Hence why “radicalise the populace” is a phrase that makes sense.
The populace, containing many people who are radicalised and many others who are not radicalised, may become further radicalised by gaining a higher proportion of radicalised people in response to state repression.
If the populace and the radicals were the same set of people, then there would be no further radicalisation possible.
Ah, okay, so it’s about making sure the signal can still get through. That’s not an easy problem to solve because the video and the control signals run on different frequencies and you need both of them to work.
I have more speculation about how they might’ve done it but I’ll fight my tendency to infodump just this once.
I mean they can’t jam everything, that would leave them without communications for instance. If you figure out which frequencies the Russians are using and work within that band, you could get around the jamming.
A lot of big polluters are publicly traded companies. Owning shares of US public companies means you can go to shareholder meetings, vote, and other rights....
I think the utopian socialists tried this, it’s been pretty well accepted for well over a century by any serious socialist thought that just talking to capitalists to convince them of anticapitalism - and this is what you’re talking about when you’re asking fossil fuel shareholders to act against their profit motive - simply will never work.
They will kill to protect their money. They will not listen to anything but the exercise of power. If you don’t have a controlling interest in a company, you don’t have power and you won’t influence them. If you could get a controlling interest, you’d be coopted into the capitalist machinery long before the point you could change the fossil fuel companies’ course. If by some miracle you could avoid that, I imagine you would be assassinated.
Don’t kid yourself. Shareholder meetings and votes and whatever other structures create the illusion of accountability only go so far as they are useful in maintaining power for those that have it. The second you really threaten their power the fangs will come out. They will not lie down and simply agree to stop being the bourgeoisie. The apparent civility of a shadeholder meeting is a fig leaf on their blood-drenched bodies.
The problem is that they’ve already thought of that, and they diversify their portfolios. You would be just another company vying for their investments.
Whilst you’re working on your alternative, as long as fossil fuels have anything left to offer them, they will keep burning them until there is nothing left. They won’t just throw away their existing investments. Your alternative will not exhaust their money, no matter how good it is. If your alternative did exhaust their ability to invest, they wouldn’t invest. The risk would be too high, and capitalists are extremely risk averse.
The other problem with this is, no matter what solution you come up with, if it’s in the hands of capital then it will be optimised for financial return over everything else. That means everything else is sacrificed as an externality, including the climate. They won’t just give you money and let you sacrifice their profits for the environment, they will demand you make the greediest decisions possible and ignore all other considerations until whatever you’ve developed is as bad for humanity as fossil fuels.
If you won’t do that, they’ll remove you from the equation, probably by just stealing your work and getting someone less scrupulous to do it in your stead. Property means nothing in reality, it is only a convenient fiction that serves the interests of the powerful, and they don’t respect it when it gets in their way.
The reality is that every measure that has been successful in curbing their power has been direct action by organised groups of people. We have things like the weekend, child labour laws, health & safety regulations, and so many more things not because people worked within the system, but because they refused to be governed by it. People went on strike, demonstrated, sabotaged critical infrastructure - like pipelines - and sometimes waged actual wars, just to displace the power of capital & the state.
Any law we have that protects us was given as a concession in response to these actions, and every one of those laws can stop protecting us the moment our rulers decide they don’t need to do it anymore.
However, people are building a better world now, in the shell of the old and dying world, but one of the things you need to do to be part of that is to stop waiting for permission. Capitalists won’t give it to you, because on some deep systemic level they know that that better world has no place for their way of life.
I’ll agree that state violence is bullshit. If they really wanted to help people, they could give them counselling, or maybe do something about our nightmarish society that atomises and impoverishes everyone - including men, women and others that fall outside that binary - and drives people to extremism out of desperation.
Unfortunately they are part of the problem. When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When all you have is state repression, you’re going to treat every problem like political dissidence, and that’s going to create more terrorism, not less.
This something you need to understand: the state and capital are our common enemy. They work together to keep us poor and separated. Women are not your enemy, they are suffering under this system too. Our actual enemies are the ones that want to push narratives that divide us along lines of gender, race, sexuality, ability, poverty, whatever they can find, because the more we blame one another, the less we pay attention to our oppressors, and the less we work together to fight against them.
To everyone else here attacking OP: saying “fuck you, you deserve repression” is not only false, it doesn’t help. This language I’ve used here has been shown to be effective at combating bigotry, probably because it’s true.
To OP, if you don’t understand why you’re being targeted, this article explains how terrorism is being connected with incels, and also why state responses to terrorism aren’t actually all that helpful: theconversation.com/why-charging-incels-with-terr…
Coded language like that may not sound misogynist to you, but so many people use it in a misogynistic way that by saying it you are identifying yourself with misogyny whether you want to or not.
Also, sex isn’t a marketplace. People are not products to be consumed, bought or sold.
There is a reason women reject a lot of men, and it’s not because they’re rolling in good dick. It’s because they are afraid of being killed for a start.
I would recommend you spend more time figuring out where your real problems come from. They don’t originate with half of all people, they originate in capitalism and patriarchy. That doesn’t mean the problem is “men”. Patriarchy is bad for men too.
