This take misses the real un-stated strategic mistake which is what I'm pretty sure Merz actually means but can't say aloud.
Shutting down nuclear reactors means you lose a source of plutonium that can be diverted to weapons manufacturing. You also lose nuclear engineers and workers with skills and knowledge to fabricate with fissile materials which you need to manufacture those weapons.
Similarly, the reason so many countries have a civilian rocket launching program in spite of having no chance in hell in beating SpaceX economically is to have scientists and engineers who can build missiles if needed.
These are just insurance policies. Both Japan and Korea have them for instance. As recent events have shown, countries without nuclear weapons are essentially defenceless against and dependent on those with them.
This is true, but I don't think the reason for his proclamation. It would be very unlike him.
For better or worse there is zero chance that Germany starts a nuclear weapons program. The public sentiment just won't allow that unless we are already at war, in which case it is too late. Besides that, nuclear weapons are stationed in Germany already. France and the UK are next door, so I am also not sure if it would actually benefit Germany at this point.
> Are you saying countries without shipbuilding facilities or not producing semicondutors are being conquered and their citizens being slaughtered?
Yes that is a clear risk. For most of human history, powerful leaders have unleashed violence on their neighbors to increase their wealth and prestige. For about 70 years, the cold war balance prevented very catastrophic wars between powerful nations but we now seem to be having an atavistic throw back of powerful nations being led by expansionist leaders. You either need to create your own manufacturing capacity or be at the mercy of others.
The point of the whole Congressional exercise was to grab ownership of a highly lucrative social network on the cheap to the American investor class. Whoever won the presidential election got to choose the winners.
You are assuming military pilots will pay attention enough to unilaterally notice and stay clear without making mistakes. In the Dulles disaster at least, this clearly didn't happen.
With transponders on, both aircraft (via TCAS) and the air traffic controllers are able to pay attention and avoid the situation, so much better chance of catching.
This does seem insane from a civilian perspective, but I'm curious to know the military side of it. Is this totally normal and not something they worry about, or is this as crazy as it seems for everyone involved?
From what I have seen, I believe that both types of aircrafts are controlled by the same ATC. Otherwise, the two ATCs will have to coordinate among themselves to create non intersecting vectors for each aircraft - which sounds needlessly tedious. But the military does have its own ATCs in many areas. They usually separate the airspace into 'civilian corridors' and 'military corridors', each under the control of the respective ATCs. In conflict zones though, the military operates entirely under their own control. The concept of ATC becomes a bit blurred here. The aircrafts are vectored either by ship-based controllers or more frequently by AEW&CS aircrafts. This is what I assume was happening with the tanker in the story. They were near Venezuela and the Curacao ATC had no information about the tanker.
Hopefully I'll finally get to see Chernobyl and Game of Thrones. It's virtually impossible outside of US or Europe to legally stream so many movies and series.
Here's Gemini 3's answer with reasoning. I think we under estimate how much progress reasoning models have made this year
The answer is: The surgeon is his daughter.
(Alternatively, the surgeon could be his other son.)
Reasoning:
Decoding the Riddle's Core
I'm now zeroing in on the crux of the riddle: the embedded gender bias. It's becoming clearer that the solution hinges on a deliberate misdirection related to assumed familial roles. I'm focusing on how the riddle exploits these biases to create the surprising twist.
Pinpointing the Key Shift
I've just finalized the solution. Initially, I missed the crucial implication of the riddle's phrasing. Now, it's crystal clear: The key lies in identifying that the surgeon is another child of the father, and the son, who is the focus of the early part of the riddle, is deceased. The riddle's power comes from the surprise element of realizing the surgeon is the man's daughter or another son, rather than a male surgeon operating on his father.
Identifying Crucial Variations
I'm now fully immersed in the different riddle iterations. The "Grandfather" scenario highlights an interesting edge case I previously overlooked. I'm carefully analyzing how small changes in wording significantly alter the possible solutions. I'm focusing on the implied family relationships.
Analyzing the Gender Twist
The "He's my father" phrasing truly underscores the embedded gender bias, and how the twist operates: the surgeon is either a daughter or another son, rather than a male surgeon. The riddle plays on the common assumption that a surgeon is male. I've re-examined the key sentence structure. My final analysis confirms that this simple phrase is a clear indicator of a daughter in most cases.
Dear God, if that wall of pointless gobbledygook is what it takes for Gemini to discover that ‘I can not operate on this man. He’s my father!’ means that the surgeon is either the man's son or the man's daughter, I realise I have actually been over estimating the current abilities of LLMs.
If there's one thing the history of mass internet servuces teaches us, it is that people switch to platforms with superior product/experience in an instant.
Remember Lycos, Yahoo, & Hotmail? They all had strong userbases for their time who switched in an instant to Google Search & Gmail.
Even with network effects, it is very difficult to compete without outright superiority - remember Orkut, MySpace, Google Plus or even Facebook? Meta made the right decision buying Instagram and WhatsApp instead of trying to sustain Facebook.
There are no lock-ins in Chat assistants at all and no network effects. All evidence suggests now cutting edge high performance models are mostly coming out of Google, Anthropic etc and high efficiency models are coming out of China. ChatGPT also appears to have a disadvantage in the talent war - mostly because talent seems to not like to work with the management.
Also almost no one I know uses ChatGPT now as their primary AI assistant now because they feel the quality of answers from others are simply superior (I check case by case) and the same seems to hold in more formal tests in AI enabled product development. Even Microsoft has started hedging bets with Anthropic.
OpenAI really really needs to focus on outright superiority or it's going to be interesting to see how the financial shakeout is going to play.
Nah, people using Yahoo are still using it today. What happened was the growth of new users of the Internet in general was so massive, T+1 cohort’s early adopters outnumbered T cohort’s majority. the better product won, it’s just that the friction of switching didn’t matter. Switchers didn’t matter.
On one hand, true, my mom still uses Yahoo. But email has a strong network effect - you need to update everyone & every service who has your @yahoo address. Switching does happen there are no network effects. Nobody uses Mapquest or Ask Jeeves.
Shutting down nuclear reactors means you lose a source of plutonium that can be diverted to weapons manufacturing. You also lose nuclear engineers and workers with skills and knowledge to fabricate with fissile materials which you need to manufacture those weapons.
Similarly, the reason so many countries have a civilian rocket launching program in spite of having no chance in hell in beating SpaceX economically is to have scientists and engineers who can build missiles if needed.
These are just insurance policies. Both Japan and Korea have them for instance. As recent events have shown, countries without nuclear weapons are essentially defenceless against and dependent on those with them.
reply