hbd-investor

It is economically rational, the game masters/ruling class/aristocracy/epstein class keeps the peasants around because they need their labor.

Once AI can replace them, keeping the peasants around means they gobble up your energy, food, land, resources while returning nothing.

He is not advocating for exterminating people, he is just being a realist, like it or not this is the most likely outcome. Having humans is not a advantage since their usefulness is low and their resource consumption is high. The first country to get rid of them and replace them with machines will have a unassailable economic advantage. China and Russia will ultimately lose since they are nationalists dedicated to preserving the chinese and russian ethnicities. They will keep their humans around and be outcompeted.

This is nonsense humans would be irrelevant and useless in war with machines.

A machine has superior eyes and reflexes, a single robot with a gun would kill a infinite number of humans with the same gun.

China is designed so that the rich don't get infinitely richer in perpetuity forever thus creating a permanent aristocratic class of people who don't work forever

This was the main issue before the communists took over, a massive class of idle rich people who bought up on the land and lived luxurious lifestyles by collecting returns on capital. A massive population of landless serfs who lived paycheck to paycheck, their entire agricultural surplus getting taxed by the landlords.

The Chinese system is designed so that if for some reason you have a shiton of money, theres no way to grow that money infinitely without working.

Your only options are

1. Put it in the stockmarket (The Chinese government extracts profits from the companies when they make too much, caps them if they make too much profit, or demands they contribute to national priorities) 2. Put it into a bank owned by the Government (you lose money due to inflation) 3. Real estate (Many rich people flocked to real estate, until the government said homes were for living in, and not for speculation)

This is why there is a massive corruption network dedicated to funneling money and assets out of china

To get rich in China you need to build a company, To stay rich you need to keep building, your heir needs to keep building.

the state acts as a central aggregator, taking surplus value from capital and converting it into public goods that raise the overall baseline for ordinary citizens

This is mostly irrelevant to AI development what you should be looking at are STEM phds, particularly in CS, electrical and computer engineering and Math

Lets see how these numbers stack up

Annual PHDS

CS: US = 2300 China = 5500 ECE: US = 2400 China = 7500 Math: US = 2200 China = 4500

Now of the US PHDS what percentage of the PHD's are awarded to students from China?

CS: 32% ECE: 35% Math: 26%

The Chinese market is this way because the people that run chinese companies have deep knowledge of actually how to make products, frequently engage in industrial espionage, and are willing do expend tons of effort just to undercut a competitor by 10 cents.

The magic is not in am i making a different widget. Its how that widget is made, what are all the machines involved in making that widget. Could i design a machine to make the exact same widget, but with reduced vibrations, 10% less electricity, and reduce maintenance by 10% while still maintaining quality?

For example

If they see a company making widgets, and this company makes them by using 10 custom engineered machines with a lifetime production run of 5 each, each of these 10 custom made machines needs to be designed by a army of engineers working for years.

A competitor in china will do espionage, the CEO's and upper management will study these 10 machines in depth, see where they could make improvements and if they see a opportunity like hey machine number 3 , 7 and 10 are designed like X, if we design it like Y we could cut electricity consumption by 10%. This will allow use to undercut their widgets for 10 cents.

The people running US corps are all business bros, and the people are lazy, they aren't interested in doing years of labor, to make a production line of 10 machines to undercut another billion dollar company for 10 cents.

If you go to your local chinatown, the chinese restaurants operate this way always constantly looking to crush their competitors, always trying to improve supply chains, always looking to cut costs and undercut competitors. Looking to cut out middlemen.

The important thing is not the product, its the machine that makes the product.

A lot of the tech in china in invisible, normal people don't buy machines the size of a pickup truck, runs on 3kv and has 500 hp motors, has a production run of 5 of these machines ever built, is custom designed by engineers and weighs as much as 4 pickup trucks.

2 companies can build the same product that looks similar and operates the same.

But they can end up with vastly different price points when you look at how the factory is designed, how these massive custom machines are engineered.

You need to keep in mind to make one product you need to design and build like 10 machines, these machines are each the size and weight of 1->4 pickup trucks, BOM's with 10,000+ components, are filled with circuit boards, sensors, takes an army of engineers multiple years etc... and the company is going to build like 5 of these machines in the lifetime of the design.

China's competitive advantage is basically this and why the products that can be made by hand aren't moving from china to 3rd world countries. They have a lot of engineers, with this type of experience and a lot of invisible tech that average consumers don't see.

