leicsmac

Mentioned in the following post. But again, degrees of power matter. If you want to use another metric to measure military power and the compunction to use it, then by all means do so. I have no idea why it's somehow controversial to say that the most powerful player in the world is both Anglosphere and uses that power to cause a great deal of problems at the present time, and is also inciting other nationalist movements in other places to do similarly. I've also no idea why the very clear point about nationalism being a bad thing but the degrees of power to impose it are important somehow got interpreted as me being OK with Chinese nationalism (such as the sentiment is).

Which is causing more than enough trouble on its own, and I'm not sure there's a reason for the UK and others to follow suit. Modi and Putin, to name but two, are certainly examples of which you speak of.

Let me know when they have roughly 800 different military bases in around 80 different nations to project their power. They're absolutely the second biggest player at the table by far, but there's still a pretty damn big gap to the top dog and they don't seem anxious to throw their weight around in the way that top dog does. Of course, once again, should that balance of power change, that will be a problem in the same way there is a problem now.

... which of course the international community will do naff all about because the biggest player thinks both the Indian and Russian brand of Might Makes Right isn't a problem. Another example of how the sentiments described above can be so damaging.

Certainly: My own definition of nationalism is to believe ones country to be superior, culturally and/or otherwise, to other countries and as a result of that (at least sometimes) are prepared to accept acts of violence and oppression against "other" groups in order to maintain that superiority. The Oxford definition apparently reads "identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations". (The second part of that is the important bit imo.) What you describe there in your second paragraph sounds a lot more like patriotism, which is (mostly) benign in a way nationalism is not. I believe, with good reason I hope, that Reform and their policy platform represents nationalism much more than patriotism and their exacted policies will as such will lead to a lot of pain and misery for a great many people, just so another group of people can bask in that superiority. Feelings of national superiority are bad no matter which nation is spouting them (a reason why Yoon getting his just desserts in Korea recently was great). But, the last time I checked, it was the Anglosphere nations that had the most power to actually cause the pain and misery that nationalism results in, and that perhaps should mean something in terms of level of concern. If other places (like China) get that level of power and look like using it on as broad a scale, they should be equally challenged. The sentiment of national superiority itself cannot survive the next few decades. Not if we want to as well. This is obvious and apparently keeps needing to be said.

May well be the crux of the problem.

Which, if true, should concern anyone with an iota of concern about the future of all of us (as opposed to the present of one group of us) rather more than apparent sectarian voting patterns that may be developing along lines people find distasteful because it's not "them" doing it. The nationalism that Reform embodies leads to the darkest times. History is very clear on that. It's perplexing, and concerning, why so many people would seem hellbent on repeating it, when the result is always the same and (thanks to tech developments) will be much worse if it repeats once again.

I had to open my big mouth.

Good time to play the Saffers next up though, usually when they have their customary agonising defeat.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/ice-hockey/articles/cqj9w4xz1l0o USA men's ice hockey player Brady Tkachuk has distanced himself from an AI-enhanced White House video in which he appears to disparage Canadians, saying "those words would never come out of my mouth". The video was published on the official White House TikTok account after the US beat Canada on Sunday to win gold at the Winter Olympics and is marked as using artificial intelligence. It features a modified clip of Tkachuk speaking at a news conference for last year's 4 Nations Face-Off, during which Canadians booed the US national anthem. Tkachuk appears to say: "They booed our national anthem, so I had to come out and teach those maple-syrup-eating [expletive] a lesson. Canada, we own you little bro." Tkachuk is captain of the Ottawa Senators and after playing in the Canadian team's first NHL game since the Olympics, he said: "Well, it's clearly fake, because it's not my voice, not my lips moving. "I'm not in control of any of those accounts," he added. "I know that those words would never come out of my mouth, so I can't do anything about it. "It's not what I was saying. I would never say that. It's not who I am. So I guess I don't like that video." The White House has been contacted for a response. If you don't like your likeness and voice being used without consent that much, Mr. Tkachuk, then legal action is always available. If you have a spine. Perhaps that might cause the current US administration engaging in such violations of consent to think a little more about it before doing so. On the general topic, what kind of timeline is this when this is happening in the first place?

... what the hell was that shot? Brook being unique again.

Good start, this. I think Buttlers time has finally come. Time to call time on a damn good international career.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly14vppym2o Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said India and Israel would deepen cooperation in defence and artificial intelligence as he concluded a two-day visit to Israel. Modi and his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu said in a joint statement, external on Thursday that their countries would work towards pursuing a free trade agreement. "We've taken a historic decision to elevate our time-tested partnership to a Special Strategic Partnership," Modi said in a post on X. Modi's second visit to Israel since 2017 has been seen as a test of India's foreign policy as it tries to balance its ties with Israel and other Middle Eastern countries. Religious nationalists with a penchant for treating certain demographics as subhuman flock together, clearly.

Spinners have done a very good job of holding NZ back after a fast start, here.

A lot of the people that other people have written recorded histories of (not necessarily the same as everyone or even most of a species) have certainly been like that, and the advancement of tech has certainly changed things, yes. That does rather illustrates the point that the window in which we have to change or have the risk of disaster become a certainty instead is closing fast.

Always nice when the mockers work.

The Kiwis are formidable. Whole much greater than the sum of the parts.

Archer has been incredibly unlucky here.

If that's universally true (and it's entirely possible) then we're all screwed in short order and I just hope whoever is left - or if the dolphins/elephants/capybaras become sentient enough to build proper stuff sometime over the next few million years - know better than to repeat our mistakes.

Not sure what that has to do with the original point made, but fair enough.

Please, there's at least tacit acceptance of the idea there, then. I hope that then we might agree on the idea the nationalists would want to to such a thing to further the power of their own "tribe" and also that such a thing is irredeemably, perhaps terminally, stupid.

Unless serious measures are taken in 50 years time there will be a migration crisis that will make the present one look like a picnic, because over a billion people will have to move from places that will simply become uninhabitable due to lack of potable water (or an excess of it at the wrong time).

And if you think the US strongarming a tech company into removing AI safeguards is a reasonable move even as a response to that then I'm not sure what to say either. Like I said, should AI cause mayhem from a military standpoint (rather than just an economic one), then moves like this, and the people that insisted upon them, will be to blame.

The Chinese development of AI isn't in question. However, as much as the US would like to create a boogeyman here, their intent with it going forward is in question, rather than any way clear cut. But then that's one of the biggest problems with egocentric powermongers, I guess - they assume everyone else is the same as them in that regard, and that proceeds to make it everyone's problem.

Is there much suggestion at all that there is any "competition" at this time that requires the US government to act like this?