Command detonated mines don’t fall under Ottawa treaty, so you might have had them (these are both claymore-type and OZM72-type)

that was known almost decade before that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nth_Country_Experiment

it also helps if your air defense network doesn’t collapse immediately because it turns out that in order to guard these nukes you need also regular capable conventional military

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TESCREAL

Neither Ukraine or Russia are on that list, and a couple of countries that do have a possible defensive war against Russia in mind withdrew from that treaty. That and Ottawa treaty (banning AP victim-triggered landmines)

Yeah, who else. Nuking Dresden at that point would be useless

you don’t have to choose a side and you can wish everyone involved a very nice visit to hague

either that, or nukes would be used first in korean war instead. imo it’s a good thing that nukes were first used against the most cartoonishly evil fascist state imaginable at that point

it’s like they purposefully try to think as little as possible

looking forward to day when random datacenter where they outsourced their thinking burns down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge’s_law_of_headlines

no

not yet at least, but this might change soon

i think you’ve got it backwards. the very same people (and their money) who were deep into crypto went on to new buzzword, which turns out to be AI now. this includes altman and zucc for starters, but there’s more

is the evil funding man going to eat the gimp pepper

it’s maybe because chatbots incorporate, accidentally or not, elements of what makes gambling addiction work on humans https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/06/05/generative-ai-runs-on-gambling-addiction-just-one-more-prompt-bro/

the gist:

There’s a book on this — Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products by Nir Eyal, from 2014. This is the how-to on getting people addicted to your mobile app. [Amazon UK, Amazon US]

Here’s Eyal’s “Hook Model”:

First, the trigger is what gets you in. e.g., you see a chatbot prompt and it suggests you type in a question. Second is the action — e.g., you do ask the bot a question. Third is the reward — and it’s got to be a variable reward. Sometimes the chatbot comes up with a mediocre answer — but sometimes you love the answer! Eyal says: “Feedback loops are all around us, but predictable ones don’t create desire.” Intermittent rewards are the key tool to create an addiction. Fourth is the investment — the user puts time, effort, or money into the process to get a better result next time. Skin in the game gives the user a sunk cost they’ve put in. Then the user loops back to the beginning. The user will be more likely to follow an external trigger — or they’ll come to your site themselves looking for the dopamine rush from that variable reward.

Eyal said he wrote Hooked to promote healthy habits, not addiction — but from the outside, you’ll be hard pressed to tell the difference. Because the model is, literally, how to design a poker machine. Keep the lab rats pulling the lever.

chatbots users also are attracted to their terminally sycophantic and agreeable responses, and also some users form parasocial relationships with motherfucking spicy autocomplete, and also chatbots were marketed to management types as a kind of futuristic status symbol that if you don’t use it you’ll fall behind and then you’ll all see. people get mixed gambling addiction/fomo/parasocial relationship/being dupes of multibillion dollar advertising scheme and that’s why they get so unserious about their chatbot use

and also separately core of openai and anthropic and probably some other companies are made from cultists that want to make machine god, but it’s entirely different rabbit hole

like with any other bubble, money for it won’t last forever. most recently disney sued midjourney for copyright infringement, and if they set legal precedent, they might take wipe out all of these drivel making machines for good

iirc L-aminoacids and D-sugars, that is these observed in nature, are very slightly more stable than the opposite because of weak interaction

probably it’s just down to a specific piece of quartz or soot that got lucky and chiral amplification gets you from there

also it’s not physics, or more precisely it’s a very physicy subbranch of chemistry, and it’s done by chemists because physicists suck at doing chemistry for some reason (i’ve seen it firsthand)

that watermark makes it look a bit like album cover

internet funeral material

sounds suspiciously like something a rabbit would say

For slightly earlier instance of it, there’s also real time bidding