SleafordMod

joined 7 months ago
 

I found this image on the internet and I thought some of you might enjoy it.

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 3 points 2 weeks ago

Potentially. I think it depends on how they're used. If a country decides to completely disarm itself though, then it's entirely possible that other countries will seek to invade and subjugate.

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 5 points 2 weeks ago

I think ideally there would be no nukes in the world, because they are dangerous. But nukes do exist. If western countries got rid of their nukes, then the remaining nuclear countries would be able to do what they like. "Surrender to our demands or we will nuke your cities."

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 9 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

Exactly. If Ukraine had their own nukes by the time of 2014, or if they had been part of NATO, then maybe Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine.

 

As we roll out more generative AI and agents, it should change the way our work is done

we expect that this will reduce our total corporate workforce

Are we done for?

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 11 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

This reminds me of a discussion I was having with Hexbear members on Lemmy recently.

I was suggesting that perhaps it makes sense for the UK to have nukes, for self-defence against other nuclear countries like Russia, China, and potentially even the US, given their unpredictable behaviour. People from Hexbear got angry at this suggestion. One of them suggested that it's immoral to have nukes because nukes are "threatening civilians".

Maybe the OP image of this thread is right though: megalomaniacs are not deterred by words, but they are deterred by weapons (such as nukes). Ukraine was invaded because they didn't have enough deterrents. Iran is currently being bombed because I suppose they also didn't have enough deterrents.

 

This article notes that "right-wing governments, including the US and Hungary, are increasingly blaming falling fertility rates on a rejection of parenthood", as if today's young adults just don't want children.

But the author suggests that actually people do want children, and one of the main reasons they're having fewer children is because they can't afford many children.

Thoughts?

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 7 points 3 weeks ago

If the UK got rid of its nukes then we'd just be defenceless against Russia, China, and even the US if the US decides they don't value their old allies (which seems to be the case these days).

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It's absolutely possible for the UK to increase its defence spending while also not harming civilians, in the Middle East or anywhere else.

By your logic, no country should have a military, because a military creates a risk of harming civilians. I'm sure that would be great if we lived in a world with no militaries. But then one tyrant could decide he's going to build a military and then he could go and massacre lots of people who wouldn't be able to defend themselves, because they wouldn't have a military.

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 1 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

I think they're two separate issues, because it is perfectly possible for the UK to increase its defence capabilities, while also refraining from attacks upon the Middle East, and refraining from giving support to attacks on the Middle East.

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago (5 children)

You keep talking about the Middle East. I hope Israel stops its war against Palestine. The UK shouldn't assist Israel's attacks on Palestine. I think Israel has a right to defend itself (and so does Palestine), e.g. with the Iron Dome system, but I don't think Israel should be harming any civilians in Palestine.

I think that's a separate issue from the UK and its allies spending more on defence in order to protect themselves from Russia, though.

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago (7 children)

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were probably wrong (I don't know enough about them really).

In any case I don't think the UK is planning new military action in the Middle East. Starmer recently criticised Israel for its conduct in Gaza. Maybe we will see more criticism from the UK on that topic.

On the topic of Russia though, I think they do pose a threat to Europe. They've been waging war against Ukraine for over a decade now, and senior military figures across Europe think that Russia might try to attack another European country in a few years time.

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Your politicians gut everything resembling a healthcare system, education system, energy infrastructure or useful industry, things that would actually allow you to create a healthy, innovative and powerful military.

You seem to suggest that a powerful military is a good thing then. Maybe it is. If Ukraine's military had been more powerful (e.g. if they had been admitted to NATO) then Russia may never have been able to take Ukrainian land, or kill so many Ukrainian civilians.

you will get a small amount of overbudget and late weapons that will be shipped off to kill people in the middle East

I don't believe in the UK harming anybody in the Middle East. I hope the UK doesn't do that. I don't see plans from the UK government that involve harming people in the Middle East with the UK military.

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk -1 points 1 month ago (11 children)

Defending the UK from the threat posed by Russia, mainly.

[–] SleafordMod@feddit.uk -2 points 1 month ago (14 children)

Defending the UK given the current state of the world is sensible, but I wonder how they'll raise the cash for this

 

There is also another article in The Guardian about an open letter by nearly 400 British and Irish writers, calling Israel's war on Gaza "genocide". This seems to be a separate letter from the one reported by the BBC above.

Another thing I read this morning was this BBC story about a woman in Gaza who suffered a miscarriage due to the tribulations of trying to survive during Israel's military action. She and her husband also had IVF embryos at a fertility clinic in Gaza, but those have been destroyed by Israeli bombing, so this couple believe they may never have a chance to have children now.

Thoughts?

 

George Monbiot suggests that Labour shouldn't be supported because they're now pushing right-wing policies, in his view.

So he thinks people should tactically support progressive parties who support electoral reform (Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru), which may hopefully then lead to electoral reform, so that we end up with proportional representation. Then Brits will have more choices than effectively just two parties for future elections.

Thoughts?

 

Do you think AI is, or could become, conscious?

I think AI might one day emulate consciousness to a high level of accuracy, but that wouldn't mean it would actually be conscious.

This article mentions a Google engineer who "argued that AI chatbots could feel things and potentially suffer". But surely in order to "feel things" you would need a nervous system right? When you feel pain from touching something very hot, it's your nerves that are sending those pain signals to your brain... right?

 

Do you agree that Brexit has been "a pointless waste of time, money and effort"?

 

It seems the left dislike Starmer because he's tacking to the right, and the right dislike Starmer because he's not Farage.

Thoughts?

 
 

The Register mostly covers tech news but I noticed this story about defence spending.

Apparently the UK is now spending more of its defence budget with European arms makers. Do you think this is a good thing?

 

I will guess that many of you don't like Mike Pence, but he has said a few things which I think are good:

  • He has said Trump's tariffs will probably harm Americans
  • He has criticised Trump for not backing Ukraine
  • He seems to want to respect Canada's sovereignty, describing Canada as “a great ally, whose soldiers have fought and died alongside Americans in every war since world war one”
 

Justine Greening, the former Tory MP, argues that the current Tory strategy of going after Reform voters isn't working. She seems to think the Tories should try to capture centrists instead (which is what David Cameron did, I would argue).

The party has attempted to be a “mini-me” version of Reform UK, and unsurprisingly Reform voters prefer the real thing. And this strategy’s consequential alienation of Conservative-leaning centre-ground voters has seen them head off to either the Lib Dems or Labour, or to the Green party. The party has no winning majority in any age group of voters other than those over 70. This is no basis for a successful electoral strategy for the longer term.

view more: next ›