Their machines that make products are not only expertly designed, maintained, but they squeeze out as much efficiency as possible in things like electricity consumption, cooling, minimizing maintenance over millions of cycles of running these machines, and pass these to consumers as lower costs. China is very competitive, if your machine making widgets isn't well designed, a competitor will design their own widget making machine that consumes 40% electricity and requires half the maintenance and then will undercut your widgets.

*Adding a note the 1.6 seconds dwell is how long it takes to cook the air to air missile. But within .2 seconds it is already blinded.

So my analysis is biased

For the ship scenario the ship needs to completely cook the missile, the missile is protected by ceramics and seeing with AESA

For the J-36 scenario the missile has a glass dome and is using a heat seeker. .2 seconds of direct laser is enough to blind it and destroy detector elements.

>Irrelevant, lasers move at the speed of light.

I don't think you understand the setup

Setup number 1 = Fighter is fleeing at mach 2 from a mach 5 missile

Setup number 2 = Ship is fleeing at 40mph from a mach 5 missile

Lasers moving at the speed of light is irrelevant, what matters is the engagement time and dwell time

engagement time = time it takes missile to hit target from 10km range (estimated range of laser effectiveness)

Dwell time = How long the laser needs to shine on a target before cooking it China's J-36 will be moving at mach 2 and blasting the missile with the defensive laser.

The ship will be doing the same. What this means is that China's J-36 will have around a 12 second window to blast the missile. The ship only has around 5 seconds before it impacts!

>THis may all be true, but the problems of heating dynamics remain. A laser cannot requires cooling times for both plane and ship because of heat, which limits the frequency it can be used.

The laser is only for defensive applications, its not going to be blasting for 10 minutes straight. It only needs around 3 seconds of dwell time to cook air to air missiles that are fired at it. The J-36 can handle this by using the heat from the laser to dump to heat into preheating its fuel.

>Dont tell me, tell the he navies of the world who have tried and failed to create lasers mounted on ships.

Because they don't work on sea - The laser is too weak, the target profile is designed to resist heat, and the engagement times are too short. While in a plane vs missile, the laser is stronger (less atmosphere and vapor), The target profile is vulnerable (Primary method to hit a stealth fighter is to use a heatseeking missile and not using a radar seeker), and engagement time is longer (Fighter is fleeing at mach 2)

Let me throw up some numbers for the 2 scenarios

1. Naval Ship vs. Inbound Hypersonic Missile

Missile: Mach 6 (1,950 m/s at sea level) carrying a UHTC ceramic matrix nose cone (2.5 cm thick) protecting an active millimeter-wave radar seeker.

Laser: 300 kW class Naval Solid-State Laser (SSL).

Engagement Envelope: Starts tracking at 15 km; laser fires at 10 km (optical line-of-sight window).

Time required to disable missile: 1.5s (tracking) + 3.8s (dwell) = 5.3 seconds

Time for Hypersonic missile to hit : 5.12 seconds

2. J-36 vs. Air to Air Missile

Missile: Mach 5 (1,475 m/s at 35,000 ft) tail-chasing the jet. Carrying a toughened Sapphire/Yttria optical dome covering a dual-band Infrared Search & Track (IRST) seeker.

Fighter Jet: J-36 fleeing at Mach 2 (590 m/s at 35,000 ft).

Laser: 100 kW class internal pulse-burst laser.

Engagement Envelope: Laser fires rearward at 10 km distance.

Time required to disable missile: 1.2s (tracking) + 1.6s (dwell) = 2.8seconds.

Total time before impact: Because the J-36 is fleeing at Mach 2, it takes the missile 11.3 seconds to catch up and hit the J-36.

Conclusion

The ship with a 300kw laser, will take 5.3 seconds to disable a hypersonic anti ship missile. The hypersonic antiship missile will take 5.12 seconds to hit the ship.

The J-36 with a 100kw laser, will take 2.8 seconds to disable a Air to Air Infrared missile. The air to air missile will take 11.3 seconds to hit the J-36.

You are wrong MiroslavPokorny

The physics change entirely when its Air to Air laser defense vs Ship to air laser defense.

There are numerous things that shift the math

1. Speed difference

The Stealth fighter is moving at mach 2 The Ship is moving at 40 mph

A fleeing stealth fighter will be able to fire at the incoming missile far longer

2. Atmospheric difference

At sea level, humidity, salt spray, and atmospheric thermal turbulence absorb beam energy, causing thermal blooming

At Sea Level: Air density is 100%. A 100 kW laser beam diverges quickly and may struggle to keep a tight focal point beyond 3 to 5 km.

