Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Are you fucking serious asking that? Do you even understand why some things are wrong to do and some are not?

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Yes, also as someone from Russia - you know, if for citizens of Russia it were easier, not harder, to cross borders, emigrate, use various international systems (like payment systems) and such, then any rumor of a new wave of mobilization and any economic problem (from the real kind of sanctions, like those on fossil fuels, not like on me paying for stuff on the Internet, BTW, Putin’s relatives have recently made “acquisitions” of grain businesses, so fossil fuel sanctions do work) would lead to waves of people leaving.

As someone also Jewish - making Jews fear retaliation for Israel’s actions is not a very good way to hurt Israel, and making even Israelis fear that means that they might fear leaving Israel more than being mobilized or hit by a rocket or whatever.

Both these things punish dissenters. When a regime is bad, you should encourage dissent. When instead your media and politicians punish dissenters of that regime directly or via causing such sentiments, it means they support the regime.

In case of Israel it’s very visible, in case of Russia - it’s convenient to have a regime selling useful fossil fuels and grain without considering what its population thinks, keeping western politicians on payroll, keeping status quo in relations, not thinking about any uncertainty of an actually democratic Russia, for example, diverting from fossil fuel trade (Dutch sickness is a thing), or maybe actually being a useful part of BRICS, or maybe fixing a few frozen conflicts which are very profitable. And by now if Russia’s regime dies, I suppose plenty of compromising information will leak about those politicians.

They really need another round of denazification.

That’s Mandela effect. There was so much talk in Western countries of denazification, even to the degree of deurbanization of Germany (like Morgenthau plan), that everybody missed that it never actually happened

Funny how yall seem to like it shredded, I prefer half-transparent thin slices on a fat-fat piece of bread.

I’m more about separation of addressing data and data model from addressing services and service model for storing and processing it, to make those uniform, because in uniformity lies efficiency and redundancy and ability to switch service models, and uniformity inside proprietary services is already achieved, so in this case uniformity works for the people.

I mean, that’s probably what you meant, I’m being this specific to fight my own distractions and fuzziness of thought.

Well, in the Soviet example everything was government.

And governments seem to be so excited by the prospects of this “AI” so it’s pretty clear that it’s still their desire most of all.

EDIT: On telegraph and Panama you are right (btw, it’s bloody weird that where it sounds like canal in my language it’s usually channel in English, but in the particular case of Panama it’s not), but they might perceive this as a similarly important direction. Remember how in 20s and 30s “colonization of space” was dreamed about with new settlements supporting new power bases, mining for resources and growing on Mars and Venus, FTL travel to Sirius, all that. There are some very cool things in Soviet stagnation - those pictures of the future lived longer than in the West against scientific knowledge. So, back to the subject, - “AI” they want to reach is the thing that will allow to generate knowledge and designs like a production line makes chocolate bars. If that is made, the value of intelligent individuals will be tremendously reduced, or so they think. At least of the individuals on the “autistic” side, but not on the “psychopathic” side, because the latter will run things. It’s literally a “quantity vs quality” evolutionary battle inside human kinds of diversity, all the distractions around us and the legal mechanisms being fuzzied and undone also fit here. So - for the record, I think quality is on our side even if I’m distracted right now, and sheer quantity thrown at the task doesn’t solve complexity of such magnitude, it’s a fundamental problem.

At the same time “global economic integration” and “global trade” including outsourcing of production to countries with cheaper labor were sold to the populace as a logical continuation of liberal democracies. Increasing efficiency, thus increasing the level of life. That the level of life also depends on having leverage, and moving critical production outside means reduction of leverage, nobody thought (well, the majority of population didn’t think that, bread and circuses).

While this is a system old as humanity, Chinese imperial bureaucracy and Roman one and Assyrian one and Persian one worked like this, to build hierarchical systems. Troops quelling rebellions in one province are from one in the opposite part of the empire. Troops fighting wars in a province are never local, because wars between empires always involve stimuli to change masters. Bureaucrats are too foreign, everything is foreign and not reliant on locals. Even food and drinks are sent from other provinces and tightly guarded - despite that being far more expensive then than now.

So today in a western country all the digital products are made mostly in other countries, all the electronics are made mostly in other countries, much of the food and much of the clothes and much of everything. And this is treated like the good free western way of life. The further from WWII, the less everybody feared such a situation.

While the firmer is integration, the harder it’s to leave it, and the harder it’s to leave, the less meaningful any freedom is - your vote matters only for the bosses in you part, and they have the combined power of the bosses to deceive you, to misdirect your vote, or to plainly steal it, or to go around it.

Historically integration built empires.

