@jul-delia.bsky.social
Freelance journalist, activist, writer | based in the fiefdom of Malta https://cap.mt/
INVESTIGATION:
'Today, we can reveal that since the Labour Party swept to power in 2013, the government spent a total of at least €293 million on services from companies involved in the private security industry.'
'If I look at the bigger picture, all I see is snake oil that’s being sold as a transhumanist antidote. An elixir that will nurse us back to health and move us towards a better future.'
20.02.2025 06:17 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0
Public documents show that Security First Services Ltd made at least €3.9 million in direct orders and tenders since 2015.
Read more about this investigation by clicking below:
4. As things stand, humanity is already starving for more sources of energy that, ideally, doesn't kill us.
The US' frenzy to win the AI race is directly tied with their efforts to push gas production into overdrive.
Nobody will care about AI when our primary resources reach critical levels.
3. The global race to be on the cutting edge of AI development all leads to big *ifs*.
AI investment will pay off big *if* we manage to synthesise AGI.
AI investment will pay off big *if* its applied uses go beyond 'nifty PA in my phone'.
AI development is a VERY expensive foray into the unknown.
2. The release of China's DeepSeek has clearly shown that US companies are doing what they do best: over-hyping the potential benefits of their product to inflate their company's value in the eyes of investors.
So, besides stroking the egos of US tech titans, why should public money be invested?
I *do* understand the use case of AI. There are several practical applications which I do find interesting.
What I *do not* understand is why we are pouring trillions into AI when it's obviously not worth doing so.
1. Energy-guzzling data hubs are anathema to climate change.
Over the last few decades, Western democracies failed to address rampant inequality.
This failure is what set the stage for making Nazis palatable again in the span of a generation.
It now falls to individuals to choose to be intolerant towards the intolerant.
For all their talk about being responsible for the greatness achieved in each country, all three leaders fail to understand the basic premise of every empire:
When the promise of the empire's 'protection' of its own citizens wears thin, the downfall of that empire becomes inevitable.
Think about it.
None of these three leaders can actually boast of any real achievements.
The average Russian citizen gains nothing from the war.
While Trump covets Greenland's melting ice sheets, California is literally on fire.
In spite of all China's flexing, their economy is stagnating.
2025 is going to be particularly mind-boggling because of world leaders who are detached from reality.
Putin thinks forcing Ukraine to submit will restore Russia's empire.
Trump is eyeing Greenland and Panama.
Xi Jinping wants Taiwan to submit.
Meanwhile, poor people everywhere remain poor.
It is amazing how events coalesce when there is the right mixture of effort and serendipity.
Chasing opportunities can feel like a never ending chore --- until you land the right one.
You could only land it because you took a leap of faith to begin with.
The EU Commission has a firm hand when it comes to populist demands like gutting environmental regulations in the name of competitiveness.
That same hand turns to jelly whenever an autocrat vaguely glances in the continent's direction. Trump says "jump", and Europe asks: "how high?"
I come to this platform as a freelance journalist desperately seeking an online safe haven. I suppose I am just one of many escaping from Meta's clutches.
I'll be sharing some new material soon, curious to see how it will perform here.
