7heo

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

Hi! Great post, good research with sources, great initiative, thank you. πŸ™

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You know that repeating what you're being told verbatim isn't an argument, right? I have a hunch you're not really clear on the meaning of the word "substance"... Parroting concepts defined in books, without the actual substance from the book, or without your own interpretation, is about as useful as a page number without a title...

So far, aside from vague conceptual buzzwords, you have contributed nothing else than "I know you are, but what am I?".

So, again, let's cut short, this ain't Mario, I don't have several lives to try again. Thanks.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I only downvoted you because I very honestly find your rhetoric dangerously wrong.

I have nothing personal against you, but you unfortunately answered nothing of substance, so I will elect to agree to disagree, and stop wasting each other's time. πŸ™‚

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

That, plus all the obvious propaganda, dogmatic echo chambers, and people who misspell stuff voluntarily, or make extremely basic mistakes ("your wrong", "its that", "there logic", etc) more than once.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

There are 2781 billionaires. That's it. 2781. Saying they are a subset of the bourgeoisie is like saying that saying that a blade of grass is a subset of a forest.

Technically, one could argue that a single molecule in a forest is a subset of the forest, but by any rational standard, a subset of something needs to exhibit similar properties. It needs to be relatable.

And compared to billionaires, the bourgeoisie isn't different from any of us. They are pawns, they are poor, and they are negligible.

The actual bourgeoisie, as in the texts you probably have read, and take this concept from, is a thing of the past. It is gone. In our modern world, their wealth has to be extracted differently, but it has to be extracted too.

The discrepancy between billionaires and the rest, in wealth (US$14.2 trillion out of US$110 trillion - the Gross World Product, GWP - (or 12.91%); or out of US$184 trillion - the world's GDP in terms of PPP - (or 7.72%)), or in demographics (2781 people among 8100000000 (or, 0.000034%)) is making them a glitch.

To illustrate my point better (or at least try to), if we were to divide the entire planet according to that monetary value, each of those billionaires would own between 0.02‰ (GDP) and 0.05‰ (GWP) of the entire planet, on average. That's equivalent to slices of the planet of 36 arcseconds (GDP) or 1 arcminute (GWP), on its entire latitude, and up to its rotation axle, per billionaire. Those would respectively correspond to slices 1.11km or 1.86km wide at the equator, or 789m or 1.31km wide at 45Β° latitude.

So, they are not part of our system, of the stupid LARP we all decided to play. They are on the side of it, exploiting it and making friends with the admins. They are not different from 14 year olds who found an infinite money glitch in an online game and keep pressing the fucking button over an over as if it would stop their parent's divorce.

Eliminating class distinctions will not eliminate the existence of the billionaires. They will still have the same wealth, and so, the same power, because their wealth, or power, does not come from their status, as it used to; or as it does in the literature you are very likely (given the Marxist Leninist roots of this corner of the internet) basing yourself upon. It comes a psychotic abuse of systemic glitches.

Almost none of the literature you can find on the subject of classes will account for this. It is all so outdated it is irrelevant.

More than irrelevant, it is critically dangerous. Saying that "eliminating classes distinctions eliminates the existence of billionaires" is not just wrong: it is giving billionaires an opportunity to gaslight us further by pretending not to be the problem.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (8 children)

The bourgeoisie is bad.

But the real problem are the billionaires.

Don't mix the two, killing all the bourgeois will not help us now. I'm not saying it should be off the table, I'm saying it would be a red herring the billionaires would likely employ to save their asses.

#killallbillionaires.

Alternatively, tax all worth beyond 1 billion at a 100% rate, and kill no one.

Let's see which happens first...

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Glad to learn that HTTP/0.9 is still "in use globally" then. A bit surprising, but since it's all about stretching definitions past what is reasonable, for the sole purpose of having the last word, let's shoehorn anything into anything to the infinity and beyond!!! πŸ€‘πŸš€

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

β€œCan’t share item,” was the header. β€œYou cannot share this item because it has been flagged as inappropriate,” read the body text.

FAFO.

We've been fanfaring for a decade and a fucking half for people not to see "the cloud" as a miracle solution, and to use it carefully. We've been warning that it is a blatant invitation to vendor lock in, that it is singlehandedly creating oligopolies, and that exactly this would happen.

Did people listen? No. Did they aggressively confront (or passive-aggressively ostracise) us? You bet your bottom dollar they did.

And now? Now they come around with surprised_pika.gif faces and whine to whoever listens that they are victims, and that they couldn't "possibly have seen this coming".

No. They are enablers of abusers, they themselves abused anyone with even a modicum of common sense, and they brought this upon themselves a thousand times over.

FAFO. And at this point, reading such story fills me with the most powerful schadenfreude I have ever experienced.

"Well well well if it isn't the consequences of my own actions" meme

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It is one of the most private implementations of AI that I've seen though.

Based on what information/criteria?

[–] [email protected] 33 points 7 months ago

It turns out that "Women Who Code Closing - Women Who Code" actually isn't about Women that code a software called "Closing", and Women that code in general.

In fact, what they meant to write was:

The End of an Era: "Women Who Code" Closing – Women Who Code.

I know I'm gonna get downvoted for this, but punctuation matters, and sadly, it has to be said. So here I go.

 

Crossposted from [email protected]

 

Hello everyone,

I have discovered SimpleX Chat (nothing to do with XChat or HexChat, or the favorite letter of some dumb billionaire), and it appears being a legit good effort at providing good privacy while retaining "mainstream" usability.

And it has been audited (by one company so far, it seems).

The only concern I have is with regards to battery life (given that it has to maintain roughly as many open connections as you have contacts, AFAICT).

Has anyone here used it? Any opinion?

 
 
 
view more: next β€Ί