Most of the weapons given to Ukraine have been lost and unaccounted for.
CBS published this report on the missing weapons stolen by corrupt groups operating within Ukraine. Shortly afterwards they were forced to amend a statement that someone is trying to track the newer shipments, without explaining any sort of actual plan for accountability.
This story was retracted by CBS because it turned out to be hugely misleading and is no where near the truth about the situation today. Trying to pass it off as such is at best misleading and at worst actively malicious.
But even going down that path of thinking, it’s amazing Ukraine has decimated the Russian armed forces with only a fraction of the weapons they were supplied with!. /s.
I’m motivated to refute Russian propaganda. Something you seem motivated to spread. The quote was the only part that talked any solid numbers about aid to Ukraine, so how can you even make and analysis.
You also never mentioned the quote is from the very start of the war and how the situation of supplies is very different now.
CBS is America, not Russian? The history of Ukrainian political corruption predates the war from Russia.
Russia is a corrupt aggressor, but that does not mean Ukrainian abuses should be ignored. Zelensky is not allowing Ukrainian citizens the freedom to leave the country for safety.
> CBS is America, not Russian? The history of Ukrainian political corruption predates the war from Russia.
CBS is American but this idea that the majority of weapons aren’t being in Ukraine cause they are being sold or stolen or lost _is propaganda_. Nothing supports this idea for the current phase of the war and people have generally moved on from this narrative.
What does limiting who can leave the country during war time have to do with corruption? The narrative of Ukraine loosing most western weapons was started by Russia and then they dropped it since UA advance was clearly showing them to be total BS.
Zelensky gets more money the longer the war drags on. If Ukrainians are allowed freedom to exit to safety, then Zelensky and the oligarchs will not reep as much donations.
You have added some useful links to this discussion but this is the second time you’ve undermined your own argument by laughing at the person you’re responding to. Please be aware of the Hacker News Guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Note how the Interpol chief used the future tense.
Why did he talk about the future with such certainty?
It would be unthinkable that he was "influence" to make such claims for a certain purpose.
This is in addition to worse damage that occurs throughout the body to any ACE2 cell, which are found in the brain along with the entire cardiovascular system and every other major organ in the body.
Hospitalizations in children are rising this year because last year they were out of school and NPI safety was much higher than 2021.
None of that is relevant or actionable. Everyone including children will be exposed regardless of what we do. Fortunately the vaccines and other treatments are pretty good at preventing severe symptoms.
Do you intend to spend the rest of your life wearing an N95 mask every time you're close to another mammal? Because this respiratory disease isn't going away. You won't be able to avoid it forever.
What's the proposal here, exactly? Should children be kept in hermetic isolation indefinitely to forestall the possibility of long COVID (at least, until a sufficiently infectious variant comes along that even the Ted Kaczynskis of the world get it)?
There may be ACE2 receptors in the brain but what has never been found in the brain so far is SARS-CoV-2. The spike protein crosses the blood brain barrier in mice, but you also get plenty of that from the vaccines which doesn't seem to concern anyone at all.
With Covid. Not because of Covid. Most children at hospitals with Covid are incidental cases.
Also the long covid figure from children comes from self report. Given the hysteria in some children and some parents I would take this measure with a huge grain of salt.
Protip: don't use emotional Twitter post as your main source of information.
You clearly did not read the report that has proven autoantibodies were detected from mild covid cases associated with long covid symptoms.
How do you explain the rise in children’s hospitalizations in areas with high covid rates?
"A five-fold increase in pediatric admissions in New York City this month. Close to double the numbers admitted in Washington, DC. And nationwide, on average, pediatric hospitalizations are up 48% in just the past week."
"An average of 672 children were being hospitalized every day in the US, as of 2 January - more than double the average just a week before. And the rate is rapidly increasing."
> autoantibodies were detected from mild covid cases associated with long covid symptoms
And? Just because someone has those antibodies doesn't mean he has long-covid.
> How do you explain the rise in children’s hospitalizations in areas with high covid rates?
>"A five-fold increase in pediatric admissions in New York City this month. Close to double the numbers admitted in Washington, DC. And nationwide, on average, pediatric hospitalizations are up 48% in just the past week."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/new-omicron-variant...
Nothing in the article says because of Covid. And it is very easy to explain in fact. Hospitalizations always surge during holidays. Most notably due to falls and other respiratory viruses such as the flu which is known to be worse in children than covid.
