Eslo @eslo_dev

f you are implying that they would resist a DPA order by simply lying that the refineries are "broken", I find that hard to believe, and seems like wishcasting more than anything else. Refiners would still be profiting, just at a smaller margin than before. I also find it difficult to believe that it wouldn't be heavily enforced. I disagree with the US implementing a diesel export ban for the other reasons you listed, but the idea that diesel refiners would fake maintenance doesn't seem to be real analysis.

I am not suggesting building new refineries, I am asking specifically in regard to existing refineries that you suspect would shut down in the case of a export ban. "Step 3: US refineries mysteriously need "maintenance" because it's more profitable for refiners to ship diesel overseas than to sell it domestically" US distillate consumption was 3.90M bpd in 2025. US refinery/blender production was 4.93M bpd. It only imported about 0.16M bpd. So while there may be some mismtaches in the specific type, and geographic limitations, it seems the US can almost entirely provide for its own domestic consumption without the need for new refineries.

@geniusliberator And how is that relevant at all to the thread? How does that normalize the OECD data to make it comparable across countries? The wikipedia article you linked doesn't even show unemployment rates, it shows employment rates.

Answer how this is relevant at all to the thread or I will block you. This is the third time you post something completely irrelevant, and frankly stupid. It is bordering on illiteracy for you to keep doing this sort of thing. France is lower than the US. What conclusion can we draw from that? The answer is nothing.

@geniusliberator @veverwh82 @thinkingshivers How is this relevant to this thread at all? Did you even look at your own link? It’s above but similar to the OECD average lol

Man… I see so many French people with interesting and innovative ideas on this site. Yet they all seem to be slow to get capital and expand. Please just come to the US. Not only will you become insanely wealthy, you will have the opportunity, infrastructure, and investment capital to make a truly game changing company or product. I look at Europe and feel so sad, because it is a continent filled with brilliant people and brilliant ideas, yet it seems like it can’t stop getting in its own way. The US has its own issues for sure, but at least one positive is that it really does allow innovation to flourish. Come to America. Give it a try. I really think you could be really successful here.

Many of us remember. We share sorrow for the British, and other allied lives lost. We are grateful. Of all things Trump has done that have ranged from irritating to repulsive, disrespecting the contributions and lives lost by our allies has been among the most despicable. For that I am truly sorry. It is my deepest hope that the US and UK can return to being as close partners as possible. The special relationship is real, and any leader should treat it as such.

Tyler, I again ask in good faith - what is your proposition here? I have seen you state, in increasingly strong terms, your concern and alarm about AI. Yet you have yet to provide a realistic avenue to slow the pace of AI development without relying on misplaced idealism (as far as I know). The obvious dominant strategy for both the US and China is to cheat and defect from any binding agreement. The US is beholden to its people and founding documents. The PRC, as led by the CCP, is beholden to nobody. So I ask again, what is the verification system that you are proposing? Anyone who has sufficient knowledge of both nuclear arms and AI will tell you that they are completely different beasts. As a software engineer, I can tell you that any attempt to regulate AI growth in a transparent manner in China is totally futile. There is no foolproof verification system. I don’t even see evidence for a system that might work in a hypothetical scenario. These are not nuclear warheads. These are payload delivery systems. These are not silos. You cannot even begin to hope to regulate such a thing in a country like China. So what is your proposition? I have seen none aside from hoping that China plays nice. If AI is as dangerous as some have speculated it to be, that only increases the dominant strategy of both the US and China to procure it as fast as possible, or to cheat in a binding agreement. It should be obvious which nation would have less trouble defecting in such an agreement due to transparency and accountability histories and rules. If AI is not as dangerous as some have speculated it to be, such a pacing agreement is not as dire of a need as it is currently made out to be. I ask this genuinely, what is your proposal here? What are you hoping to achieve by restricting AI growth, in specific terms? By what means do you expect to be able to enforce and verify compliance from China? I encourage you to sit down with an engineer working on these systems and ask them how hard they think it would be to hide the progress of these models given the state capacity of the CCP. Personally, I can tell you that it would be trivial. I also encourage you to read what Dario says on China as well. x.com/eslo_dev/statu…

