This is a OPEN AI summary of the Tim Ferriss Podcast #608- visit www.TinyTim.blog for more AI summaries, or www.Tim.blog for the official Tim Ferriss Podcasts.

Noah Feldman and Tim Ferriss discuss the current situation in Ukraine, tying it into historical context. They explore the reasons behind why people go to war, with a focus on whether or not those in charge of countries are rational when making the decision to do so. It is assumed that people are rational when they go to war, but this may not always be the case. In some cases, people may make a miscalculation and still end up winning. Noah Feldman argues that elitists are wrong to think that lower income people who spend money on lottery tickets are irrational. He points to the example of 9/11, where one of the fire chiefs went back into the buildings even though he knew he wasn't going to come out alive. Feldman argues that this is an example of how hope can be a powerful feeling that drives people to do seemingly irrational things. James Fearon's theory posits that even if both sides are rational, they can still go to war if they have different information about who is going to win. In the case of Putin and Ukraine, Putin may have thought he would win the war, but it was also possible that Ukraine would do better than anyone thought. According to Fearon, if two sides have different opinions about what is going to happen, then they may go to war because they do not have perfect information about the outcome. This theory may help to explain why Russia and Ukraine have been fighting. Putin was confident that he would win, but the Ukrainians were not so sure. In the opening weeks, Russia did not take down the capital of Ukraine and conquer the whole country. Instead, they moved on to the next phase of the war, which is still ongoing. It is not clear what each side is fighting for now. Noah Feldman discusses the unique aspects of the war in Ukraine, including the ability to cheaply and broadly broadcast using social media and cryptocurrency, and the interplay of private or semi-private players. He argues that the war is special from a European perspective because

The Ukraine war is still happening because of global consequences and technology differences. One example of technology difference is the Ukraine DAO, which enables crypto to be transferred into the country to help fight the war. A group of Ukrainians have found a clever way to get people to make direct donations to Ukraine without going through banks, which could potentially be transformational in future wars. The fact that they were able to do this raises the possibility of how these kinds of tools are going to operate in future wars.

Noah Feldman and Tim Ferriss discuss the possible outcomes of the conflict in Ukraine, with Feldman predicting that Russia will eventually conquer the Donbas region and Ferriss suggesting that a peace agreement may be reached.

The current situation in Ukraine is difficult to resolve because Russia does not want Ukraine to join NATO or the EU. The most likely scenario is that the state of war would continue, which would have major consequences for the global economy. On War by von Clausewitz is a book about the nature of war and how it is used as a tool of politics. The book argues that the best way to fight a war is to do so in an all-out, no holds barred manner. Coup d'tat: A Practical Handbook by Edward N. Luttwak is a book about how to stage a coup. Feldman came up with the term "Cool War" to describe the US-China relationship. He argued that the two countries were getting along well at the time, but their geopolitical interests were diverging. In his book, "The Geopolitics of China and the United States", Dr. Edward Luttwak takes a hard-nosed approach to the strategic relationship between these two nations.

The debate over free speech on social media is really a debate over which meaning of free speech is more important: the right to say what you want on social media without government interference, or the right to say what you want without interference from private individuals or companies. Some Supreme Court justices are rethinking the interpretation of free speech, which would have implications for social media platforms.

The debate over whether or not to regulate social media platforms has flip-flopped in recent years, with liberals and conservatives swapping positions. Currently, there is a push to impose the First Amendment on social media platforms in order to force them to allow speech that some consider to be racist or sexist. The concept of hate speech was invented in order to suppress certain political points of view. In the aftermath of World War II, many people believed that free speech should not allow for the expression of views that could lead to the collapse of constitutional government. In the US, however, the free speech movement took the view that there should only be limited restrictions on speech. This is a debate between two different views on free speech. One view, held by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, is that speech should be allowed even if it is extreme and could potentially undermine political norms. The other view is that speech should be limited if there is a genuine risk that it could lead to people trying to overthrow the government.

Noah Feldman predicts that speech on social media will be limited in the next three years, either by the government or by the companies themselves. In the worst case scenario, speech would be limited to internet 1.0 levels, where anyone could say anything without consequence.

In this conversation, Tim Ferriss and Noah Feldman discuss the regulatory regime for the metaverse, augmented reality (AR), and virtual reality (VR). Feldman predicts that companies will be the first to regulate the metaverse, and that if they don't, the government will be pressured to do so. He believes that there will be some areas of the metaverse where anything goes, but in order for the majority of people to spend time there, it will need to be orderly. Feldman also believes that the current regulatory regime for AR and VR will not be sustainable if we move towards a more complex mixed AR-VR world.

608 https://tim.blog/2022/07/20/noah-feldman-2/