Even so the article cites this data (https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admis...) and says: "US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data released Tuesday showed that on average, 305 children have been in the hospital with Covid-19 on any given day over the week that ended Dec. 26.".
That 305 children in all the US.
The other articles you cited use the same deceptive framing.
We know exchanges can currently operate as insolvent fractional reserves, with no oversight to prevent trading against their own customers or using customer deposits to orchestrate coordinated "arbitrage" events across other exchanges.
We know tether has provided billions in loans to FTX and Cumberland [1] to continue the market manipulation that Bitfinex operators Phil Potter and Giancarlo Devasini publicly bragged about. [2]
We know newly printed USDT is used to manipulate BTC markets, with a full academic report published from market data.[3]
We know tether has been insolvent and continues to refuse an audit.[4] [5]
We know FTX and Alameda Research were among the top donors to the Biden campaign. [6]
a quick search on tiktok for NFT wash trading will show you influencers teaching kids how to create the illusion of value by selling to yourself.
The reason you see NFTs "sold" for 200 ETH but there’s never any real commissions for art is because that would mean actually moving capital to spend on other people…
No - consider it mostly a design and infrastructure problem.
When looking at social media,
it’s part public forum that needs some type of discovery/filter mechanism, and part a tool for individual users and community to communicate and collaborate.
The barrier in current social media networks is largely skewed towards manipulative design that optimizes towards datamining and addictive gamified systems and interfaces.
Sure you could try to build a social network for open science and peer reviews of research projects, but the bar is set so low right now that any improvements to interfaces that facilitate a more comprehensive search/discover/filter system on datasets will be a massive improvement over now.
Information needs to be discoverable, but people need to be free from propaganda.
> When looking at social media, it’s part public forum that needs some type of discovery/filter mechanism, and part a tool for individual users and community to communicate and collaborate.
> The barrier in current social media networks is largely skewed towards manipulative design that optimizes towards datamining and addictive gamified systems and interfaces.
I think you're spot on. Even at the level of individual we have to do heavy noise filtering to reach at the signals that matter to us. We have heuristics to go towards people that we find useful and stay away from those are mere nuisance. Social media is this one giant noise machine that actively throws bullshit at us, ads are 99.99% noise considering their usability/mental processing cost, ranking algorithms are optimized to make signals that get you stay engaged overly salient in comparison to their natural incidence rates, our self-association is heavily distorted; content of friends that rile us up are showed as often as the friends we like etc.
> Information needs to be discoverable, but people need to be free from propaganda.
I think the only solution to this is breaking away any recommendation engine from the rest of the product and make it available for competition. "Use Facebook with our RecommendSmart, scientifically proven to make you less depressed than the default one". "Me and my friends use Twitter with SocratesSort, has been great at starting deep conversations on topics we care about, totally troll free".
This paper is funny if you actually understand game theory because you can see how the author either chose to withhold key applicable information for applied game theory or inadequately researched famous game theory principles and developments.
This is a much easier and more realistic introduction to game theory principles:
Game theory is often explained as a math problem involving humans and a specific scenario that requires a choice, from humans.
The scenarios are fun thought experiments and about as useful as the famous trolley problem [1][2]
In reality humans have many more variables affecting decisions than the pure rational equations can clearly define. Often the undefined variables are within the context of communication theory and reputation or auditing systems.
In the case of the famous prisoners dilemma, the real solution is establishing a secret out of band communication channel prior to the dilemma, alongside a known reputation and retaliation penalty for abusing the mutual trust.[3] [4]
The famous "tragedy of the commons" rational resource optimization game is often cited as justification for machiavellian exploitation, yet humans being social creatures are subject to reputations, and have sophisticated communication, cooperation, and retaliation abilities.
