Trump's China Strategy: Death By a Thousand Paper Cuts

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

And the US is NOT doing some "strategy" to land-lock your oil and gas.  There is nothing - nothing - to stop Canada from building either pipelines or rail lines to move oil and gas to their three coasts for export, if they wanted to. The US does not owe it to Canada to allow a major pipeline (Keystone XL) to cross aquifers so that Canadian oil can arrive in the US Gulf.  Ship your oil by pipe or rail to Port Arthur and trans-load into tankers if you like, but don't complain that the Americans are strangling that industry, that is a bit silly. 

^ this

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Would you trust the Russian banks? Maybe Zimbabwe? Good luck with that sir, best of luck. 

The Zimbabwe Dollar is now trading at the $100 trillion Dollar Note  (one piece of paper with 100 Trillion Dollars printed on it) for forty cents US. 

It is a bit of an artifact, as internally only the US Dollar and the South African Rand are actually used in daily commerce.  The Zimbabwe Dollar is now an interesting museum artifact, having been totally ruined by Robert Mugabe and his collection of goons.  Tell it like it is. 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

5 hours ago, remake it said:

The people get to do the activities because in natural language they are inseparable from their countries, so a person such as a President can be vested with powers granted by the people to dictate terms to less powerful countries, and when countries go to war it's sentient "people" who are killed.

Flocks of birds don't fly because it's the individual birds that's flying, not the collection.  What's happening is that each individual bird is following his neighbor, and the momentum of each individual choice determines the direction of the group.  But that's too much for our brains to handle so we categorize all of the birds as "a flock" and claim "the flock of birds is flying hither."  

Edited December 7, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The irony above is ... amazing.

Perhaps the bot thinks it's sentient? 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

22 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Perhaps the bot thinks it's sentient? 

The human handler apparently comes out to play when the discussion gets too complex for AI.  More and more it seems the human is bypassing the AI, and is coming out to play.  Either that or the AI is learning and adapting pretty darn fast.

[remake it + 288]

6 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

Flocks of birds don't fly because it's the individual birds that's flying, not the collection.  

If the "collection" as you call it is not flying then it is not a flock, but most here probably don't give a flying flock about your poor constructions.

[Papillon + 485]

With respect sir I'd argue they don't give a flock for argumentative pedants either.

 

[Marcin + 519]

57 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The human handler apparently comes out to play when the discussion gets too complex for AI.  More and more it seems the human is bypassing the AI, and is coming out to play.  Either that or the AI is learning and adapting pretty darn fast.

@Ward Smith@Tom Kirkman I do not understand this joking about AI, bots, handlers ? I was also called bot or Chinese afew times. This seems to be some kind of local joke, invented to describe persons that are difficult in interaction, change subject, use the same arguments although they were already refuted, etc. Tom could you elaborate about this bot, handlers theme ? I joined this forum 3 months ago and this joke seems to be older.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

8 minutes ago, Papillon said:

With respect sir I'd argue they don't give a flock for argumentative pedants either.

But I'm giving it points for "don't give a flying flock" either purposeful or incidental humor

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

5 minutes ago, Marcin said:

@Ward Smith@Tom Kirkman I do not understand this joking about AI, bots, handlers ? I was also called bot or Chinese afew times. This seems to be some kind of local joke, invented to describe persons that are difficult in interaction, change subject, use the same arguments although they were already refuted, etc. Tom could you elaborate about this bot, handlers theme ? I joined this forum 3 months ago and this joke seems to be older.

Bot is short for robot, and there are numerous artificial intelligence constructs scouring the internet hitting forums such as this one. Usually they're primitive enough to be easy to spot. Since "natural language" is extremely difficult for software to mimic, the default technique is to pretend foreign nationality. 

Most bots exist to support some cause, attack a cause or attempt advertising. The ad bots are the easiest to spot. Given that the Eliza program was able to pass the Turing Test decades ago, and computing has gotten exponentially more powerful since then, it's plausible you are a bot. The onus is on you to prove you're not. 

You claim to be Polish. Tell me something about Chopin I don't already know. 

