money and had more traditional weapons? So one of my questions is, is the general cost of warfare, whether it's Ukraine or anything else, is the cost of warfare coming down because the tools are different? I don't know. Maybe.

And then I looked up I've been obsessed about this a little bit lately. Why we don't see reporting on the number of casualties anymore. Have you noticed that? So we've got this big war. Ukraine and Russia and we're worried that it might turn into a world war and I don't know how many people are being killed. Isn't that like super obviously missing in the reporting? What would be the more important number than well this week x number of Ukrainians were injured and killed. Why is everybody leaving that out? So I went to Grok and started asking some questions. But then I thought, oh, I don't know if any of these answers are real. I don't know if it's hallucinating. Grok did start off by saying that the numbers are totally unreliable. No matter what source you use, you should take it with a grain of salt. But I also wondered, what is the range? Like, can you give me a range at all?

Now, why is somebody writing N O O O L over and over again in my comments. Like, what's that? Stop doing that. It's bugging me. If it meant something, that'd be better. But anyway, Grok tells me, and you can fact check me on this, that something like I don't know 3 to 10,000 people a week are being killed. Some combination of Russians and Ukrainians. Does that sound right to you? Do you believe that 3 to 10,000 are dying per week and that they don't report that? That doesn't seem right. So I have a suspicion, which is completely without data, that maybe the actual death rate is way lower than we think. Still terrible. Still bad. Still lots of injuries. But it might be we might have a drone war where there are far more injuries than there are deaths because a lot of the drone stuff is to injure and maim. It's not all deadly. So I wonder if we went to well we didn't actually kill too many Russians but we maimed 20,000. Maybe they wouldn't report that would they? So it's a little bit sketchy that somebody, you know, Germany's giving them 150 million, but they probably don't have any idea how many Ukrainians or Russians are dying. The most important data.

So and then I saw another survey, again, you can't really trust anything that comes out of that area, that said that in Ukraine, something like 90% of the population has some close contact with somebody who was injured during the war, injured or killed. 90%. That'll certainly have an impact. Whereas a survey says Russia has only 30% of its population had some direct family tie to some death or injury. I don't know if you can believe any of those numbers, but we'll see.

I saw an argument today that I thought was interesting. There's a Yale professor whose name is Markovits and he's got this argument that merit is a myth used to justify inequality that the idea of merit is sort of a trick and that there's no such thing as merit. We just use it to justify our own getting more than other people. Oh, that chat ended. That's what's going on. All right, let's try something else. This will work. Oh, that works. Okay, much better.

Anyway, so I wonder what is the argument that meritocracy is a myth? Because most of my worldview is built around meritocracy. I hate to find out that my worldview is built on a myth. So I thought I'm going to look into this a little bit. So there might be a little bit of word salad going on here bec