- Welcome to Languish.org.
Recent posts
#61
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Sheilbh - November 23, 2025, 04:50:17 PMThat's why I flagged that how it would be enforced or monitored is undefined and that's the essential bit - again tied to security guarantees.
#62
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Tamas - November 23, 2025, 04:47:51 PMBut you are still basing your argument on taking the Russian offer at face value. The DMZ thing is irrelevant. First of all that's still Russian territory. Second of all, as evidenced during their 2022 preparation, in the age of satellites it's not like they could manage a strategic or even a tactical surprise if they had the ability to legally move troops right next to the border. And if they wanted to, creating a pretext is laughably easy as they showed in 2014 and 2015 with the Donbas "civilians" getting their SPG out of the shed to fight Ukrainian oppression.
#63
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Sheilbh - November 23, 2025, 04:34:58 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 23, 2025, 04:11:35 PMIt isn't very close though. It demands a lot and offers only things the Ukrainians have received several times over already (a vague promise not to attack them).Okay replace deal with settlement. And I didn't say it's very close. As I say to me it seems like the first serious Russian proposal in that it's the first won that looks like it could even form the basis of talks for what a settlement could end up like
A "deal" implies both sides give up things. Russia doesn't give up anything in that "proposal" because the "proposal" does not prevent them from taking everything else they want, at a later date. In fact, it just makes it easier for them to do so.
I don't disagree on the right or wrong, but Ukraine isn't winning. The US is withdrawing. The Europeans are not willing or able to replace that US withdrawl, far less go over it sufficient to cause a shift in Ukraine's favour (in part because of Europe's own military and development spending). And Ukraine is facing its worst winter and real problems politically (especially the corruption scandal) and economically that could get even worse, while Russia isn't on the edge of collapse. There are big challenges for Russian but they're far more easily surmountable. It is not clear to me that Ukraine's position gets any easier from here in the short term (though I think 2026 will be tough for Russia).
Also there are shifts from previous Russian positions. For example instead of just taking the rest of Donetsk they would take it but it would be a DMZ (no detail on how this would be enforced or monitored but a change), a significantly higher "cap" on Ukraine's army, no exclusion of Ukraine joining the EU (though the EU would be mad to let them in any time soon) - but I think the big shift is the vagueness around security guarantees that hasn't previously been present.
As I say it is far from final - I'd frame it as what you'd expect Russia's opening position to look like if they intended to reach a settlement at the end of it - but I think in particular that space for real security guarantees is something that is absolutely key for Ukraine and has been missing in every previous Russian offer.
#64
Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...
Last post by Jacob - November 23, 2025, 04:27:55 PMAre these statements about delivering Quebec into the hands of Trump something from French language media? If so, I'd love a link or two so I can read about it in translation.
#65
Off the Record / Re: The China Thread
Last post by Jacob - November 23, 2025, 04:25:46 PMI appreciate the analysis Minsky. Thank you 
#66
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Tamas - November 23, 2025, 04:11:35 PMQuoteI agree this is clearly not drafted by diplomats or anyone who cares about the details. But it also struck me as the first Russian proposal that looks even close to the area of what a final deal might look like so I don't think this is the deal - but I think it may be start of serious talks on what that is.
It isn't very close though. It demands a lot and offers only things the Ukrainians have received several times over already (a vague promise not to attack them).
A "deal" implies both sides give up things. Russia doesn't give up anything in that "proposal" because the "proposal" does not prevent them from taking everything else they want, at a later date. In fact, it just makes it easier for them to do so.
#67
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Sheilbh - November 23, 2025, 04:09:35 PMI think as in previous attempts the goal for European governments will be to coordinate with Kyiv on how to reject this without appearing like the party that doesn't want to do a deal - if that's the choice in Kyiv.