Researchers found low concentrations of so-called forever chemicals in various "eco-friendly" straws, raising doubts about whether they're an appropriate alternative.
This and plastic shopping bags are the perfect poster children - they inconvenience consumers and not shareholders. Look at your average shopping cart and tell me how much plastic is in it. Did we ever address that, or was it totally ignored for the tiny fraction of that plastic that constitutes disposable bags? Disposble bags that have now been replaced by other bags that are dubiously better that we have to buy, and whose normal reuse-case is now other thin plastic bags that we have to also buy.
Meanwhile the enormous amount of packing plastic that is already in the shopping cart before you bag anything is left alone, because presumably doing anything about that would change supply lines, and that would cost money for shareholders. Can’t have that.
Also if you’ve got a straw you almost certainly have a plastic lid that has more plastic in it than the straw did but there isn’t an easy way to fix that. It’s an incredibly thin and meaningless cover for the real problems.
I would love to see what actual academics in this field have to say about course material for children that equates copyright infringement with theft. I imagine it wouldn’t be good.
Having a few comments on record about this issue might help steer schools away from adopting it.
Like many others on here, I’ve finally had enough of the constant splintering of content into more and more separate services, each offering less value....
Plenty of mainstream distros have versions designed with an RPi in mind. They should be designed lightweight for that purpose, but also the default version for rpi is called raspbian, and it tends to have the most support for rpi applications. If you’re not committed to a particular distro for any reason that’s a good place to start. All the software should work regardless.
If you want the whole setup to be headless (no screen), you’ll have to do a lot of work in the command line. If you want a screen to play things on, well then just the regular OS version should be fine.
Anything serving a desktop will be more resource intensive. I’m pretty sure the VNC option should have minimal impact whenever you’re not connected to it.
Also though, no matter what you do, it’s linux so you should accept that you’ll need to spend some time in the command line to get things done. It’s getting better with making things accessible via GUIs but I think it may always have a heavier reliance on the CLI because of the hacker nature of it.
My biggest issue with this is the flight part - it’s a counterintuitive explanation that doesn’t really explain how to make the flight work. It’s not technically wrong, and if you trace that cross-section you will get a working aerofoil. However, you can’t make the Wright Flyer on that explanation, or in fact any of the early aeroplanes that were constructed with simple fabric stretched between wooden frames.
A far more useful and intuitive explanation is that planes fly by flow-turning, basically the interaction between the aerofoil and the air turns the air in one direction, which pushes the aerofoil in the other. This also means the air below will end up slower than the air on top, which will create a pressure differential. Either of these methods can completely describe how flight works.
Also, a plane isn’t just two aerofoils attached to a central body. Early planes were at least biplanes, and you need horizontal and vertical stabilisers to have full control. You need flaps that give you pitch, yaw and roll, and you need the centre-of-mass - the point where it balances - to be in front of the centre of pressure. That means you need the stabilisers to be at the back to keep the plane stable like a dart.
This isn’t just a “well akshually”, although it sort of is. If you tried to follow the advice as-written and didn’t know this, there’s a good chance you’d end up on the long list of people killed by their own inventions. Actually, I suspect most of these explanations give you just enough information to kill yourself but not really enough to actually make any of them work from first principles.
Right but again, that problem is not one that existed. The future is federation - communities working together based on trust, not finding novel ways to track who has & does not have resources.
It wastes a medium country’s worth of emissions every day just to count coins or write things down, and it doesn’t get used to liberate people it gets used for scams.
With ethereum, they’ve been promising this for a while. I believe they are talking about “proof of stake”. The problem with this is of course that you need stake to begin with. This is effectively just capitalism. They explicitly say this in their language:
In Ethereum’s proof-of-stake, validators explicitly stake capital in the form of ETH into a smart contract on Ethereum.
So that just reproduces the problem where you need money to be part of the ecosystem, and an ultra-wealthy bad-actor could easily undermine the system.
Now, as for the idea that any tool can be used for good or ill, I would say that’s true of technology, but not tools. The actual implementation of any given technology affects how it will be used. This is what the saying, “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” is talking about. In media the saying is, “The medium is the message.”
Similarly, you can’t use nuclear weapons for anything good, at least not currently. There was a whole project called “operation plowshare” that tried to find good uses for these things. They just ended up creating a bunch of irradiated craters.
So cryptography is the technology, blockchain is the tool. My point is that if you understand what that tool does, and you look at how it gets used historically, it’s pretty obvious that it’s used for scams. Yes, there are promises that it could be used for better things in the future, but until it actually does so, there’s no reason to believe it.
As for the transitional period where state power is being eroded and communities are being built, it might be true that you can’t trust someone halfway around the world, individually. This is where I’m basically just brainstorming how I personally would suggest this problem be solved:
I would still rely on federation. For instance, as things stand right now, countries have trade agreements between one another, and those agreements don’t work because of some outside police force, they work because those entities rely on one another. There is a level of trust, even though states are notoriously untrustworthy, they still know the level of trust is stable enough to make their currencies compatible and engage in trade.
