Starshield means multiple things, or really it is SpaceX business unit with military. Starshield is the name for US military buying Starlink service. It is also SpaceX building Starlink-based satellites for the military. This doesn't have to be communications, the first ones were missile defense trackers.
I think the custom satellites came first and they rebranded the communications after it.
You can't simultaneously argue that NATO is a "protection racket" for the US to sell weapons and control European foreign policy, and also argue that the EU would be in trouble without the current levels of US participation. Either NATO is a scam that exploits Europe, or it's a security umbrella that Europe needs.
The "protection racket", in particular, is very dishonest. The US has spent 3-4% of GDP on defense for decades, outspending the rest of NATO combined, while the majority of NATO members continuously fail to meet their monetary contributions. Most of America's allies would not be able to fund their generous social programs if the majority of their military capabilities weren't directly tied to the implied threat of the US military interceding.
America's allies haven't necessarily been that reliable for us either.
During Operation Prosperity Guardian, Houthis started attacking commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea, directly threatening European trade routes, and the US could barely get token naval contributions from allies. The US deployed an entire carrier strike group while Norway sent ten staff officers, the Netherlands sent two, and Finland sent two soldiers. France, Italy, and Spain refused to participate; Denmark contributed a single staff officer while being one of the primary beneficiaries of the US naval protection.
With Operation Epic Fury, the US asked to use jointly operated bases for staging, and Spain banned the US and then demanded that the American tanker aircraft leave. The UK refused to provide any support until drones hit a UK base in Cyprus, and even then, their mobilization was extremely slow. They weren't even able to deploy their carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales, without getting an escort from France. Canada praised the removal of Iran's nuclear capabilities, while providing no support and heavily criticizing the operation itself.
Can we actually be clear on "reliability"? There is not a single defense analyst in the world who seriously believes the US wouldn't IMMEDIATELY defend Canada if Russia launched an offense against them. The unreliability comes from trade policy (which I think is mostly dumb, but is also very much not a one-way action), hesitancy to fund Ukraine at levels that aren't being matched by NATO allies, and Trump's blustering about "adding a 51st state" (no one seriously believes the US is going to annex Canada).
America will continue to act as a deterrent against military action for her allies, and said allies will still not have to commit to the spending that would be required to field a military that is actually a near-peer to China or Russia.
Having said all of that, I 100% support America's allies building out their own cloud infrastructure and bringing defense R&D and manufacturing back locally. Israel has been moving to cut direct dependency on the US and instead acts as a partner in new joint defense capabilities. I think a similar strategy for Canada and Europe would be best for all.
I'm honestly not sure how practical an EU counterpart to Starshield is, but maybe a partnership with SpaceX would allow them to more realistically diversify while the EU builds up its space capabilities.
> Many people believe that the US annexing Canada is a higher probability than either China or Russia doing so. All three are very low probabilities.
I believe those people are being a bit silly, and their position probably comes from a strong dislike of Trump as a person, and not a genuine belief.
Russia annexed a warm-water port and then shortly after attempted to incorporate Ukraine as part of a plan to remake the USSR. The only thing keeping China from taking Taiwan is the United States.
The US has no desire to annex Canada, and it also has no need to. If Canada proposed statehood or even a territory agreement with the US, I genuinely don't think it would even pass a vote.
The US doesn't have a desire to annex Canada; that's very silly. And the reason Russia doesn't have the capability is because of Canada's alliance with the US.
You list "operations" that occurred after Trump burned bridges with us. Why would we help you after the insults, political meddling, and tariffs? Now go look at the Iraq War and Afghanistan War, when the US invoked article 5 (the only time it's ever been invoked). In those wars, our men and women died fighting for your country.
> You can't simultaneously argue that NATO is a "protection racket" for the US to sell weapons and control European foreign policy, and also argue that the EU would be in trouble without the current levels of US participation.
Sure I can. I can both deny you the means to defend yourself, forcing you to rely on me for protection. That's the definition of a protection racket.
> The US has spent 3-4% of GDP on defense for decades ...
Ah, now I get it. This is Trump administration talking points eg [1]. Those talking points are just a shakedown for American defense contractors. Again, just like a protection racket. Because it is a protection racket.
> Most of America's allies would not be able to fund their generous social programs
This is revisionist history at best. The US has done their best to undermine and dismantle European social programs. Even something like the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund was only tolerated because of Norway's strategic position in the North Atlantic as a foil against the USSR.
> During Operation Prosperity Guardian, Houthis started attacking commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea, directly threatening European trade routes,
America was protecting Israel's trade routes. Let's be clear. European trade routes largely just rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope.
But again we come back to the protection racket. You can't both have a protection racket (and, by extension, defang the militaries of the protectorates) AND expect military help, particularly when the entire thing only happened because of the US material support to Israel's genocide.
> With Operation Epic Fury ...
Operation Epstein Fury FTFY
> ... the US asked to use jointly operated bases for staging,
Yes, literally nobody wanted the US and Israel to launch an unnecessary, unprovoked and ill-planned war on Iran other than the US and Israel. Everybody else, including Europe and other Middle East neighbours, all of whom are American client states, basically, begged the US not to do it. And they did anyway.
So yeah, you're on your own.
> Can we actually be clear on "reliability"? There is not a single defense analyst in the world who seriously believes the US wouldn't IMMEDIATELY defend Canada if Russia launched an offense against them.
Not a single defense analyst would even seriously consider such a prospect any more than Fiji invading the Central African Republic. What are you talking about?