[remake it + 288]

16 minutes ago, Papillon said:

With respect sir I'd argue they don't give a flock for argumentative pedants either.

 

Comprehension and logic require sound foundations so where comments appear not to make sense the posters get a chance to show they know what they are talking about so whether or not you choose to call this argumentative pedantry it does not alter what nonsense is.

[Papillon + 485]

I agree but with respect sir you seem to wish to argue and disagree with everybody here, whatever the topic, and seeing as we have already established some of your alleged yet infamous wisdom stems from the likes of Facebook and tabloid trash, your comprehension, logic and indeed 'sound foundations' in many areas appears rather questionable, primarily from your sources, which I generally find laughable sir. 

If you wish to discuss 'nonsense' and its definition with me sir it is rather ironic, is it not? If a comment 'appears not to make sense' to yourself, there is a possibility that YOU have misread it, though from what I know of you I would guess you have not even considered this sir I'm afraid to say. Instead you insist the 'poster gets a chance to show what they are talking about'. Again sir, from Mr Facebook, this is somewhat odd and ironic. 

[remake it + 288]

5 minutes ago, Papillon said:

we have already established some of your alleged yet infamous wisdom stems from the likes of Facebook and tabloid trash

They serve as reference materials only and all you are doing here is making unfounded assumptions which translate into baseless opinions so please do yourself a favor and stick to what you know and not what you choose to prefer to believe (see the schematic provided by @Enthalpic).

[Marcin + 519]

23 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Mexico.

Really? We just invade freaking Mexico?? What could possibly go wrong with that? 

"De-dollarization". OK, you're producing oil in, where, Nigeria? Right now you can sell that oil for dollars, fungible around the world for any nice things you'd like to buy. Would you sell for rubles? You could spend them where? Renimbi? OK maybe spend them in China but where else? Also what would you buy in China? Assuming you don't want, need 20,000 knock off Nike's. Would you buy land there, and trust their rule of law to protect you? Not even Chinese are able to truly own land in China. The only option is euros, and they're problematic for multiple reasons with our without Brexit. At least the Brits were smart enough to skip the euro currency. 

You're going to have to do better than point to yourself as the arbiter of all things corruption. Appeal to authority is weak on a good day. Perhaps you can share a link or three? 

@Ward Smith At the moment I think it would be best to put aside the issue of US political corruption at top level. I have my opinion and you have your opinion. For me this issue is of secondary interest because I do not think we could have any impact on this problem.

The topic that really interests me is hegemony conflict China vs US with the following aspects:

- Generally the issue of current hegemony conflict between US and China.

- How each aspect of loosing/gaining hegemony: 1. largest economy  2. technological independence 3. strongest military 4. gaining reserve currency status (primary/secondary reserve currency) is currently  developing in the context of US and China rivalry ? Are there any other aspects/contexts that should be researched ?

- How dangerous and aggresive will this conflict become ? Different possible terminal stages of intensity of conflict: trade war, technology war, currency war, full economic decoupling, proxy wars conducted in third countries, intensive proxy wars on verge of direct confrontation, proxy wars with limited usage of nuclear weapons, local direct conflict, intensive direct conflict (with no usage, limited usage or mass usage of nuclear weapons).

- How changing hegemony impacts opinions of citizens from : country loosing hegemon status, country gaining hegemon status, third countries ? How opinions of citizens impact terminal stage of intensity of hegemony conflict ?

- How current high pace of hegemony change in comparison to latest change impacts opinions of citizens and possible terminal intensity of conflict ?

- How loosing country (US) can stop hegemonic win of gaining country (China) without high terminal intensity of conflict ? What is the effectiveness of current (trade, technology war) and possible future counter measures of loosing country ?

- If there would be change of hegemony without high terminal intensity of conflict, how change of hegemony would affect future positions of major economies and regions: China, US, EU, Middle East, SE Asia, Latin America, Africa.

- Understanding pecularities of Chinese economy: size, speed of change, meritocracy vs dictatorship, diversity of provinces.

 

 

[Marcin + 519]

58 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Bot is short for robot, and there are numerous artificial intelligence constructs scouring the internet hitting forums such as this one. Usually they're primitive enough to be easy to spot. Since "natural language" is extremely difficult for software to mimic, the default technique is to pretend foreign nationality. 