I was really struck by quite how much Zelensky talked about how tough this winter is being and that many Ukrainians want peace. From everything I understand it is the worst winter since the war started and morale isn't great. There are only invidious options for Zelensky but I got the sense that in part he was trying to start to prepare Europe for the possibility of talks (I think there may be a bit of a "blame Ukraine" game in Europe if there is peace, particularly with the current corruption scandal).
We also need to acknowledge that Russia is experiencing economic problems which will intensify in 2026, but it is not on the point of collapse. It is adding 30k volunteers every month so is able to carry on grinding and I think it's more than possible that they decide they ae winning so just continue.
I agree this is clearly not drafted by diplomats or anyone who cares about the details. But it also struck me as the first Russian proposal that looks even close to the area of what a final deal might look like so I don't think this is the deal - but I think it may be start of serious talks on what that is.
Just to return to Europe who I imagine are working out how to support Kyiv on this as we speak - it is twelve months since Trump's election, ten months since his inauguration, nine months since Vance's appearance at Munich and the ambush of Zelensky in the Oval Office. I have not yet seen the shift I'd hoped to see from European states after those shocks and I slightly worry Europe is step by step adjust to the comfort of being a frog in slowly heating water.
I was really struck by quite how much Zelensky talked about how tough this winter is being and that many Ukrainians want peace. From everything I understand it is the worst winter since the war started and morale isn't great. There are only invidious options for Zelensky but I got the sense that in part he was trying to start to prepare Europe for the possibility of talks (I think there may be a bit of a "blame Ukraine" game in Europe if there is peace, particularly with the current corruption scandal).
We also need to acknowledge that Russia is experiencing economic problems which will intensify in 2026, but it is not on the point of collapse. It is adding 30k volunteers every month so is able to carry on grinding and I think it's more than possible that they decide they ae winning so just continue.
I agree this is clearly not drafted by diplomats or anyone who cares about the details. But it also struck me as the first Russian proposal that looks even close to the area of what a final deal might look like so I don't think this is the deal - but I think it may be start of serious talks on what that is.
Just to return to Europe who I imagine are working out how to support Kyiv on this as we speak - it is twelve months since Trump's election, ten months since his inauguration, nine months since Vance's appearance at Munich and the ambush of Zelensky in the Oval Office. I have not yet seen the shift I'd hoped to see from European states after those shocks and I slightly worry Europe is step by step adjust to the comfort of being a frog in slowly heating water.
#68
Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread
Last post by Admiral Yi - November 23, 2025, 03:22:23 PMQuote from: Josquius on November 23, 2025, 03:10:10 PMAh you meant focusing on the ad part directly vs focusing on the front end services.
It's breaking up the front end that usually gets the attention but it is the back end that is absolutely the problem.
It is heavily reliant on the front end however so say forcing Google to sell youtube for example would damage the actual ad monopoly.
HVCs figures sound like what I've seen for what Google actually owns.
The actual ads on Google, on the space that it owns directly, is only a small part of its operations and alone wouldn't be an issue.
I didn't mean anything by focus. I was asking you what you meant.
I'm starting to get the impression that y'all are talking about the stuff in Hillary's link when you talk about "monopoly in advertising." Am I right? Ad exchange and publisher ad server (whatever that means).
#69
Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread
Last post by The Minsky Moment - November 23, 2025, 03:17:48 PMThe Sherman and Clayton antitrust statutes are over 100 years old. The dominant legal paradigm for interpreting and applying those laws draws upon the work of Robert Bork in the Antitrust Paradox, a book published in 1978. I.e. they are 50+ year old ideas at this point. Antitrust theory is still based on a late industrial economy, at a time when the leading companies were Exxon, GM, and US Steel and where "technology" meant IBM mainframes and long-distance hardline phone service.
The common law recognized the doctrine of "unconscionability": basically courts would police private contract for substantive fairness. Those doctrines still have a vestigial existence but have been whittled done to almost nothing over the decades. The common law required that private contract involve true "meeting of the minds." But when software companies sought to enforce "clickwrap" contracts, the courts and legislatures obliged. Now we accept the daily reality of a world where our participation in virtually every aspect of commercial and civil life is conditioned on clicking "I accept" to a vast array of complex terms that no one could or does read. Our rush to encourage technological development has upended the basic assumptions underlying market capitalism.