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Eslo @eslo_dev

2 weeks ago

@Aviation_Intel I respect you and your work a lot, but I can’t help feel you have a strong, personal bias against AI. Between this and previous posts on it, I understand you have grave concerns about it, especially its impact on employment. I know you’ve also had work stolen and regurgitated by

2 2 10 2K 2

I respect you and your work a lot, but I can’t help feel you have a strong, personal bias against AI. Between this and previous posts on it, I understand you have grave concerns about it, especially its impact on employment. I know you’ve also had work stolen and regurgitated by AI. I sincerely sympathize with that. It is awful. However, I don’t really understand what your proposition is. Can we be open to engagement with China on the topic of pacing AI for the sake of safety? Sure. Yet, viewing it from a realistic point of view, how would this be enforced or even verified? It is not like a nuclear arsenal which can be counted. The only hope I would have for China reducing the speed of AI development is that it fears it could upset the power that the CCP currently wields. I don’t know if that would hold, but that will occur with or without US involvement. You yourself acknowledge that this is basically a second Manhattan Project. There were risks then. The stakes were higher. I’d argue the same applies here. In a more ideal world, maybe an AI pacing agreement could work. The truth of the matter is that a simple realpolitik analysis of the situation reveals that it probably won’t be productive. Both sides have too much to lose. The dominant strategy for both the US and China is to go ahead at breakneck pace. I am not opposed to trying to have some level of cooperation and dialogue. Yet I fear that any binding agreement we enter would only be honored by the US, resulting in a self-inflicted strategic handicap in a world where American comparative advantages in a conflict with China are eroding.

Back at it again with a long one, but can't help myself on the Space Academy topic. Interesting to read some of the policy experts who have taken skeptical, and in some cases negative, public positions on the need for a United States Space Academy. People are certainly entitled to their opinions. There are also those who believe we should not build a single spaceship or invest in technological progress until we solve every problem on Earth. That is simply not how you build a better future for our children. I suspect, for some, the objection has more to do with the politics than the merits. So let me address a few of the common concerns and offer some rationale. Global dependence on space is increasing at an astronomical rate. Weather forecasting, disaster response, precision navigation, communications, agriculture, national security and scientific discovery all depend on capabilities in orbit. Connecting the disconnected and expanding access to knowledge is itself foundational to solving many of the world's problems. The data we will be taking in, whether from Earth observation or instruments like Roman, will answer questions we do not even know to ask today. And there is no going back from the trajectory we are on. A decade ago, the FAA was overseeing barely more than a dozen commercial space launches per year. Today, nearly a dozen U.S. companies are operating or developing orbital launch systems, chasing economic opportunity measured in the trillions. But the upside is far greater than economics. Think about what we stand to learn scientifically, what technologies will have to be pioneered to explore out there, and how many of those breakthroughs will make life better back here. Our new national space transportation policy calls for the United States to support more than 1,000 launches annually by 2030. Some already believe that is off by an order of magnitude. America will certainly establish a permanent outpost on another world in the years ahead, and we are not alone in our ambitions. That outpost will become NASA's proving ground for where we go next. Mars. And then we continue on. It is our destiny to harness more of the energy of our star, unlock more of the energy potential in matter, and venture farther outward, in the same spirit as the explorers of centuries past who discovered the New World. And we have no idea how quickly that timeline could accelerate in a world transformed by artificial superintelligence, robotics, quantum technologies and additive manufacturing. All of it is unfolding in the context of a great power competition where falling behind could materially affect our way of life and the trajectory of civilizations. I do know the future will require a bright new generation educated and prepared for this environment. Many will serve in inherently governmental roles. They will need specialized education in disciplines that barely exist today, including nuclear power and propulsion for space applications, before having the opportunity to continue careers across government or the private sector. If you understand the increasingly important and contested environment above us, then a Space Academy is as timely and necessary today as the Space Force has already proven to be. So what are the objections? It blurs the line between peaceful applications in space and the military. This may be the weakest argument I have seen. NASA's history began with astronauts flying to space on ballistic missiles. Several Space Shuttle missions were, and remain, classified. NASA Aeronautics flies repurposed U-2 spy planes for high-altitude research and F-15s for high-speed research. Breakthroughs pioneered through NASA aeronautics have benefited civil aviation and national security alike. The U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, under the Department of Transportation, graduates students who go into industry, government and the military. Some have even become astronauts. Three of the four Artemis II astronauts came from the military, as have many NASA astronauts throughout our history, and some have continued serving in uniform after their NASA careers. NASA's mission is as peaceful as it is patriotic. We explore for the benefit of all humankind, but we go there under our flag. That mission would be impossible without the Guardians standing watch over the domain as we venture outward. There is no contradiction in giving future civil, commercial and national security space leaders a common educational foundation, especially when our adversaries draw no such distinction themselves. What about the cost? Congressional leaders and Governors from both parties have been reaching out and assembling potential funding packages. It is interesting, I face questions during congressional hearings over whether we are investing enough in STEM education. We can absorb billions of dollars in canceled programs from mismanagement. But investing in the education of the next generation, in a domain increasingly central to our scientific, economic and national security future, is somehow uneconomical? We should look past the politics on this one. Go back to 1963, when the world was captivated by the possibilities of space, and remember another iconic JFK speech. He reminded us that we all treasure our children's future. Fittingly, he delivered those words at a university commencement. It is time for another great American academy. A United States Space Academy worthy of the extraordinary adventure ahead.

