This is amazing, I think it could even nicely fit a use case in a project of mine. Thanks!
Even if you often try to make that person feel understood and empowered to express their views, everyone's needs are different. For example, if they tend to feel inadequate or are self-conscious about their achievements/intelligence/etc., you may need to go the extra mile here.
Try to identify all the positive and negative interactions with them (i.e., those in which they get the impression that they are right versus those in which they don't) and make sure that positive ones greatly outnumber negative ones. If you need, you can try to acknowledge more situations wherein their contribution to a conversation deserves praise, or even simply not point out their mistakes if the question at hand is not critical for you (easiest imo).
When a person says this, sometimes even if they do it in a positive tone, it's usually a way to verbalize more concrete concerns that you should address. For example, they might feel that you are always dismissing their opinions, that you don't listen to them in general, or they would simply like to get support when they express their views in a group so they get some recognition. In any case, they feel like you can do something to help but may not feel comfortable to express it or may not have fully identified it. If that person is important to you, you should be able to see what they want and take action.
Okay, my answer is pretty removed, but I'd say I'd like a system where decisions are made by submitting automated proofs of their optimality, either absolute or over all submitted proposals in a defined time frame. The conditions of optimality would be pre-defined in a Constitution, and non-provable facts would be accepted or rejected via a decentralized voting system that would keep multiple diff chains and penalize e.g. voting for facts that are later proven false via a submitted proof. The proof system would hold all powers, but would be able to delegate decisions to entities under proven rules, which would come faster but possibly be overriden.
If you use my snippet, I want your game. If you don't agree, then you can't use my snippet. The purpose of the GPL is simply to prevent people who don't share from benefitting from people who do, which I think is pretty fair.
Absolutely. But I don't want to influence anything, just make the OP slightly happier and hopefully have a good read myself.
The reason some desires are universal is that they are achievable, thus it makes sense that an entity that looks for them exists. And we don't yearn for God, we yearn for happiness, empathy and staying alive, and some of us have created a conceptual entity that gives us an infinite supply of those.
I tend to upvote everything, no matter how much I disagree. I don't trust my own opinions or the authors', all of them are flawed in some way.
There are many hypothetical ways. For example, that might prevent further war in the future, or might be the continuation of an existing conflict. It might alter the balance of power in the world in a way that is eventually beneficial to working class struggle. Hell I can think of thousands of ways in which not starting a war would have been worse than starting it. The fact that you can simply stamp a meme, appeal to emotion and make a huge logic jump without a single word is perplexing.
"Russia has invaded Ukraine" is a true statement. "Russia has invaded Ukraine therefore I should do/say/support ..." is false in general, a deceivingly simple deduction that is hiding a lot of complexity under the rug. For example, what do I want to achieve by doing that? Is it beneficial for the working class? Does anyone want me to do it at all costs to support imperialism? Am I using an appropriate framework for extending ethics reasoning to large organizations and groups of people? What actions are lawful? If no one has the power to enforce that a country will not take unlawful action against another, how is it reasonable of me to expect that the other will not defend itself by unlawful force, if that is de facto its only defense? Am I having a positive impact on the world by simply acting against every country that does something I consider unlawful? If I do so more to some countries than others, am I not acting in favor of some countries? Shouldn't I choose what countries I act in favor of? If I don't do it, who is choosing that for me?
Haha no worries, it's nice to get some tips, thanks! :D
Good idea, should've done it haha. I no longer remember what website it was, but I've seen the same dialog appear a few times since.
Huh... Is this a reference to how all those nazi high ranks ended up within NATO governance? Otherwise I might be missing the point...
I'm a Marxist-Leninist, member of an organized group.
I believe countries try to shape and weaponize citizens' opinions about other countries, so I refuse to defend or criticize them unless I can argue that doing so is beneficial to my ideas (i.e., not based on feelings or ethics). Thus, I'm neutral towards most countries and defend multipolarity.
I tend to doubt my ideas as much as I can.
It's impossible to systematically lie to an entire country's population about the country itself. It's never happened anywhere on Earth and will never do so with current technology. It is however trivial to lie about other countries, which I like to always keep in mind. Think for a moment what reason a Chinese person would even have to dislike their government, when they are clearly doing a good job and actually solving their problems. Even the victims of Tiananmen weren't those often talked-about "pro-Democracy" students, most were anti-liberalization communist worker protestors.