The common law did not recognize the corporation. A proprietor was personally liable for business obligations, as were the partners of a partnership. A corporate charter was a state privilege, given on conditions that it apply to a strictly delimited set of activities, and accompanied by obligations to maintain minimum levels of capital. That is long gone; private capital easily led the states into a regulatory race to the bottom, where we have remained ever since. Now corporations are clothed with all incidents of personhood and the full panoply of constitutional rights, with no obligations other than the grudging limitation to not commit outright fraud. Except now even that is no longer strictly enforced, at least for the "right" people.
We do not live in the late 19th century world in which the antitrust laws were originally drafted, nor the mid-20th century world when they finally enjoyed meaningful application, nor even the late 20th century world that formed how we understand and apply those laws today. We live in a very different early 21st century world where the organization and application of commercial power is fundamentally different. But power is what the antitrust laws were about. They were born in the last gilded age, out of concern over the gross mismatch between corporate power and citizen power. That same problem exists today, but in a different technological and organizational context. The paradigm of Bork's "Paradox" no longer applies and a new one is required that focuses on the realities of corporate power in the 21st century.
The common law recognized the doctrine of "unconscionability": basically courts would police private contract for substantive fairness. Those doctrines still have a vestigial existence but have been whittled done to almost nothing over the decades. The common law required that private contract involve true "meeting of the minds." But when software companies sought to enforce "clickwrap" contracts, the courts and legislatures obliged. Now we accept the daily reality of a world where our participation in virtually every aspect of commercial and civil life is conditioned on clicking "I accept" to a vast array of complex terms that no one could or does read. Our rush to encourage technological development has upended the basic assumptions underlying market capitalism.
The common law did not recognize the corporation. A proprietor was personally liable for business obligations, as were the partners of a partnership. A corporate charter was a state privilege, given on conditions that it apply to a strictly delimited set of activities, and accompanied by obligations to maintain minimum levels of capital. That is long gone; private capital easily led the states into a regulatory race to the bottom, where we have remained ever since. Now corporations are clothed with all incidents of personhood and the full panoply of constitutional rights, with no obligations other than the grudging limitation to not commit outright fraud. Except now even that is no longer strictly enforced, at least for the "right" people.
We do not live in the late 19th century world in which the antitrust laws were originally drafted, nor the mid-20th century world when they finally enjoyed meaningful application, nor even the late 20th century world that formed how we understand and apply those laws today. We live in a very different early 21st century world where the organization and application of commercial power is fundamentally different. But power is what the antitrust laws were about. They were born in the last gilded age, out of concern over the gross mismatch between corporate power and citizen power. That same problem exists today, but in a different technological and organizational context. The paradigm of Bork's "Paradox" no longer applies and a new one is required that focuses on the realities of corporate power in the 21st century.
#70
Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread
Last post by Josquius - November 23, 2025, 03:10:10 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on November 23, 2025, 02:41:21 PMSeven posts up, fourth line down, fifth word.Ah you meant focusing on the ad part directly vs focusing on the front end services.
If you've been clear what the issue is, the answers to my questions should be simple.
Google is the owner of a small fraction of the billboards in the world, owns a small fraction of the printing machines, and employs a small fraction of the guys who put the posters up.
Googled it and turns out the own 29.7% of the *digital* ad market, which is not the total ad market.
It's breaking up the front end that usually gets the attention but it is the back end that is absolutely the problem.
It is heavily reliant on the front end however so say forcing Google to sell youtube for example would damage the actual ad monopoly.
HVCs figures sound like what I've seen for what Google actually owns.
The actual ads on Google, on the space that it owns directly, is only a small part of its operations and alone wouldn't be an issue.