Schneier hits the mark here.
Government only works at all if people care.
And if you tell someone that their job, and the organisation they work for - are of no value - then those people won't care any more.
I don't know what the outcome would be of large swathes of the government either being fired or not caring any more but we're going to find out and I don't think it will be good.
Or maybe not, maybe Trump and whathisname are right and government really is a complete waste of money. In which case there will be great money savings and the USA will be the better for it.
Then engines start to heat up and fail. And if there's an obstacle along the way, it's game over.
This is a dangerous game played by morons full of hubris.
On June 16 YC organizes an "AI Startup School"; the first speaker is Elon Musk:
https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/ai-startupschool
What a shame.
If my guesses are correct, it’ll work just long enough for another administration to take over to deal with the fallout.
Happens to business too. People don’t realise how long these entities can circle the drain.
We in the US are about to take a 50 to 90% drop in our standard of living as a result. 8(
If Aynn Rands Great great grandniece has to fear for her life over this - so be it. To propagate this self-destructive retardation has to be a curse on all who give in to it. Just because the mine runneth dry and you want to fire up the carrying wood for warmth, does not make it a valid opinion.
Job security is a big part of why somebody takes up a government job. And it even makes sense. People trade stability for some percentage of extra money they could earn. You are not likely to hire good talent for what government pays.
On the other hand, I can't think of a bigger disaster than running a continent spanning government like you would run a start up.
The people who will be hired in those jobs in the future are the ones who can't find any other job, and don't care one way or another. It will be a catastrophe of epic proportions, but hard to notice at first because it happens so slowly. Which makes it all the more dangerous.
The EU doesn't have control of defense policy - that is the mandate of individual European states.
The only EU member with nuclear weapons is France, which has it's own domestic nuclear ecosystem.
More critically, public sector hiring is not the same as private sector. Working for a foreign government's NatSec apparatus would be a red flag for any sort of hiring - especially in the domestic nuclear industry in France.
These are not normal times and I believe USA also hired foreign nationals to top secret programs during and after WWII.
The UK has US-derived (?) nuclear weapons, and so it would perhaps make sense for them to hire the Americans that maintained them:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_...
Given the 'waffling' of Trump on NATO support, Poland may want to develop their own.
Also South Korea and Japan may want to ramp up their own native infrastructure given the waffling of US Pacific support.
Which isn’t something the he is worried about given how buddy buddy he is with their respective leaders.
US newqs outlets seem to be afraid to call him a dictator. Maybe a king is more palateable.
As dumb as it is, Trump ran on these policies and is delivering.
(Also, Trump did not run on these policies -- he's implementing policies he explicitly repudiated when he lied about not being affiliated with the Project 2025 manifesto.)
I don't want to let the voters off the hook, but continuous, ongoing responsibility for this unfolding economic and political disaster lies with the people who hold institutional authority, and are refusing to use it to comply with the law as it stands.
90% of the voting public pays little attention to policy (not saying this is a good thing).
A good portion of people that voted for Trump voted for him because he promised to hurt Those People. And just like Trump 1.0, it's going to end up hurting them as well (per /r/LeopardsAteMyFace):
> “I voted for him, and he’s the one who’s doing this,” she said of Mr. Trump. “I thought he was going to do good things. He’s not hurting the people he needs to be hurting.”
* https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/07/us/flo...
Although I agree, here I disagree.
In general, the Executive branch, the Intelligence Community, Congress, the Courts, the Populace are all responsible for keeping the President's Office accountable, both officially and extra-officially. Officially, via legal and direct means. Extra-officially, by means of protest, mounting cultural as well as mediatic pressure, etc.
In our, as Trump's actions have greatly affected the international community as well, situation what's most concerning is the initial, slow but eventually complete and absolute breakdown of public discourse.
Truth is irrelevant, poise is impractical, facts are an obstacle, outrage and drama are the new assertive communication. It's all about Me and My Emotions, us versus them.
This has been the case increasingly, for years, on both sides of the political aisle. Everyone compartmentalizes everyone into the sub-groups they are a part of, until everyone is so compartmentalized that they are completely alone because there are no similarities left for any common ground whatsoever. Such is the dystopic portrait of a society in complete disarray.
Under those circumstances, everything is legal, simply because there's noone to enforce the commonly agreed upon Rule of Law.
When it comes to the doe there are likely departments that could be trimmed back and interpretations of some laws to the cfr made a little more clear, but since the doe is in charge of everything nuclear it might be good to do a more indepth look at each department instead of a quick and careless wipe.
Currently nuclear power is regulated in a way of "bring me a rock and I'll tell you if it's the right rock, but if it isn't the right rock it will be painful.
https://theonion.com/fbi-uncovers-al-qaeda-plot-to-just-sit-...
From 2014, continuing The Onion's streak of clear eyed reporting
> After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage Early GOP Front-Runner For 2016
> Sources say the screaming orb might be the only potential candidate that would tap into Republicans’ deep-seated, seething fury after this election.
Basically since US was orphaned on the world stage by USSR it gradually falls apart.
What Trump currently is doing fits perfectly this goal. Russia is natural, local ally of USA against China, that's what Trump means when he voices hopes for future cooperation between "our great countries". It is further reinforced by plans to sell F35 to India, another natural ally, which means those planes will be copied by Russia as soon as possible.
In all this Europe is just abandoned. USA knows that in conflict against China, Europe is useless as it has no business in making enemy out of China.