Most bots exist to support some cause, attack a cause or attempt advertising. The ad bots are the easiest to spot. Given that the Eliza program was able to pass the Turing Test decades ago, and computing has gotten exponentially more powerful since then, it's plausible you are a bot. The onus is on you to prove you're not. 

You claim to be Polish. Tell me something about Chopin I don't already know. 

1. I do not think I have met anybody here that I could suspect of being bot. Furthermore it is much cheaper to hire an individual to peddle some opinions  than to buy specialized hardware, software, pay programists to prepare AI for this particular task. But rogue AI was one of prime topics for best science fiction novelists like Philip Dick or Isaac Asimov or lately Death Match by Lincoln Child. I do not think Eliza actually passed this test, but it was real breakthrough.

2. First of all for a long time in Poland, especially in school textbooks, this composer was not Chopin but Szopen (Szopen is Polish  transliteration of his French name).

[Papillon + 485]

52 minutes ago, remake it said:

They serve as reference materials

Precisely sir, you seem to use Facebook and tabloid trash as your 'reference' and your 'solid foundations' and hence roots of your opinions seem to stem from this. Thankyou for proving my point rather perfectly for me. I couldn't have asked for more confirmation.

This seems a little worrying sir if I may be so bold, for example that you 'refer' to the likes of Facebook at all. Are you by any chance twelve years old or do you simply like pictures and big bold headlines within the tabloids? Maybe it's about the number of likes and friends? Is this what sways your impeccable and infamous reasoning and journalistic choices? 

52 minutes ago, remake it said:

stick to what you know and not what you choose to prefer to believe

52 minutes ago, remake it said:

all you are doing here is making unfounded assumptions which translate into baseless opinions

I think I may have just found the definition of ironic sir. I congratulate you though if you managed to type this with a straight face. The conversation about Greta Thunberg and you being entirely incorrect due to your bizarre Facebook addiction comes to mind. Respectfully, Papillon. 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Papillon

[remake it + 288]

Just now, Papillon said:

Precisely sir, you seem to use Facebook and tabloid trash as your 'reference' and your 'solid foundations'

That is another of your baseless assumptions so unless you have something more credible it counts as nought.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Has anyone here invaded Mexico yet? 

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, Papillon said:

Respectfully, Papillon. 

and

4 minutes ago, Papillon said:

I think I may have just found the definition of ironic sir.

so if these are things which concern you there are opportunities to start new threads

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Also: how does a country "lose?" 

For example: consider furniture. Can furniture lose? If the answer is "yes" and furniture could lose, then what does it mean for a chair to "lose?' 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Furthermore: can houses become corrupt? 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Another interesting question: how do you kill a country? Can countries die? How about rocks? Can they die? 

[Papillon + 485]

1 hour ago, remake it said:

They serve as reference materials

I will quote you again sir if you wish? Please look upwards. Forgive me for assuming you use them as reference when you say yourself they serve as reference. How silly of me. I am afraid sir I was using the English language. What you think you were using, who knows?

15 minutes ago, remake it said:

so if these are things which concern you there are opportunities to start new threads

How odd that you made this suggestion before sir? Is this what your famous programming tells you to do at this point?, when you have no argument whatsoever, which is clearly the vast majority of the time, as everybody here knows.

Perhaps you're right sir, I will start a thread entitled ''monkey slamming away on a keyboard''. Also the fact that you have quoted ''respectfully, Papillon'' and the definition of irony with a reference to things that 'concern' me, and so we should start a new thread, makes precisely no sense sir. Oddly, I am not surprised. May I suggest you get a quick fix and try again later? Currently the output is nonsensical and verging on utter garbage sir. 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Papillon

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Speaking of which: What music do people here listen to? 

[remake it + 288]

21 minutes ago, Papillon said:

How silly of me. I am afraid sir I was using the English language.

Just as is @Zhong Lu so go to the Swedish tabloids and other media and listen to or read what the protagonists say for and of themselves rather than invent your opinions.