This isn't a new thing. Ancient stories like the Iliad or the Odyssey are discreetly historical records of a particular region mixed in with mythological foundations of a particular culture, but framed as the stories of Achilles ("Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans.") and Odysseus ("Speak, memory, of the cunning hero, the wanderer, blown off course time and again after he plundered Troy's sacred heights."). Likewise, ancient fables and parables are moral lessons couched in terms of stories with protagonists whose actions demonstrate the intended lesson, and this sort of thing is universal across every ancient culture for which we have records. Stories stick in the human mind, and they're what humans most prioritize transmitting forward through time.
Great person theory is hardly new either. I'm not sure the point. Really it's just "critical theory" for rich white men. I'm not convinced everyone or even a majority thinks this way innately. It's taught by people that want others to see them that way. Nothing here precludes that.
Is fentanyl even that big of an issue in a clinical setting? It's not like it's the go to opiate of choice for general pain anyway.
The problem with fentanyl is that it is easy to make and smuggle and we managed to leave a giant black market hole to be filled when we went ape shit about oxy, which was an objectively better situation than we are currently in with street opiates.
One of the big problems with anesthesia is balancing respiratory depression while medicating the patient enough to manage the symptoms. Fentanyl is used in anesthesia and it causes respiratory depression.
A strong pain medication that doesn't slow or stop breathing would significantly improve the safety of anesthesia.
Credibility is the core currency of soft power, whether one views its ultimate goal as manufacturing consent or fostering genuine cultural attraction. Without that perceived reliability, the indicator "soft" loses it's meaning.
>Credibility is the core currency of soft power, whether one views its ultimate goal as manufacturing consent or fostering genuine cultural attraction.
Not sure its worth dissecting this, but there is a lot of grey area in your claim of the meaning of Credibility. (Credibility and cultural attraction? Pretty sure these have little correlation. Dictators can make creditable threats.) Further, its a debatable claim that there is a 'core currency' of soft power.
As a contextualist, I am not going to die on this hill for your personal meaning of Credibility. But I can attest that your conviction in your claim is stronger than any International Relations Realist practitioner would make.
The administration is dispensing with the institutions of soft power. I don't think it's the main goal so much as a consequence of their worldview. Soft power is essentially worthless to people who have no interest in maintaining a facade of international cooperation.
The AI can hire verifiers too. It of course turns into a recursive problem at some point, but that point is defined by how many people predictably do the assigned task.