What he might be not appreciating sufficiently (because he percieves Europe as weak and restricted by its morals) is that Europe can be motivated to align themselves with China against Russia. While Europe can't (and doesn't want to) threaten China in any way they can offer China a lot. For starters they could start delivering most advanced litography machines, which only they know how to make to China, instead of Taiwan. And they could also internationally recognize China taking into their zone of influnece eastern parts of Russia if China agrees to provide military assistance and suplemental nuclear deterrence in the war of Europe against Russia that's almost inevitably coming.
I think at some point sobering realization will come that evading your responsibility of global hegemon (even if at this point it's only nominal role) and leaving Europe hanging might have severe consequences for Trump's imperial project.
Maybe I'm wrong, I know more about field tactics and guerilla warfare than grand strategy.
So I'm going to assume that there is _some_ kind of code.
Will this term be the end of the craziness or is this the end of the US as a super power?
This does not mean the US will be written off entirely, at least not in the foreseeable future. However, the era in which the US could dictate the global agenda, particularly in Europe, appears to be coming to an end. A recent example is the US Vice President’s speech in Germany, followed by meetings with the AfD rather than the German Chancellor - an unmistakable signal that Washington no longer prioritizes its European allies in the same way.
A similar shift may be seen in the area of technology. Reliance on American tech companies and investments is likely to decrease, with governments and businesses seeking alternatives. Even China could play a role in this transition, despite the security risks it presents. Economic growth depends on global trade, and many nations may be unwilling to let US protectionism dictate their technological and economic choices.
It is an unexpected turn, but in hindsight, one we could have seen coming. The transformation of the US Republican Party, coupled with growing public support for politicians who embrace extreme rhetoric, reject objective facts, and show little respect for science or democratic principles, has reshaped the country’s global standing. Many of these figures claim to uphold democracy but, from an outside perspective, promote an increasingly authoritarian vision through their policies and rhetoric.
Ultimately, it is up to the American people to choose their government and shape their society. However, the US has become increasingly unstable and polarized, straying from both common sense and the ideals of a liberal democracy. As this internal turmoil continues, it is no surprise that its traditional allies are beginning to seek a future less dependent on American leadership.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china-tells-eu-it-is-willing-e...
Who wants to buy weapons from the US when you won't get permission to use them to defend themselves?
Who wants to make deals with the US when they will just get torn up and the US will even threaten their allies with economic sanctions and even invasion?
Who in their right mind will lean on the US to protect them, when they're showing how incompetent and unreliable they are?
The answer is obvious.
https://www.politico.eu/article/us-recedes-nato-scrambles-fi...
Latin American countries are increasing ties to China
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/12/trump-china-...
Canada is moving toward diversifying its global trade
https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/industry-news/u-s-t...
> Will this term be the end of the craziness or is this the end of the US as a super power?
No Democrat could ever say we need to spend more money on foreign aid, rebuild the CFPB, or do anything that is seen to be spending taxpayer money to help poor people either domestic or abroad.
The Republican Party seems like it will be populist at least for a generation. No traditional Republican could ever win a primary today. Reagan himself would be called a RINO today.
There are many in the US who have a particular strand of thinking. It goes a bit like this:
The US is meddling too much in other country's affairs.
Only a handful of countries actually have agency - US, Russia, China mostly.
All the wars out there are actually proxy wars, because the US is up to no good and interfering with one of the other countries with agency.
It follows that all that is required for global peace is to withdraw US support for foreign adventuring.
America looks after America, Russia looks after (extended) Russia. The more isolationist a country is, the better it is. Hungary is a better friend than the UK because it opposes American adventuring, just like us.
There are other elements of the logic. America interferes abroad for cynical reasons. In Afghanistan, it was the poppies. In Iraq, it was the oil.
They scratched their head a little over Ukraine, but then decided it was for rare earth minerals.
I don't know if it's the end of the US as superpower, but what Musk is doing is destroying US state capacity from within, and what Trump's representatives are doing are destroying US influence abroad. If the goal is ending the US as a superpower, the actions are certainly shaped in a way that look like they're trying to end it.
On the one side, we (now) have Trump both threatening Europe with the potential of an invasion of Groenland, and explicitly telling Russia that it won't intervene if Putin bombs Europe, so if I were a European leader, I'd be looking for allies.
On the other side, we have China and Europe being the two powers who actually pay a little bit more than lip service to long-term thinking, in particular the future of the planet, while Trump is explicitly saying f*ck to the environment.
Yes, there are countless divergences between China and Europe, in addition to competiton. But we've seen stranger bedfellows.
The human rights violations and ambitions to grab Taiwan are obviously worrying. Europe may need to give up on the ideal of promoting human rights, democracy and peace, and just be happy to be able to preserve them at home.
Plans were already being drafted before Trump won the election, given his strong polling, but bureaucracy makes things move a little slow. I think it has united EU countries who understand that this over-reliance on the US can be problematic given how quickly policies can shift, and will lead to a stronger EU.
The NATO framework is there and all countries part of it can keep following it to work together even without the US, and regardless of the memes, EU countries have a very advanced arsenal and lots of trained military personnel - with Russia struggling against one country, it's hard to believe they can ever make a move against 27 EU states, especially due to historical bad blood between many of them and Russia, which only serve to amplify the desire to stand up against them.
> Will this term be the end of the craziness or is this the end of the US as a super power?
I think it's a correction we've been due for a while, especially with the rise in extremist parties in recent years all across the world. Whether things will reseat themselves smoothly or whether we'll be in for a rough ride, it's hard to say.
If the current trend keeps going in the next few years with the US becoming more isolationist, I think it will be almost impossible for them to comeback to being a superpower even with a future president that wants to do a 180, as it takes more than nukes to be a superpower.
This take will age well and doesn't come from a place of rage. at all.
"Man fire, big boom, Trump look bad"
Here is another version but Haiku
Man Fire Big Boom Trump look dumb
