Contents: News, Strategy, Maths, Videos, Learn Chinese
News: Russia Burns.
ELMASHina (electrical works) factory Burns in Voronezh https://ura.news/news/1052759414
ENIKMASHina factory (machining works) Burns in Voronezh https://www.unian.net/russianworld/v-rossii-proizoshel-moshchnyy-pozhar-na-mashinostroitelnom-zavode-chto-izvestno-video-12612615.html
https://forpost-sz.ru/a/2024-04-22/v-voronezhe-proizoshyol-pozhar-na-zavode-ehnikmash-v
Metal factory Burns in Moscow Suburb https://www.interfax.ru/russia/957036
Ice Cream & Waffle Factory Burns in Novosibirsk, though this is probably just an accident, unless of course "ice cream" and "waffles" are someone's code words for explosives. https://nsknews.info/materials/proizoshyel-pozhar-na-fabrike-morozhenogo-grospiron-pod-novosibirskom/
Just so me and the monolinguals and never serveds understand each other with the deadly clarity exigences of war impose: We are gonna sink the Russian shadow oil tanker fleet. Not "if". Will. China already gave the green light.
You in fact should be grateful and glad.
STRATEGY
1. Strategy must succeed without regard to enemy decisions. A strategy that relies on the enemy to make a given choice as you desire is a weak strategy. Putin invaded Ukraine expecting the west would eventually grow tired of the war and stop funding Ukraine. Thus, Putin's strategy was weak, from day one.
2. Putin's intelligence was fatally flawed due to echo chamber effect.
3. Putin's leadership was fatally flawed thanks to corruption.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was a catastrophic miscalculation that was doomed from the start. At its core, Vladimir Putin's strategy relied on a flawed assumption that the West would eventually grow tired of the war and stop funding Ukraine. This fundamental error in judgment was a result of Putin's weak strategy, which was predicated on the enemy making a specific choice that he desired. Do you see why predicating your strategy on ENEMY choosing to act as You desire is foolish? If not let me get out my horse whip.
Strategy must succeed without regard to enemy decisions. A strategy that relies on the enemy to make a given choice as you desire is, by definition, a weak strategy. Putin's invasion of Ukraine was an example of this principle. By expecting the West to eventually lose interest in supporting Ukraine, Putin was banking on a specific outcome that was beyond his control. This was a critical mistake, as it ignored the fundamental principles of strategy and diplomacy: why would your opponent do anything other than to inconvenience you? Either Napoleon or perhaps Mao once said in war: do everything possible to inconvenience the enemy! SO a strategy dependent on a an ENEMY choice as You desire is very Very foolish!
So of course I didn't warn him!
Here, have some more "Putin was an idiot, not me."
Putin's decision to invade Ukraine was a direct challenge to the post-World War II international order, which is based on the principle that borders shall not be adjusted by force. This fundamental tenet of international law has been the cornerstone of global stability for over seven decades. By violating this principle, Putin was not only threatening Ukraine's sovereignty but also undermining a core principle inherent to the peace and consequent prosperity of the post-war order. This was a grave miscalculation, as it galvanized the international community against Russia and ensured that the West would not stand idly by while Ukraine was being ravaged by Russian aggression.
But wait! Putin's parade of stupid marches on!
Furthermore, Putin's governance strategy, which relies heavily on corruption and cronyism, is inherently weak compared to liberal democracy. The lack of checks and balances, the suppression of dissenting voices, and the culture of fear that pervades the Russian government all contribute to a system that is prone to bad intelligence and poor decision-making. The yes-men who surround Putin are more interested in currying favor with the autocrat than in providing him with accurate information or sound advice. This creates a giant echo chamber, where Putin is fed a steady diet of propaganda and misinformation that reinforces his own biases and misconceptions.
As a result, Putin believed his own propaganda, and his intelligence agencies became mere instruments of his whims rather than objective providers of information. This led to a catastrophic failure of intelligence, as Putin's advisors and generals were too afraid to tell him the truth about the strength and resilience of the Ukrainian military, the determination of the Ukrainian people, and the resolve of the international community to support Ukraine.