If you’re in a federated community that trades with other communities on a basis of mutual aid and trust, you could easily have a trade agreement from your federated communities with capitalist states. Then whatever mechanism you would use to negotiate requests internally, you just create a similar mechanism where you request an item that is for sale from a capitalist country, and the federation organises the sale externally. That insulates you from needing to trust anyone externally.
This would be what you would do if you absolutely had to, but I can also see why such communities would want to minimise their support for capitalist states. Ultimately the only reason such a state would have an agreement with a federated bloc of anarchist communities would be because they benefited somehow. I would say in such a world the downfall of such states is inevitable, but maybe it’s the most peaceful way to manage such a transition. Ideally, you wouldn’t trade in single transactions with people on the other side of the world. Most goods can be produced internally in any reasonably sized economy, and if you don’t have cheap vs expensive labour, there’s no reason most goods need to be imported. Currently we import clothing, for example, across oceans for absolutely no reason other than to exploit cheap labour. That’s enormously wasteful in so many ways. I personally would far rather have a slower pace of consumption, and make industry more localised, than use crypto just for individual overseas purchases.
Oh and I’m happy to talk to anyone who is responsive to the points I’m making. If you weren’t I wouldn’t have spent this long talking to you :)
Maybe the tools/technology dichotomy isn’t so clear, but I guess I’m talking about how technology is applied and how tools are designed. Like the difference between a wood axe and a polearm - both are built on the same fundamental principles of adding a sharpened metal object to the end of a wooden stick, but one of them is good for chopping wood and the other is good in battle. You could swap them around, but they’d be almost useless at one another’s jobs. How they are designed dictates how they are used, and currency technologies are no different. They are a type of accounting, but they are built around lack of community. Debt the First 5000 Years by David Graeber is a great book on this topic, explaining the social origins of debt and how money really isn’t such a big part of most of human history, only rising to its current form with the advent of imperialism and colonialism.
I guess my point with the blockchain thing is that even though I can see some use for keeping records in a decentralised way, I still don’t see blockchain solving any real problems there. Again, if you need decentralisation you should base it on trust, and basically anything you do in that sphere you can do with simple authentication, which is a type of cryptography we’ve had for many decades now. If the outside world is using blockchain you could make a case for using it in a limited way when you absolutely have to, but I certainly wouldn’t advocate for supporting blockchain.
Advocating for it on the basis of hypothetical future uses for it is basically falling afoul of the AM/FM distinction, AKA Actual Machines vs Fucking Magic. Actual machines exist and you can see their track record; fucking magic is whatever the scam artist sells it as. If the technology hasn’t proven itself yet, then you can’t make plans based on it.
My point about international relations was that “trust” works even in that cutthroat context. I love Beau btw, he’s absolutely right about that point. Weirdly I think the first place I understood that concept was from reading Ice Station by Matthew Reilly, which is just the most trashy action novel you could imagine.
I agree that anarchism is slowly emerging everywhere, and that’s kind of how it has to be. I imagine it as a smattered, regional emergence in disparate places, which once it passes a crucial tipping point it floods everywhere all at once. Like I think people would be shocked at how fast society can change once the systems of oppression crumble.
The question of nuclear war is a sobering one. It is in theory possible that one continent goes before another, and in that case perhaps a nuclear power might decide to attack with nuclear weapons. The only thing you could do in that case is say, “Well, our territory now contains nuclear weapons too, so MAD is still in effect.” It’s not a great answer, but it’s the only one I can think of.
Lemmyshitpost community closed until further notice
Hello everyone,...
Iran rounds up activists and relatives of killed protesters ahead of Mahsa Amini anniversary (edition.cnn.com)
I never follow the rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
transcript: “I visit this community multiple times a day” “and yet I never post” “you have no control over me, gay people on my phone” “CRY”
Russian "Strizh-3" anti-drone system is destroyed by an electronic warfare resistant FPV drone. (streamable.com)
Source: t.me/ssternenko/19879
victims of the polygyny :( (lemm.ee)
What was taken I cannot get back (lemmy.world)
Using capitalism to reduce emissions
A lot of big polluters are publicly traded companies. Owning shares of US public companies means you can go to shareholder meetings, vote, and other rights....
Why is the government targeting incels?
You may have heard of the “Countering Violent Extremism” program under DHS....
'Eco-friendly' paper and bamboo straws contain PFAS chemicals, study finds (www.nbcnews.com)
Researchers found low concentrations of so-called forever chemicals in various "eco-friendly" straws, raising doubts about whether they're an appropriate alternative.
Anti-Piracy Lessons Enter the School Curriculum: Are You a Thief? (ift.tt)
Best setup for new PI4 Download Box (lemmynsfw.com)
Like many others on here, I’ve finally had enough of the constant splintering of content into more and more separate services, each offering less value....
Weapons Grade Drag - MilSpec (lemmy.world)
Why are there people like this?! (lemmy.world)
incredible (lemmy.world)
A key feature of NFTs has completely broken / Web3 was supposed to make sure the original artist always got paid. Not so much anymore. (www.theverge.com)