[4]
Elinor Ostrom's "Rules, games, and common-pool resources" and Robert Axelrod's work "The Evolution of Cooperation" both explain game theory in the context of human scale realities. Of particular interest to the hacker community would be Ostrom's Common Pool Resource principles, which are applicable to adhoc decentralized communities. :)
At the core of game theory, and human civilization is communication and trust. The abuse of mass media to manipulate populations knows the power of communication and cultural narratives, and we're witnessing what's often described in terms such as "hypernormalization" or "accelerationism" [6][7][8][9]
For a better applicable human scale game theory primer, check out Bruce Schneier's (yes, the same legendary cryptographer Bruce), "Liars and Outliers"
As someone that studied Game Theory (and philosophy, for that matter) at graduate levels, there's quite a lot wrong with this post, and I just want to reiterate what @georgeglue1 said: Matt Jackson is quite literally a leading expert and the paper is actually very good for how terse it is. The kinds of exercises you'd do in a Game Theory class are pretty on par with what you see in the paper itself. You would end up answering questions like: What are the dominant strategies? Do any equillibria exist? What's the Nash Equilibrium? What outcome is Pareto optimal (if any)? What's the expected utility of a particular pure strategy? Mixed strategy? Etc.
Anyway, to address your comment, just on a very basic level, Phillipa Foot's "Trolley Problem" is unequivocally not a game theoretic problem. It's in the family of ethical "no-win" puzzles a la "Sophie's Choice" and has little to do with the actual study of game theoretic strategies, outcomes, and equillibria. The "Tragedy of the Commons" is also not game theoretic. There have been some attempts at turning it into an iterated game (in the formal sense), but -- again -- it's not technically a game theoretic problem, and rather a question on social policy. Elinor Ostrom famously provided a non-game theoretic solution to the Tragedy, so bringing her up is just confusing.
> At the core of game theory, and human civilization is communication and trust. The abuse of mass media to manipulate populations knows the power of communication and cultural narratives, and we're witnessing what's often described in terms such as "hypernormalization" or "accelerationism"
And I have no idea what the hell this means. It looks like gibberish and has nothing to do with the (relatively narrow) scope of Game Theory as a field.
The pure math of von Neumann style modeling is an incomplete and inapplicable system that has mostly been rendered obsolete when applied to human situations [1] and has been surpassed with behavioral game theory [2] and sociological modeling which is dependent on variable input from field research into actual human activities (which often vary widely by regional, cultural, temporal influences). Attempts to describe this can be found with Knightian uncertainty, dynamic inconsistency, bounded rationality [3], anchoring bias, decision theory, applying bayesian models, and complex system modeling theories which generally also involve models using statistical sampling from reality instead of presumptive theoritical models based on the early primitive von Neumann concepts.
For computational optimization, the von Neumann game theory terms are applied to actual logic systems and we end up with computer vision optimizations and video/audio codec best guess optimizations, or some interesting applications of evolutionary computing [4] in verifiable applications like signal optimization in antenna design [5] or industrial manufacturing techniques and structural integrity or architectural optimizations via generative design [6] in software [7] like generative computer automated design, ie Fusion 360 or Grasshopper [8].
Rudimentary modeling with von Neumann game theory fails to account for variables in reality, like the ambiguity effect and in applications like optimization of social choices like economic modeling or voting i.e. Gibbard's theorem. There's often situations where game theory fails to account for an adversarial evasion of the rule set - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame_analysis
If the primitive von Neumann game theory models were used to train an artificial intelligence system that controlled military weapons, there would have been global thermal nuclear winter in several decision making "games" like the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm situation.
Matt Jackson is one of the most respected game theorists at probably the best game theory department in the US.
His goal is just pretty different. He's presenting the mathematical / intuitive foundation that underly more advanced models (probably for the purposes of academic classes).
A lot of commonly understood stuff you mention (like reputation) is hard to define in the rational math of game theory, especially when you start layering real-world complexity like incomplete information.
See Kreps Milgrom Roberts Wilson (1981) for a fun example from two recent Nobel Prize winners on how hard this gets (and why it's useful to understand Matt Jackson's intro if you want to get into academic / theory stuff)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022053182...
Imagine posting this and not idk, googling the author to find he's one of the most well-respected game-theorists in the world.
But sure, anonymous internet bro knows more about game theory than the Stanford econ PhD who teaches at Stanford econ department and edited the leading game theory academic periodical...
Aside from the first paragraph’s claims of inadequate research, I thought GP’s post was actually a pretty good critique of some of game theory - especially when you try to break out of the neat mathematical formulations it espouses and apply it to the real world.
Your post, on the other hand, reads like an argument from authority.
Grassroots? Do you even know the history of Monero?
Unfortunately Monero was intentionally designed to dump the money supply, so the vast majority of XRM was "mined" by a small group of traditional speculative capitalists.
Monero just amplifies the current plutocracy of the money system due to the algorithm of the emission curve and mining system.