To conclude: Putin's strategy in invading Ukraine was doomed from the start due to a fundamental miscalculation. By relying on the West to make a specific choice, Putin was pursuing a weak strategy that ignored the principles of war, diplomacy, and international law. His governance strategy, which is based on corruption and cronyism, is inherently flawed and prone to bad intelligence and poor decision-making. As a result, Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a catastrophic failure that has resulted in untold human suffering, economic devastation. Ultimately, the “Russian” Federation will collapse.
To reiterate:
Major premise: A strategy that relies on the enemy to make a given choice as you desire is a weak strategy.
Minor premise: Putin's strategy in invading Ukraine relied on the West growing tired of the war and stopping funding to Ukraine.
Conclusion: Therefore, Putin's strategy in invading Ukraine is a weak strategy.
Spoiler: my strategy is righteous, my tactics savage. This will end as I predict, though at what costs and to whose benefit is somewhat open. 欢迎来到我们的未来!
COGNITVE BIASES AND THE GAMBLERS FALLACY EXPLAIN PUTIN’S FAILED STRATEGY
The Russian invasion of Ukraine, orchestrated by Vladimir Putin, can be attributed to a complex interplay of cognitive biases and flawed strategic thinking. At the heart of Putin's mistakes lies a toxic combination of the sunk costs fallacy, the escalation of commitment, and the gambler's fallacy.
The gambler's fallacy, in particular, played a significant role in Putin's decision-making process. This cognitive bias occurs when an individual mistakenly believes that a random event is more likely to happen because it has not happened recently, or that a pattern is emerging in a sequence of independent and random events. In Putin's case, he gambled on annexing Crimea and succeeded, which reinforced his belief in his own strategic prowess. This initial success led him to escalate his commitment to further military interventions in Ukraine, specifically in Donetsk and Luhansk.
However, the outcomes of these subsequent gambles were far from certain, and the results were questionable at best. Despite this, Putin continued to pour resources into the conflict, driven by the sunk costs fallacy. This fallacy occurs when an individual continues to invest in a decision because of the resources already committed, even if it no longer makes sense to do so. Putin's thinking was likely clouded by the significant investments Russia had made in Ukraine, leading him to believe that he needed to see the conflict through to its conclusion, regardless of the mounting costs and diminishing returns.
The escalation of commitment, another cognitive bias, also played a role in Putin's decision-making. This bias occurs when an individual becomes increasingly committed to a course of action because of the resources already invested, even if it no longer makes sense to do so. Putin's continued investment in the conflict, despite the lack of clear progress or strategic gains, is a classic example of the escalation of commitment.
Putin's flawed strategy relied heavily on the assumption that the West would eventually abandon Ukraine, allowing him to achieve his goals without significant opposition. However, this assumption was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the West's commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Putin's oil weapon, which he had previously used to exert influence over European nations, was insufficient to compel Germany or France to abandon Ukraine. Moreover, the Anglo-American alliance, which has historically been a driving force behind Western foreign policy, was never going to abandon Ukraine, as evidenced by the recent congressional vote to further fund Ukraine's military efforts.
Even if Putin had managed to break up NATO and persuade France or Germany to abandon Ukraine, the Anglo-American alliance and its allies would have continued to support Ukraine to the very end. Putin's failure to recognize the limits of his own power and influence, combined with his reliance on flawed cognitive biases, ultimately led to his downfall in Ukraine.
MATHS
DON'T BELIEVE ME? OK LET'S DO SOME MATH.
THE GAMBLER'S FALLACY: WHY PUTIN'S UKRAINE GAMBLE FAILED
The gambler's fallacy is a cognitive bias that occurs when an individual mistakenly believes that a random event is more likely to happen because it has not happened recently, or that a pattern is emerging in a sequence of independent and random events. This fallacy arises from the misconception that a random process will self-correct or balance out in the short term, leading people to make incorrect predictions about future outcomes. Putin gambled in Crimea, won, lost in Donetsk and Luhansk. But maybe the third time's a charm! OOPS.
A classic example of the gambler's fallacy is the notion that a coin is "due" to land on heads after a series of tails, or that a roulette wheel is more likely to land on black after a streak of red. In reality, each coin flip or spin of the roulette wheel is an independent event, and the probability of the outcome remains the same – 50% for heads or tails, and approximately 48.65% for black or red in European roulette.
