[ExI] diamandis commentary

[Adrian Tymes]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 3:37 PM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat
> Subject: Re: [ExI] diamandis commentary
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 1:09 PM Gregory Jones <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:
> > The concept you claim has been abandoned has morphed into a form we may not recognize as a battleship.  It's architects have not revealed what it looks like or what it does.  They have revealed what it isn't however.  This is both intentional and highly effective.
>
> "We have a definite design, but we can't tell you much about what it is, only that it isn't exactly what you think it is" often means they're planning something quite close to what one thinks it is based on what little they have said.
>
> They said "battleship".
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> What's wrong with that term?  Nothing.  It is a ship, it is made for battle.

Actually it isn't - not actual battles; it's designed to convince the
ignorant that it is, but in an actual battle against the kind of foe
it'd likely actually encounter, it'd be sunk soon - but that aside,
that definition applies to frigates and destroyers too.  "Battleship"
is more than just "a ship that is made for battle".  Indeed, the Trump
class design derives from - and is upscaled from - prior and more
realistic destroyer-class designs, from what I hear.