Since we are talking about shithouses in Norway and international politics, I should mention as a Frenchman the existence of French toilets with the colours of the French flags and the France national motto displayed on top. In front of the Norwegian parliament in Oslo.
It's also the colours of the Norwegian flag (as well as the US flag). I think the flag is quite literally coloured by the time when the flag was created (1820s, post French revolution).
He is not, remotely, “like them all”, and I think if you are dealing with your remorse this way then, respectfully, you have a little more work to do, not least because it will give you the skills to help you negotiate the current moment where the tech industry has some people who are aberrant in similar ways.
The threat posed by Trump to the USA was evident from the day he announced his candidacy. That his whole presidency would one way or another be about his awful approach to immigration and to Ukraine was evident by the time of the Republican National Convention.
That he would try to overturn an election that he lost was evident before he ran for one.
If you cannot see that this man’s essential pathology is dangerous, I worry you cannot see dangerous parallels in several current tech CEOs (at least two, fairly arguably four or five).
There are many bad and crooked politicians; there are many their colleagues hate. Trump is not a crooked politician except as a side effect.
He’s not the same kind of “bad person” at all; most of us never meet anyone as dangerous.
I think you do need to recognise that you (and don’t get me wrong, millions of others!) voted for someone who is essentially evil (in the literary sense of evil). And really you should have been able to see it, because it wasn’t that hidden.
It shouldn’t stop you voting again because genuinely so few people are like him, though he has found fellow travellers in this administration. (Notably RFK Jr — a shockingly awful man)
But it would be healthy to look at what it was that let you look past his evil.
Because it isn’t about his policies (and because it’s actually quite like turning an oil tanker, especially stuff like undoing tariffs).
Trump is a malignant narcissist. He’s a deeply unusual man.
The Democratic Party had one perennial fringe candidate, Lyndon LaRouche, who was dark-sided in a way Trump is. A really nasty, scary, creepy dude who fairly arguably ran a “business cult”, the LaRouche Group, who was held at arms length by the party.
It has had a few charming “political sociopaths” in the sense of driven people who can make arbitrary choices. It recently efficiently ejected a repeated power abuser (Eric Swalwell).
But nobody like Trump. People like him are rare (and dangerous when they achieve power)
What I'm afraid of if that following the turn toward authoritarianism that we observe worldwide, The Next One will keep all the dreadful legislation that Trump has set up, being more than happy to have them at disposal without having to pay the political cost to create them. Unfortunately, IME, these measures are always a ratchet.
> And really you should have been able to see it, because it wasn’t that hidden.
A lot of his voters saw the cruelty and crassness and liked it. Trump was their vessel for vengeance, as one disappointed Florida voter complained during Trump I "he isn't hurting who he is supposed to be hurting"
I agree with all you said with two caveats. If someone only watched Fox News, they likely didn’t see all this from Trump especially the first time. Second is that Trump is a product of the growing and unaddressed wealth/equality divide. It’s a similar reason we see the rise of the far right in the EU.
People who watched Fox News saw allllll of Trump’s bad traits; he didn’t hide them from Fox viewers. They saw the racism and xenophobia and they loved it.
Admittedly they did not hear about Paul Manafort’s connections to corrupt pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians, or his debts, or that he was mysteriously working for Trump for free, or that he successfully weakened the RNC platform language on providing weapons to Ukraine. They heard very little about the “adoptions” meeting. Fox didn’t cover that. But then it only got a little bit of coverage in mainstream US TV media because it is incompetent.
> The threat posed by Trump to the USA was evident from the day he announced his candidacy.
Why?
Both Democrats and Republicans equally seemed to hate him.
Like there was numerous government shutdowns in his first term because nobody actually liked his agenda. Why was it obvious that eventually both parties would agree to enable him?
Both parties did not enable him. The Dems did not fight him adequately but they did not enable him. He wanted the shutdowns, but the only way not to have a shutdown would have been to make unacceptable concessions. And then he'd have increased his demands and the whole thing would have repeated. Whereas what he got out of the shutdowns is less than he went in with.
You could argue that the left-leaning parts of the media spent a bit too much time laughing at Trump and not enough time worrying about him, but from day one it was obvious who he was and that he had media clout.
Dems gave him a blank check to spend by removing the debt ceiling for his first term.
The minority’s partys job is not to be looking out for the majority. Sure you shouldn’t sandbag but i mean not even republicans liked what he was doing.
It might be possible to use that, because you're of course effectively doubling your memory bandwidth at the cost of a slow interlink. (well, still >100 gbit/s, ie. still better than pcie bandwidth in 5090s or RTX6000 card)
How useful would that actually be for local inference, when the bottleneck is, essentially, always memory size? I think the sweet spot is somewhere around 64 to 128 GB. That ought to be enough for almost all uses, like Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at a decent quant.
Memory size is a bottleneck, but I have found that speed is very important for getting actual work done. Running a big model is great, but if you're getting 10t/s you're going to be spending a lot of time waiting.
I'm not sure how you figured that my political views are odd or whatever you implied with that comment. A bit dismissive and arrogant assumption, don't you think?
reply