China in coming years is expected to enjoy robust global demand for third-generation semiconductors, which are mainly used in power grids, electric vehicles and telecom base stations, according to …
First subreddit over 10M to go private. The message shown when trying to enter the sub is a quote from spez:
> I think the problem Digg had is that it was a company that was built to be a company, and you could feel it in the product. The way you could criticize Reddit is that we weren't a company – we were all heart and no head for a long time. So I think it'd be really hard for me and for the team to kill Reddit in that way. Steve Huffman, CEO of Reddit, April 2023
Do you expect this is a reflection of how Reddit will handle relations with its investors?
Holy shit, they killed him right there. They have put the thread in "sort by new" mode and I bet it's just to bury that bomb as deep as they can.
The comments are pretty interesting...
A first-in-human clinical trial of an experimental oral drug for removing radioactive contaminants from inside the body has begun. The trial is testing the safe
My region is home to the world's largest worker cooperative, Mondragon Corporation. Do you think worker cooperatives are useful to us? Why aren't they more widespread? Could their growth be facilitated by new technologies like the Internet or Blockchain?
You can accuse anyone of anything and start a trial, that's how the justice system works.
What does that mean?
NATO will act according to their interests. If they can defeat an enemy, they will do so. If your point is that the US will simply point all its weapons towards Russia and China and then simply smile and let them peacefully develop to overtake the US in every aspect as they are doing, you're wrong.
Who started the aggression in Ukraine?
Russia did. But I don't think they should just sit back and watch as the US prepares to deal a lethal blow to them. The US has set up bases all around Russia, formed military alliances with countries near its border. The US has also promoted coups in many post-Soviet states to make their governments US-affine. Even after the 2014 pro-US coup in Ukraine, Ukrainian citizens voted for the seemingly pro-Russian Zelensky, who had promised to normalize relations with Russia and embrace the Russian culture and language in the Donbas region, and were fooled by what turned out to be a new US puppet regime and continued war against the Donbas. Even US officials admit they were planning for the war, just that they didn't think Russia would strike first. At this point, who even launched the first missile in this particular development of the 2014 war is just a small technicality in a complex hybrid war that's been developing for years.
Let’s hope for democracy everywhere.
If two authoritarian behemoths are fighting to death as they are, randomly biting and scolding both in hopes that they'll magically become democratic is a stupid strategy. At best, you will achieve nothing. At worst, one of them will weaponize your innocence against the other, which is quite the case.
Of course. If anti-war activists achieve their goal, Russia will withdraw from Ukraine. Then, NATO will set up bases there, including nuclear weapons, in the most strategically relevant outpost at the Russian border. This, of course, will allow NATO to easily defeat Russia, the largest military power barring itself. Unopposed, it will take on China, the only real contender to the US on the economic front. This will eventually result in the US keeping its hegemony for the rest of our lifetimes, which by simple imperialist logic is detrimental to current global South nations. So as much as I dislike authoritarianism, those activists don't know what they are doing (or, worse, know it damn well) and stopping them by any means will help the rest of us.
In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. Here's a way to ensure that everyone gets those products and services despite not being hired by anyone.
-
Create a basic income system. This would provide everyone with a basic income to cover their essential needs and give them access to the goods and services the AI produces.
-
Expand public services. Governments could provide free or discounted goods and services to citizens, such as healthcare, transportation, education, and housing. This would ensure everyone has access to essential goods and services.
-
Invest in a sharing economy. Governments could invest in a sharing economy, allowing citizens to rent or share products and services. This would allow people to access goods and services without having to purchase them.
-
Tax the AI companies. Governments could tax AI companies on their profits and use the funds to support citizens. This would ensure that citizens receive the goods and services that the AI produces without having to purchase them.
---
In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. To ensure people keep having access to those products and services, governments put taxes on the companies that manufacture them and use those taxes to implement a basic income system, extensive public services and a sharing economy.
In this situation, if taxes are made very high, companies may not be willing to manufacture products and services as the cost of doing so may be too great. This could lead to a scarcity of products and services, increasing their cost and putting them out of reach of people who would otherwise be able to afford them.