It would be nice if there wasn't a crypto project that didn't try to scam people.
Monero has no premine, dev tax and is a 100% open source project with volunteer contributors. It's about as grassroots as it gets in the cryptocurrency space.
> so the vast majority of XRM was "mined" by a small group of traditional speculative capitalists.
While the cripple mine happened, it only lasted a couple weeks and all of these coins were sold at market value. Monero was worthless for the first couple years.
Monero has a tail emission / infinite supply making it fairer than fixed supply coins.
Bitcoin won't help the economy, especially due to the gini coefficient of Bitcoin's algorithm simply creating another crypto-oligarchy.
It's a simple mathematical model, existing capital has full access to co-opt any crypto software relying on capital based supply generation of the cryptocoins. Bitcoin and other Proof-of-Work systems which run warehouses full of hardware generating random numbers is no different than the existing system, unless you're trying to extract wealth from uninformed targets who are unaware of how the algorithm was designed.
There's a severe financial side to it all as well...
The city budget funds the police, which funds the union, and they donate their money to the attorney general, mayor, and city council members. Often when they don't get the budget they demand, police will openly retaliate against local businesses and residents who did not support their budget.
According to the research Ars Technica referenced, digital
contact tracing doesn't start becoming effective at 60% -
at 60% usage, digital contact tracing can stop the pandemic
There's no silver bullet with this virus. Contact tracing has proven ineffective in Singapore [1], even with additional layers of surveillance and thousands of dedicated staff reviewing CCTV footage, cell tower location data, and calling those suspected exposed to confirmed cases.
All the while efficient contact-tracing teams—including
members of the police and the army—identified and isolated
thousands of people possibly infected with the virus.
Members of the armed forces have been making up to 2,000
calls a day to hunt for potential carriers. Those told to
stay at home for 14 days have been monitored assiduously
to ensure compliance. (Unco-operative types face
prosecution or the loss of their residency rights, if they
are not citizens.)
Yet in spite of everything, the virus continues to spread.
Singapore’s approach continues to evolve. Take face masks.
Initially Singaporeans were advised that they did not need
to wear them unless unwell. Then on April 3rd, in his
third televised address on covid-19, Lee Hsien Loong, the
prime minister, said that the government would no longer
discourage their use and would, in fact, distribute
reusable ones to every household. Singapore’s testing
regime may alter too. Currently people’s travel history
and symptoms are among the factors considered before they
are tested for the coronavirus. But health officials say
the approach is reviewed regularly and that wider testing
might be adopted in future.
The difficulty with SARS-CoV-2 is once exposed, there's a window of several days of asymptomatic contagious transmissions. This is a biological health problem, and an app won't stop the spread. Viral fomites are like dust particles, airborne and remaining infectious on surfaces for upwards of 1-9 days depending on environmental factors [2].
Epidemiologists have predicted a global pandemic would happen sooner or later [3], and without a safe treatment the most effective action is to use Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions in any region where the virus might spread. Obviously due to modern air travel, it's now nearly everywhere.
If you haven't seen it, check out Dr. Jim Yong Kim's article in the New Yorker: "It's not too late to go on offense against the Coronavirus" [0]. Dr. Kim led the World Health Organization's fight against AIDS in Africa. He's also fought many other epidemics around the world for thirty years.
In his article, Dr. Kim says that any one tool isn't enough. We need to use a full five-part response to end the pandemic: social distancing, contact tracing, testing, isolation, and treatment.
Contract tracing alone isn't enough (as we saw in Singapore). Neither is social distancing (as we see in the US). Dr. Kim shared that in his experience we need all five parts to end an epidemic.
Well, that doesn't make any sense to me, given the reported experience of some countries like China, South Korea, and New Zealand. Unless they are all covering up/fabricating statistics, then somebody has discovered a silver bullet, even if most places haven't.
It’s the infinite quarantine argument. Nobody will get immune and the vaccine/cure is years into the future, so we all better stay at home forever while the government takes money out of the infinite supply so we can order food that’s not processed in all these factories that are closed.
CBS published this report on the missing weapons stolen by corrupt groups operating within Ukraine. Shortly afterwards they were forced to amend a statement that someone is trying to track the newer shipments, without explaining any sort of actual plan for accountability.
War is racketeering. https://youtube.com/watch?v=ZWzxbS8eUKc