The GGP said, "LLMs have ended the need for white collar junior work". That claim is that LLMs are a "1:1 replacement at an individual level", and this is what the GP was responding to.
I read "ended the need for" in terms of the overall situation. When I say they're not 1:1 replacement, that's a possible reason why it might not look directly like people are being replaced, even though it may still be happening in the aggregate.
Yeah, sorry I didn't make it clear enough that I was agreeing with you. The endowment's assets are likely mostly/all pledged as security for margin trading, in which case there may be few/no assets left which could serve as collateral for borrowing that will fund payouts.
> The US hasn't declared a war since WWII since executive privilege allows the President to pursue war without Congress declaring war.
That's not correct. Congress no longer passes declarations of war, it passes authorizations of the use of military force (AUMF). The change was made starting in Vietnam because a declaration of war can only target a recognized sovereign nation, while an AUMF can target any state or non-state actor. The President is still heavily restricted from employing the US military without an AUMF.
I think the confusion about this stems from Congress having passed several, a couple of which are pretty broad, and never repealing them. This has allowed various Presidents to use one of the active AUMFs to justify actions, but for those who don't know or pay attention to the details it seems like the President is going around Congress.
> This has allowed various Presidents to use one of the active AUMFs to justify actions, but for those who don't know or pay attention to the details it seems like the President is going around Congress.
That is going around congress. It's not breaking the letter of the law, but authorizations not having a time limit is a mistake, and the involvement of congress is supposed to be needed for that kind of action.
It, indirectly, was, because it was the reason the country initially relied on decentralized citizen militias for defense in the first place. Many of the founders were worried that a standing federal army would be a tool of oppression, and wanted to keep most of the firepower distributed amongst the populace.
The system more or less worked until the Spanish American War, when the government realized that the militias need some sort of standard in order to integrate properly with the regular army when called up. This led to the creation of the National Guard in 1903. It was tightly integrated into the Army structure in 1933.
What arguably made the Amendment obsolete was the advance of technology. By the early 20th century conventional warfighting took too much firepower, support, and coordination for a loose citizen militia to conduct. At best they could form the core of an insurgent force, but the goal is always to not get to that point.
In theory, that insurgent force could work against a tyrannical federal government. In practice, even if most of the people with the civilian firepower weren't supporting the tyranny I'm not sure it would work out. Conducting an insurgency against a foreign occupier is a lot different than conducting one against a domestic oppressor.
> In theory, that insurgent force could work against a tyrannical federal government. In practice, even if most of the people with the civilian firepower weren't supporting the tyranny I'm not sure it would work out. Conducting an insurgency against a foreign occupier is a lot different than conducting one against a domestic oppressor.
Yeah, precisely my personal take against the current "from utility" argument in the amendment's favor: it's very much not clear that they're especially useful for resisting oppressive governments, for one thing because those are often quite popular at first, and for another, because successful examples of that tend to involve a ton of foreign aid, making the role of private arms rather minor. Meanwhile, examples involving foreign invaders are extremely different (and also often involve lots of foreign aid).
Like, maybe the right deserves to stand anyway for other reasons (maybe it just ought to! Maybe it doesn't need a reason!) but I think that particular argument for it is really misguided, especially if one takes it seriously when forming one's opinions about the broader political landscape. IMO there is no meaningful safeguard against tyranny to be found in that amendment.
The terrible model work at the end of Fitzcarraldo pulled me right out of the (otherwise incredible) film. They could move over mountains but not film a convincing finale!
> I have also noticed that e.g. Lockheed Martin (maker of the F35) is not doing very well on the stock market.
There's no "e.g." here. It's only Lockmart, and it's because they recently lost the Next Generation Air Defense contract to Boeing. The rest of the US defense sector is fine (for now).
These statements from the US are more about keeping Europe dependent on the US (and thus the US keeping some geopolitical leverage) than about bolstering the US defense sector.
> Melius Research downgraded Lockheed Martin (LMT) to Hold from Buy with a price target of $483, down from $603. Boeing (BA) had a win over Lockheed on the Air Force’s sixth generation fighter program, the analyst tells investors in a research note. Following the news, Melius upgraded Boeing and downgraded Lockheed. The firm cites competitive losses and growing concerns over Europe’s efforts to reduce reliance on U.S. defense contractors for the downgrade of Lockheed. Europe’s moves may limit the company’s export opportunities, contends Melius.
The article never mentioned the search part of SAR, only the rescue part. The range is still something of an issue with that, though, as you'd need to be fairly close the people needing rescuing. So I still agree that contested rescue is likely a side mission for this.