Ignoring the ... less substantive portions of your response
> I can both deny you the means to defend yourself, forcing you to rely on me for protection. That's the definition of a protection racket.
The US didn't deny Europe the means to defend itself. Europe chose not to build those means because it was cheaper to rely on the US. These were domestic political choices made by governments whose voters preferred social programs over defense budgets. A protection racket requires coercion; what the EU received is much closer to a subsidy.
> This is revisionist history at best. The US has done their best to undermine and dismantle European social programs.
Can you cite a specific example? The US has broadly pushed for capitalist markets or free trade via policy, but "done their best to undermine and dismantle European social programs" is a very strong claim without evidence. Norway's sovereign wealth fund being "tolerated" because of strategic positioning is, at best, a conspiracy theory. There has been some tension over Norway divesting in American companies for political reasons, but that's hardly the claim you've made.
> America was protecting Israel's trade routes. Let's be clear. European trade routes largely just rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope.
Rerouting around the Cape added weeks of delay and a high monetary cost to European shipping. Just because European ships could reroute doesn't mean the European economy wasn't significantly impacted. Why did the European trade association publicly beg for more governments to join the operation if the Red Sea shipping was only about Israel?
> You can't both have a protection racket and expect military help
You expect America to adopt a one-way obligation where it provides for the defense of its allies, and receives no help in return? Why wouldn't that deal fall apart?
> Yes, literally nobody wanted the US and Israel to launch an unnecessary, unprovoked and ill-planned war on Iran
You can disagree with the decision to strike Iran. But when Iran retaliates by launching missiles and drones into 12 different countries (11 of which had not participated in the initial strikes against Iran in any way), the question of whether allies will support defensive operations is separate from whether they endorsed the initial strikes.
> Not a single defense analyst would even seriously consider such a prospect
No country would seriously consider it a prospect because the entire might of the US Armed Forces would immediately engage anyone who tried. This despite the fact that Canada has anemic defense spending, a large arctic border with Russia, and strategic assets I'm sure Russia would love to have.
> You expect America to adopt a one-way obligation where it provides for the defense of its allies, and receives no help in return? Why wouldn't that deal fall apart?
If I drop you into a war zone and don't give you a gun, don't you have to kinda do what I say?
> You can disagree with the decision to strike Iran.
There's only one country on Earth that supports attacking Iran and that's Israel [1]. Americans don't support this war [2].
> But when Iran retaliates by launching missiles and drones into 12 different countries (11 of which had not participated in the initial strikes against Iran in any way), the question of whether allies will support defensive operations is separate from whether they endorsed the initial strikes.
What targets did Iran strike in those 11 countries? Was it US military bases? Radar installations? There were also hotels housing US military personnel who had abandoned US bases because the US either chose not to defend them or was unable to.
Everybody, except you it seems, understands America is doing this for Israel and the Gulf states are caught up in this because they house American military bases and provide indirect or direct support an unprovoked war. These arne't innocent bystanders.
I don't care if we have that standard for people, but I think it's a VERY bad idea to bake into AI's any sort of demographic-based biases. Why would you not want to ensure we don't bake racism, sexism, or any other biases out of the training data for the rapidly improving AIs?
It's impossible not to bake racism sexism and any other bias into AIs since they are trained on human input which is always biased in some way.
Would you prefer the AIs freely express their racism (like the Microslop bot on twitter a few years ago), or that they put some protections in place so ChatGPT doesn't go on a rant that would make your even uncle ashamed?
When rust was still a fairly new language i remember using capn'n proto to communicate between some rust code and python as a way to experiment with handing off performance critical tasks to a compiled language.
I wonder how well a similar approach would work with elixir + python. Elixir obviously has very easy process isolation, but I think you'd be stuck using a NIF approach for Elixir, which probably removes any reason to try capn'n proto over just protobufs?
Not really. I've written a bunch of code to try maintain the limited support for it that already exists in GodotJS, but I've never really tried it. Main reason I haven't is I'm dependent on Web Worker(-like) APIs in GodotJS, and they're currently missing for JavaScript Core. But since I actually wrote some of those APIs, that's not really an excuse, I can port them easily enough.
So, yeah, I should really give it a shot. Thanks for the reminder.
I've been messing around with an Elixir + BEAM based agent framework. I think a mixture of BEAM + SQLite is about as good as you can get for agents right now.
You can safely swap out agents without redeploying the application, the concurrency is way below the scale BEAM was built for, and creating stateful or ephemeral agents is incredibly easy.
My plan is to set up a base agent in Python, Typescript, and Rust using MCP servers to allow users to write more complex agents in their preferred programming language too.
you should check out the Extism[0] project and the Elixir SDK[1]. This would allow you to write the core services, routing, message passing, etc in Elixir, and leverage all the BEAM/OTP have to offer, and then embed "agents" written in other languages which are small Wasm modules that act like in-process plugins.
That's a really interesting idea. My original thought was to use MCP as the way to define other agents, but I'll have to do some more research into extism!
I'm still in the exploration/experimentation stage of the project, but I'm currently using a mixture of SQLite, PostgreSQL, S3, and DuckDB.
My original thought was to spin up SQLite databases as needed because they are super lightweight, well-tested, and supported by almost every programming language. If you want to set up an agent in another programming language via MCP, but you still want to be able to access the agent memory directly, you can use the same schema in a SQLite database.
I may end up using mnesia for more metadata or system-oriented data storage though. It's very well designed imo.
But one of the biggest reasons has just been the really nice integration with DuckDB. I can query all of the SQLite databases persisted in a directory and aggregate some metadata really easily.
reply