structured so that each player has a limited "secret mission" objective that shortens the game.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:10 am

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:07 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:02 am
Somebody needs to pick up the board game Risk….

Never heard of it.

Obvious.

Echo chambers go both ways. Assuming positive intent and risk management/empirical skepticism aren’t not synonymous…

Well, if parlor games help solve problems overseas, good luck with that.

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:13 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:10 am

Brooklyn wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:07 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 12:02 am
Somebody needs to pick up the board game Risk….

Never heard of it.

Obvious.

Echo chambers go both ways. Assuming positive intent and risk management/empirical skepticism aren’t not synonymous…

Well, if parlor games help solve problems overseas, good luck with that.

Bellicose name calling and strident indifference to how human free will actually works in a completely anti intellectual manner is the path to human prosperity!