“I will keep this paper as a memento of how desperate China is, and how ineffective its position is in the face of a free audience” He is so fucking based lmao. Incredible. If the Philippines can show this much backbone, what the fuck are the rest of us doing, with much deeper pockets and much deeper arsenals? Amazing from Teodoro.

MAHIYA NAMAN KAYO | Secretary of National Defense Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. responded to a note from the Chinese side during the Seoul Defense Dialogue (SDD) 2026 in Seoul, Republic of Korea. #DNDPHL #DiKaPasisiil #SDD2026

@InsiderGeo He’s just so dumb. Iceland just voted against talks on joining the EU, a perfect time for the US to capitalize and increase its influence and presence in the Arctic, and he does this. Just so tiring, and for what purpose? Zero gain from it.

Very much appreciate the work you do. Surprised that this post brought a certain type of social media user out of the woodwork, despite it being in the defense of 20th century China! You would think that they could appreciate the point you are making, considering how harmful it was at the time to so many Chinese. I have a lot of respect for you to patiently continue to engage Shen Shiwei and similar. It is important work, regardless of if they speak in good faith. But don’t get too bogged down in it! Shiwei, among others, use “international law” as a cudgel. There isn’t a belief in the underlying institutions or intentions. Its sole purpose to them is to extract as much leverage as possible, and use it against others. Ironically enough, take this tweet of Shiwei’s as an example. He is dishonest enough to use the archaic “enemy state clauses” as justification for military action against Japan, despite it being anachronistic and obsolete. There isn’t a genuine interest in cooperation, candor, or progress. Again, I truly appreciate your work. Keep it up!

Shen Shiwei 沈诗伟 @shen_shiwei

10 months ago

🇨🇳Chinese Embassy in🇯🇵#Japan cites🇺🇳UN Charter ‘enemy state clauses’ amid ongoing row due to Takaichi’s erroneous remarks. The UN Charter's "enemy state clauses" allows founding members of the UN, including China, to take direct military action if any of the former enemy states

85 28 192 46K 16

@BaldingsWorld Even has a name lol en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_pa…

@lthlnkso I had the displeasure of attending the same school as this guy. I see he has made no improvement lol.

@mercoglianos This video is 12 days old and occurred on August 20th. Probably shouldn’t rely on an account called “The IRGC Iran Affairs” lol youtube.com/watch?v=fGmlbV…

Immensely grateful to @NASA for the opportunity to serve and contribute. While I’ll miss the tech, the hardware, and the missions, it’s the people I’ll miss most. Our greatest asset will always be each other, led with empathy and care. I’m spending my final year in the Navy with Training Air Wing 2, giving back by teaching and mentoring the next generation of naval aviators before taking on the next chapter, bringing all my energy to solving hard problems, building with hardcore teams, and driving positive impact.

International Space Station @Space_Station

4 weeks ago

.@NASA astronaut Jonny Kim retires from the agency after nearly 10 years and one mission aboard the International Space Station. He will serve as lieutenant commander in the @USNavy. More... go.nasa.gov/4glk25z

228 724 11K 3.2M 556