In other words, had Putin done the math AND CHINA IS DOING THE MATH he might have won in Ukraine. His "gut instincts" failed. War is not instinctive reaction! War is careful planning, intensive training, consequent execution. It Seems instinctive because it has been trained so often and so hard that you can do it automatically even when dead tired, sleepy, soaking wet, cold, and hungry. Warfare isn't stupid, but it sure seems that way to inexperts.
My tactics are vicious, my strategy righteous. That is, my war plans are both carefully thought out and executed with consequences.
Meanwhile in Terran: Not Sorry.
The gambler's fallacy can manifest in various ways, such as:
1. The "hot hand" fallacy: Believing that a person or team is more likely to succeed because they have had a streak of successes.
2. The "cold streak" fallacy: Believing that a person or team is due for a success because they have had a streak of failures.
3. The "law of averages" fallacy: Believing that a random process will eventually balance out or self-correct in the short term.
This fallacy can have significant consequences, leading people to make poor decisions in various areas, such as:
1. Gambling: Chasing losses or betting on a perceived pattern, leading to financial losses.
2. Investing: Making investment decisions based on short-term market fluctuations, rather than long-term trends and fundamentals.
3. Sports: Overestimating or underestimating a team's chances of winning based on recent performance, rather than their overall abilities and statistics.
4. War fighting: Putin rolled the dice, and lost, because war is a calculated risk, and is won by the side that makes the least miscalculations.
To avoid the gambler's fallacy, it's essential to understand that random events are independent and that probability remains constant over time. By recognizing this fallacy, individuals can make more informed decisions and avoid costly mistakes.
Let's get into it further since it is a war winner (or a great way to make bank at the casino) and since the post-war future with China isn't certain yet (about that book I am writing..).
PROBABILITY VERSUS LIKELIHOOD: FORWARD CHAINING AND BACKWARD CHAINING OF INFERENCES AND THE GAMBLERS FALLACY
The confusion of probability and likelihood is one non-supernatural explanation of "the gambler's fallacy". False memory associations also explain the gambler's fallacy.
The terms "probability" and "likelihood" are related but distinct concepts in statistics:
Probability is the chance that a particular outcome will occur. Probability is a forward-looking measure that quantifies the possibility of future events. For example, if I throw a fair Die, 16.6% repeating of the time it will Hit a SIX. Probability looks to the future. It requires knowledge e.g. of whether we have a fair COIN. I guess having a fair coin really matters, huh!
Likelihood, on the other hand, refers to how well a set of observed data supports or provides evidence for particular values of a parameter in a model. Likelihood is a backward-looking measure that assesses how likely the observed data is given certain parameter values. We can use likelihood to measure chances when the fairness of the coin or die is unknown. Maybe the dice are loaded! Maybe the lotto is rigged! (It is.E-5)
For example, when flipping a fair coin, the probability of getting heads on a single flip is 0.5. However, if we observe the coin being flipped 100 times and it lands on heads only 17 times, the likelihood that the coin is truly fair (with a 0.5 probability of heads) could be called into question. In the case of 17 Heads for the hundred throws, the observed data does not strongly support the hypothesis that the coin is fair! THIS IS ONE SOURCE OF THE GAMBLERS FALLACY.
Probability and likelihood are related but distinct concepts. Probability deals with the chances of future outcomes, while likelihood assesses how well observed data fits a particular model or set of parameters. They approach the same phenomenon from opposite directions.
MEMORY, PROBABILITY, AND THE GAMBLER'S FALLACY
The probability of drawing a specific card from a shuffled deck is a fundamental concept in statistics. The formula for this probability is deceptively simple:
P(A) = Number of favorable outcomes / Total number of possible outcomes
In the case of drawing a specific card, the number of favorable outcomes is 1 (the card itself), and the total number of possible outcomes is 52 (the entire deck). Thus, the probability of drawing a specific card is:
P(A) = 1/52 ≈ 0.0192
END USERS NOTE: P(A) HERE IS NOT A REFERENCE TO PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY. FUCK THOSE GUYS WITH THEIR STUPID RAPE MURDER FESTIVAL FOR PUTIN'S BIRTHDAY PRESENT.