At 45,000 Feet: Air density drops by 80% down to roughly 20% and water vapor is almost zero.

3. Missile types and threat profiles

The missile likely to take down a stealth fighter is a infrared air to air missile. They have glass domes that allow light and heat to enter. Thus vulnerable to getting blinded

The missile likely to take down a ship is a hypersonic antiship missile, is likely using a AESA seeker and sporting a extremely tough and heat resistant ceramic dome. You cannot blind a AESA seeker, a ship would need a hard kill and to try to burn through a missile body designed to survive the extreme heat and force of moving at hypersonic speeds at low altitudes.

------------------------------------------------------

The physics change entirely, it makes tons of sense from a physics standpoint to have a defensive laser on a fighter jet to defend from air to air missiles. A laser system would prevent infrared missiles from hitting your stealth jets.

While for ships it makes no sense, A laser system can't burn through a hypersonic antiship missile fast enough and will just be a waste.

And before you bring up, muh power the J-36 has 3 engines this is why the chinese put in a 3rd engine inside their 6th gen fighter, the intent of the design was always to install a defensive laser

Lets address your claims line by lines

>It's not that solar cannot scale as is, it simply cannot scale as a power grid

Grid forming inverters have solved all your claims

>Solar is cheap if you only look at the panels and how much energy it produces. It is not cheap if you look at the whole grid, which is something omitted from reports you see.

This is untrue, the math conclusively proves your claims wrong, the solar industry produces a KWH for cheaper than any other source.

All the costs from harvesting raw material, making solar panels from raw material, building batteries, building grid forming inverters etc... are all captured. In the final cost in how much that producer sells a KWH for

Companies that operate solar panels and sell the KWH produced are able to undercut all other power generation companies using other methods.

Fossil fuels are massively subsidized compared to solar companies

Fossil fuels are subsidized by public transportation infrastructure to move their fossil fuels, special tax writeoffs, get to lease land that has oil for dirt cheap from the government. They also get special payments from the government even when they don't produce power, IMF data also shows far more direct subsidies.

Furthermore the trillions we spent on the Iraq war, and now the Iran war are being subsidized by the government that aren't being reflected in the price per KWH of a operator selling KWH generated by fossil fuels (If the oil companies had to use their own profits to pay for war). Oil companies also don't have to pay for negative externalities for exhaust fumes, and dumping waste into the water.

>Relying on China for panels & batteries for energy security?

China cannot cut off panels and batteries, these are commodities, these things are produced and sold in such large numbers that there is no possible way to track down or monitor such information.

These are not Jet Engines, nuclear centrifuges, advanced military microchips, Lithography machines, Rare Earth

There are only a handful of companies that buy rare earth, they are low volume, highly specialized (Hence possible to cut off)

While there are 1,000,000x more companies that buy their panels and inverters from china. Every single gas station, Every single convenience store, Every single grocery store, Every walmart, Every mcdonalds, Every auto repair shop, Every corporate building, Every one with a parking lot etc... would be a potential customer to buy solar panels, and batteries and install their system themselves.

They can cut off Rare Earth because theres a handful of companies in the US that can actually use them. While there are millions of companies in the US buying batteries and/or solar panels.

Once a ship leaves with 50,000 panels theres no tracking them. BTW China produces 1 billion solar panels a year!

Landfills are also a private moneymaking scam, They are owned by private companies, who will make tons of money taking in trash by the ton, then they get paid for 50 years of bogus inspections. After 80 years these private companies will go bankrupt after the owner extracted all the profits. These landfills will remain deadly for 10,000 years. There will be no company around to be liable in the future and will front the money to repair the landfills.

Pretty much all of them will be leaking in the future and poisoning the groundwater for thousands of years. Landfills don't fix the problem, they just dump it onto the humans of the future

Plasmification is cleaner than incineration

A good example is a old PCB board with Lead solder thrown carelessly into the trash

A incinerator gets hot enough to melt organics, but it won't turn the lead into gas

Instead the lead will end up in either the exhaust gases or in the ashes. These ashes will be thrown into a landfill. Over the course of 10,000 years these landfills will end up leaching this lead into groundwater supplies and ending up in our food, soil and in plants.

Plasmification on the other hand, this lead ends up encased in a slag, and will remain that way easily for millions of years. The lead atoms will be locked in a obsidian glasslike rock.

All the bad stuff like heavy metals etc... will end up in the soil for a incinerator, Organics like plastic will be broken down into their base elements carbon/oxygen/nitrogen/water

While all the bad stuff gets encased in slag for Plasmification