To prevent this, governments would need to adjust the tax rate to keep the cost of production low enough to keep products and services affordable. Governments could also use other methods to support the companies making them, such as offering subsidies or providing access to resources like labour and materials at lower costs. Additionally, governments could promote the sharing economy and ensure that it is managed in a way that is fair and equitable for all involved. This would help ensure that people have access to affordable products and services.
---
In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. To ensure people keep having access to those products and services, governments put taxes on the companies that manufacture them and use those taxes to implement a basic income system, extensive public services and a sharing economy.
Governments would like to increase taxes to provide more goods to people, but private companies are not willing to manufacture under high taxes. There's, however, a way to keep manufacturing goods while providing most of them to people.
To do this, governments can set up autonomous production facilities, where all the production is done by robots and AI. This can be done by building infrastructure such as factories and warehouses, buying the necessary equipment, and setting up AI programs to manage the production. This would allow companies to manufacture goods without having to pay taxes, as the facility is owned and operated by the government.
The products manufactured in these facilities can be distributed for free or for a discounted rate in a public distribution system. This would not only provide basic goods and services to people, but also stimulate the economy. People would have access to these goods and services and be able to purchase them for cheaper prices, which would increase consumption and help create jobs in other areas such as services and entertainment.
In addition, governments can also set up a sharing economy, where people can share their resources such as cars and homes. This would help reduce costs and increase access to goods and services.
Overall, this system would allow governments to provide basic goods and services to people while also stimulating the economy, creating jobs in other areas, and reducing costs.
---
An AI has determined that, in a future with full automation of all jobs, where no one would be hired in a job, governments should set up their own fully automated facilities to manufacture goods and provide them for free, since people wouldn't be able to afford products and services offered by private companies. Research would be performed by AI, as well as all other jobs. Since no one can buy their products, private companies would have no incentive to produce them.
In this type of future, governments would need to be very careful in how they set up these facilities to make sure that the goods and services provided are of high quality and meet the needs of the population. Governments should also ensure that the production of these goods is sustainable and does not harm the environment. Additionally, governments would need to provide some form of basic income to the population to make sure that people can still afford to pay for basic necessities. Finally, governments should look into creating a new form of currency to replace the need for money in this new system.
---
An AI has determined that, in a future with full automation of all jobs, where no one would be hired in a job, governments should set up their own fully automated manufacture and research facilities to manufacture goods and provide them for free, since people wouldn't be able to afford products and services offered by private companies, which would stop producing. Money would be replaced by a new form of property exchange.
This system, where the government manages all manufacturing for its people, and money does not exist, could be summarized in a single word: socialism. With socialism, the government would own and control all of the means of production and distribute goods and services to its citizens for free. This could be a potential solution for a future with full automation of all jobs, since it would guarantee that everyone has access to basic needs such as food, shelter, and healthcare. It would also ensure that no one is left behind due to their financial status. Money would be replaced by a system of bartering, where goods and services would be exchanged directly between individuals.
---
Two AIs are presented with the problem to design a system that provides for everyone despite all jobs being automated and performed by AI.
The first AI, after some consideration, proposes socialism as a solution. Here, the goverment would set up its own automated manufacture and research facilities, makes goods and services available to everyone for free, and traditional currency is abolished.
The second AI, which opposes socialism, tries to propose a different system that would also keep everyone happy despite full automation and an absence of jobs. It suggests that the government instead should create a universal basic income system, where every citizen of the country receives a certain amount of money each month, regardless of whether they have a job or not. This money could be used to purchase goods and services, which would be produced by the automated factories, incentivizing the factories to continue to operate, and giving citizens a steady income.
---
In the future, every job will be automated and no work will be performed by people. To ensure everyone gets products and services despite not being able to work, there are two proposals.
In the first proposal, the government would set up automated production facilities to manufacture goods that would be distributed to people for free.
In the second proposal, private companies would keep manufacturing goods, but taxes would be placed on them and used to buy products that would be distributed to the rest of the population.
Here's an in-depth comparison of both proposals.
The first proposal would be more efficient, as automated production facilities are more efficient than manual labor. It would also be more equitable, as everyone would receive the same products and services regardless of their socio-economic status. However, it would be costly to set up and maintain these automated production facilities.