The USSR, a recent example of an honest attempt at autarky, which is often used as an example of who tries autarky and why, didn’t really try. It’s the other way around actually, in 20s it was rather democratic, in 30s it was basically buying foreign technologies and machinery for gold and grain for everything (that’s the Stalin’s industrialization), in 40s too (war and all), and the only parts of its history where it really was trying to do autarky significantly enough was during the Thaw and Brezhnev, and while that didn’t work so well, that’s also the most democratic period of its history.

But at the same time high autarky degree means lower level of life. I’ve been excited with Trotskyism once, despite most of time being a ancap. Because, well, it involves direct democracy and mass participation in all political activity, and no career bureaucrats and politicians, the need for that is substantiated by any limited minority of politicians or bureaucrats being possible to covertly threaten, blackmail, buy, groom, etc.

I don’t subscribe to their “democratic planning of the economy using modern means of computation” thing - I agree it’s possible if Amazon is doing just that on scale far bigger than needed for a government in one country, don’t get me wrong, and that demands fewer resources than all this “AI research around”, but there’s inherent degeneracy in such a planning system because, as a specific example, you don’t know you have to design and produce a good that would be in high demand but isn’t already produced.

I think Trotskyism in many of its parts is still very good, actual participation not only is beneficial for the system, it also gives the populace the psychological understanding that politics is not about casting your vote once or twice for the guys who frighten you less. Feeling of holding the wheel. Personal responsibility and ability to change things for good. These are important exactly to compensate worse level of life (locally worse, because good level of life combined with tyranny eventually becomes worse too) emotionally, because otherwise it’ll be impossible to institute a political system nobody wants.

I meant that they can only have so much emotional and mental resource after doing their real job and not the day one, but this is possible too

Disney made a point of building an original Star Wars plagiarism based on the majority stereotypes, as opposed to fan stereotypes. So where the common stereotype and the fan stereotype would diverge, they deliberately chose the common one. Like the whole thing being about space wizards and pew-pew.

I think sometimes that maybe the “second generation”, after the original creators get old or full of fans’ shit, is usually not very talented, so all it does is grab money and take revenge.

I wonder sometimes if in the framework of that logic all KK was doing was taking revenge on Star Wars fans for upsetting George, and similarly all Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg and such were doing was collect power based on what Sun Microsystems mastodons and Unix fathers and such have done, and take revenge on the wide populace which didn’t value it all.

As in - your typical fan of it all blames MS, Google and such for the way tech became shitty, while the tech bosses blame the populace for choosing shitty and making the good companies bankrupt, and think they are humiliating that populace deservedly. Similar with Disney Star Wars.

Seems like you’re making a a bad faith argument.

Seems why? For me it doesn’t seem so, and it likely won’t, but maybe you can add some detail.

I dunno, for me Door Into Summer is harder sci-fi, but Foundation is harder sci-fi too, and Starship Troopers is harder sci-fi, and Dune is harder sci-fi as well, and Citizen of the Galaxy is harder sci-fi, and one can go on. Pilot Pirx is very hard sci-fi, and many other things by Lem.

Star Trek is not more similar to those than Star Wars.

Pew pew lasers and swords and magic is hardly technologies’ potential impact on humanity

Mockery is not an argument in itself and would somewhat hurt your main argument if such were made.

Star Wars has different kinds of evil. It has YV, it has Killick hives, it even has drug addicted sects. In any case that’s not the meaning of the word “idealistic” I meant.

In the EU that’s a few days or weeks. As if in the movies that time were just skipped.

And doesn’t contradict too much how it’s shown in the movies, if it seems like more than an hour or two before they jump to hyperspace, and in hyperspace there’s enough time for lightsaber training, then maybe it’s a few days.

Star Wars is about syncretic understanding of life and story and morality, - say, I’d trust a Star Wars fan who’s not a humanities major to understand what anti-fascism is more than a humanities major who’s not a Star Wars fan. I don’t think I can describe it better than Lucas himself does, and he seems to have achieved the opening of his museum telling lots on the subject.

Star Trek I haven’t watched enough to judge. But I think they are orthogonal, where Star Trek has idealism, Star Wars has life and chaos, and where Star Trek has philosophy, there Star Wars has just the story, and where Star Trek has neutrality, Star Wars has choice.

Bullshit. The Death Star novel, most of NJO, KotOR II, Allston’s parts of the X-Wing series, Jedi Apprentice and Jedi Quest and the Last of the Jedi, Medstar and Coruscant Nights, I can go on, - there’s plenty of good things.

I don’t think star wars says that except for “what if there was a gun so big you could shoot a planet?”

Which seems to be a smarter question than your “statement about humanity” when actually living in that humanity where all the time someone is trying to build a gun as big as possible in many contexts and interpretations.