Back to Pure Math (as opposed to pure coke):
This probability assumes a perfectly shuffled deck, where each card has an equal chance of being drawn. But what if we introduce the element of human memory into the equation? Suppose we're playing a game of blackjack, and we've seen a particular card (say, the 5 of hearts) being played multiple times in the past. Our brain, being the pattern-recognition machine that it is, MISTAKENLY starts to associate the 5 of hearts with a higher probability of being drawn! "Five came up every time in the last three hand so it must be likelier to come up in the next hand!" -- the observed association leads to a false inference. This is known as the availability heuristic, where our perception of probability is influenced by the ease with which we can recall similar events!
MY BOYS DID SO WELL IN CRIMEA! SURELY THEY WILL DO WELL IN KARKHIV! ODESSA! OR EVEN KYIV! So thought that other thug.
Now, let's consider the concept of permutations in the context of word spellings. The number of possible permutations of a word's letters is given by the formula:
n! = n × (n-1) × (n-2) × … × 1
(n factorial equals n times (n minus 1) times (n-2) tims (n-next factor)
e.g. CAT =
3! =3×2×1=6
where n is the number of letters in the word. For example, the word "listen" has 6 letters, so the number of possible permutations is:
6! = 6 × 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1 = 720
This means that there are 720 possible ways to rearrange the letters in the word "listen". However, only one of these permutations forms a valid English word. This highlights the importance of context and pattern recognition in our understanding of probability. Might be useful for gambling, might be useful for codebreaking, might be profitable, might be deadly. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, drink deep or touch not this pyerian spring". Hey! Isn't pyre greek for fire as in funeral fire! SO much cargo can't even sort out the cargo 200 from cargo 300. I guess math matters!
In card games,when we shuffle a deck of cards, we're creating a unique permutation of the 52 cards. The number of possible permutations is staggering:
52! = 52 × 51 × 50 × … × 1 ≈ 8.0658175170943878571660636856404 × 10^67
This number is so vast that every time we shuffle a deck of cards, we're creating a new, unique permutation that most likely has never existed before!
Memory plays a crucial role in our understanding of chance. Our brains are wired to recognize patterns, and this recognition influences our perception of probability. The availability heuristic, where we overestimate the importance of vivid or recent events, is a prime example of this.
As we shuffle the deck, we're not just rearranging cards – we're creating a new permutation. Eventually the permutations lock on target, code cracked, and Either way KA-CHING
PAY DIRT!
Tree Search守株待兔!
Tree search, whether adversarial or not, is a fundamental method in a.i. and game theory. Most frequently, binary trees are used, though in fact n-ary trees are possible and for certain applications more accurate and/or more useful than binary trees. It is also called graph, as in graph search.
Here is an example of a search tree for the word CAT
C
A T
T A
A
T C
C T
T
A C
C A
Now, hopefully, you understand factorials, tree search, and how these are used for cryptography.
I win one way -- or the other -- but I will win, just a question of "at what cost". I want the costs in Ukrainian blood to be so little as possible.
C.LOSE A.SSAULT T.ACTICS FTW.
I say again: Correct strategy wins No Matter What The Enemy Does. It wins one way or other. Sure, some wins are more costly, others more perfect: I do want a perfect victory! But perfect victory requires the opponent to know they have no win by resorting to armed conflict. This is the current position of China with respect to Taiwan.
See? It all matters. It's all connected. There is a correct resolution to the three body problem, at least in some instantiations. Just not in the instance where Putin invaded Ukraine.
CRIB: KIPRUN
thanks for the 书 !
Videos
Here. Have some Inspiration.
It’s on! Auf Feindfahrt geht’s los!
Is BUFF immortal or undead?!? ONLY HABITUAL LINE CROSSER KNOWS FOR SURE!
Learn Chinese to Open Doors and
SOLVE THE NEXT ITERATION OF THE THREE BODY PROBLEM!
THE CIVILIZATION YOU SAVE MIGHT BE YOUR OWN!
How to NOT be a victim of friendly fire.