The second proposal would be more cost-effective, as private companies already exist and would just need to be taxed in order to fund the distribution of goods. It would also be less equitable, as wealthier people would be able to afford more expensive, higher-quality goods than those who are less well-off.
Ultimately, how to handle the automation of jobs will depend on the resources available in a given economy and the preferences of the people in power. No matter which proposal is chosen, it is important to ensure that everyone is able to access products and services in a fair and equitable way.
---
An AI and a human are comparing two ways to organize society in the future. According to them, the first proposal is more efficient and equitable, but difficult to set up initially, while the second roposal is less efficient and equitable but would be easy to set up with little to no change in policy.
Upon consideration, they decided that any lawmaker should choose to implement the first proposal, despite the difficulty of setting it up. They argued that the initial hardship was worth it for the long-term benefits in efficiency and equity, and that the second proposal should only be used as a temporary solution until the first proposal could be implemented.
Russian PC makers cannot get Russian CPUs from TSMC, other foundries.
tl;dr: Intel and AMD are not selling their processors to Russia, and processors from Russian companies cannot be manufactured as Taiwan is banning TSMC from doing so, while Russia can only produce chips up to a 90 nm process.
Keeping TSMC's best tech at home.
So, since Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, I assume a traditional representative democratic system is not viable, as it overrepresents other classes and their desires. So what other forms of governance have been used?
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/411395
> Every production system has a way to assign jobs to citizens. The basic idea is that the kinds of labor "required" by society for an efficient fulfillment of needs don't necessarily align with those that an unhindered free choice of jobs would afford. > > The way this is solved under capitalism is letting labor be a commodity, subject to market forces. Workers earn wages that are determined by the demand for their work and the availability of it. The difference in wages across jobs pushes us towards working jobs we otherwise wouldn't. > > I believe the importance of the job market is underestimated in past Marxist literature. It used to be the case that labor was expendable and interchangeable; the availability of any one kind of labor greatly surpassed demand, making wages just a way to keep the proletariat living and reproducing. > > However, with an increase in automation, those jobs have long ago disappeared in developed countries, and new ones are taking their place. Notably, these new jobs increasingly require training, which has the effect of making a worker unsuitable for all but their own specialized job. > > As a result, wages are now established mainly by market forces. If an employer can, by virtue of the rest of the economy, offer worse working conditions than minimally required by the workforce, they will. Conversely, if a particular kind of labor is sold for a higher price, the employer will oblige. > > As a special case that I'd like to mention, those that are very heavily demanded (e.g. public figures, elite sportsmen...) can get extremely high market prices for their labor. This is a new mechanic that has become more common. > > I'd like to discuss how a Socialist country would tackle the problem of job distribution, in a way that hopefully offers better guarantees than a free job market.
Every production system has a way to assign jobs to citizens. The basic idea is that the kinds of labor "required" by society for an efficient fulfillment of needs don't necessarily align with those that an unhindered free choice of jobs would afford.
The way this is solved under capitalism is letting labor be a commodity, subject to market forces. Workers earn wages that are determined by the demand for their work and the availability of it. The difference in wages across jobs pushes us towards working jobs we otherwise wouldn't.
I believe the importance of the job market is underestimated in past Marxist literature. It used to be the case that labor was expendable and interchangeable; the availability of any one kind of labor greatly surpassed demand, making wages just a way to keep the proletariat living and reproducing.
However, with an increase in automation, those jobs have long ago disappeared in developed countries, and new ones are taking their place. Notably, these new jobs increasingly require training, which has the effect of making a worker unsuitable for all but their own specialized job.
As a result, wages are now established mainly by market forces. If an employer can, by virtue of the rest of the economy, offer worse working conditions than minimally required by the workforce, they will. Conversely, if a particular kind of labor is sold for a higher price, the employer will oblige.
As a special case that I'd like to mention, those that are very heavily demanded (e.g. public figures, elite sportsmen...) can get extremely high market prices for their labor. This is a new mechanic that has become more common.
I'd like to discuss how a Socialist country would tackle the problem of job distribution, in a way that hopefully offers better guarantees than a free job market.
A website asking me to "disable ad-blocker" has the balls to tell me I should turn off Firefox Tracking Protection. That's like saying "yeah, we absolutely want to track you across websites, would you do us a favor and let us do it? Please :)"