What a lovely sentence.
Where they put nets over the road for camoflage or physically catching the drones, right?
I couldn't find a good picture and for a second I thought you meant an earthen tunnel.
Yes. But it didn't work for long. The Russians have an answer to that.[1]
[1] https://www.thesun.ie/news/16173281/russian-dragon-drone-str...
Why do men love paper money?
Castles is a thing because it's a thing. Like Rai stones or Bitcoins hashes. They are hard to make.
Once you have a castle everyone rally's around it, they know it will be there in 200 years. When you are old you know your investment will still have the same value to give to your children.
What China is doing in the South China Sea is very cool, making islands. I'd be nice to be in a world humans did it without the power grab as an excuse, but I guess that's the value add governments need when the world is full of sad nihilists on the mainstream media train against building great things, only destruction.
> I try to learn all the time. I make stuff sometimes. And dream about space the rest of the time. Proud Neptune-stan. Ask me about Neptune.
And here is their process:
> the synthesis of parts from several books + papers and discussions with friends
Also know the institution, in this case the 1517 Fund. From their About page,
> In 2010, our team cofounded the Thiel Fellowship with Peter Thiel to prove out a simple belief: great founders don’t need university degrees. That was a $100k grant program – and it gave birth to projects like Ethereum, companies like Figma, OYO Rooms, and Luminar, and funds like the Longevity Fund. We started 1517 to scale that further and expand the support and community that the Thiel Fellowship started.
Just-a-guy-on-the-Internet, and in an org with an agenda, is the source of all sorts of nonsense.
But I have no explicit hate for Ethereum or Figma. IIRC Vitalik and friends shopped themselves out to a few other places before Thiel Fellowship.
information is never divorced from a person (sometimes it's a programmer). You're not smart enough to evaluate knowledge unless you have expertise yourself
– outsourcing your thinking to "experts" is just as bad as outsourcing your thinking to LLMs. In both cases, you are placing the onus of thinking on an outside source, and depriving yourself of the richness of life in the long run.
– I quote the literature for a reason. *I don't want you to take my word for it.* You can read Caesar's and Robert McNamara's thoughts; you can get context directly from historians; and then see the story told via tapestry to draw your own conclusion.
– I also do my best to link to specific pages of the sources so that you can read the quotes in context. It takes a lot of effort to do this. As things aren't always publicly available, and it's a PITA to keep track of everything.
– you're harkening to the idea that there "adults" in the room. There are no adults in the room. Never have been. Not for anything of consequence; definitely not for something at the cutting edge of technology. It feels like that because we write hagiographies after the fact.
— learning how to screen ideas for yourself on a self-developed baloney scale is one of the most important skills an educated adult can inculcate. It's sad that we've shied away from its explicit cultivation.
– "smart"-ness is partly inculcated. A tool (or a mind) grows rusty with disuse.
– why someone is saying something is tied to them, but information itself can be neutral. Its *presentation* can be biased. What's told / left out can be an issue. But the fact that the moon exists or William the Conqueror used castles for his invasion has nothing to do with me. Those facts will be true no matter who I am as a person.
– yes, the way I have presented the information / the facts is tied to me. It's tied to my quirks of personality and my thought process as well as my personal biases (of which there are many). Which is why I make the effort of quoting primary / secondary sources.
– I write these things because I want to learn from people who are more knowledgeable / smarter than me. And I want to be surrounded by people who are smarter than me.
– you don't have to read it. it's just like a blogpost man, on the internet. doesn't really matter in the long run.Right but thinking doesnt occur in a vacuum. Thinking is a garbage in/garbage out process. Stopping and looking at a source to determine whether it is suitable to be processed is a worthy task.
To be clear, I dont think the parent comments criticism of the blog is worthwhile, but this element of your criticism of his criticism is also pretty useless.
I disagree on the theoretical claims in your comment here:
> – outsourcing your thinking to "experts" is just as bad as outsourcing your thinking to LLMs. In both cases, you are placing the onus of thinking on an outside source, and depriving yourself of the richness of life in the long run.
This is an old claim that goes with misinformation. I'm suggesting the opposite: Think more critically, more seriously, and without restraint, and that starts with understanding there's a person behind the information, with perspective, expertise, uneven knowledge and experience, biases and objectivity, etc.
You're depriving yourself of much of the richness of life by not taking critical thinking more seriously. Truth is a very hard, precious thing; knowledge and wisdom even harder.
To learn about software development (if that's your profession, as an educated guess), do you read a medieval historian who read a few papers and books and talked to historian friends? For this article, did you read papers and books by experts or by people on your level?
I'd be interested in talking to you about the topic, but I wouldn't take it as a piece of research. I talk to people all the time - most of the time! - who aren't promulgating their words as research. Who would have anything to say?
> — learning how to screen ideas for yourself on a self-developed baloney scale is one of the most important skills an educated adult can inculcate
The research shows that people don't do that accurately, and more educated people perform even worse.
Or another way to look it is to use the baloney scale developed by science and scholarship for centuries, to great effect: Post-positivism. Emprical knowledge, scholarship, and understanding humans minds always are behind it.
The idea that expertise has no value is hard to defend. Do you not seek out doctors and lawyers? Software developers?
Like I said, I do my own research on the same level. However, I don't think I'd publish it because there is so much professional research available, and certainly without talking to someone who knows the subject deeply and can point out what I've missed. It would be an interesting hypothesis to bring up to historians of the period. How about Bret Devereaux, a military historian of medieval and ancient Europe, who publishes a popularish blog and would be open to it? If you said you ran it by an expert, I'd trust it much more as research - it's hardly impossible for you to do good research.