There was a falling out between them after the board picked altman instead of Elon as ceo.

Now Elon is suing openai nominally because there renegging on the whole non profit thing, but really because he has his own xai that is competition and because of the grudge because he’s a petty manchild.

Yes, marx always thought a socialist revolution would come in the late stages of industrial capitalism. Everyone thought it was going to be in Germany up until WWI. The problem is capital becomes entrenched and people become comfortable, especially if they benefit from imperialism and exploitation abroad or of a minority racialized underclass.

Another problem with skipping the first revolution and industrializing under socialism is it gets blamed for the the horrors of industrialization. The early stages of industrialization are always horrific with long hours, bad working conditions and slum living conditions. Combine that with general conservatism and desire to stick to a traditional life and you have to coerce the peasents into going into the cities to become industrial laborers. Capitalism did this through enclosure and farm consolidation, the soviets did it more blatantly, sometimes at gunpoint. Either way it builds an animosity with the system that robbed you of your traditional life.

One thing I’ll add that I haven’t seen mentioned is communisms relative weakness in the propaganda department. If you look at democracy as a bunch of competing interest groups i.e. parties trying to win the masses over to there side to win, then there main tool / weapon is information that will make the opposition look bad and your side look good, i.e. propaganda. Good propaganda requires intimate knowledge of people’s desires and a knowledge of how to shape those desires to the benefit of your program. Capitalism is very good at this due to competition forcing them to better understand there customer so they can sell them more. Capitalism creates great salesman which is fundamentally what you need to create good propaganda. You can see this expertise most plainly in advertising pushing the message that consumption is good, fulfilling and will make you happy.

This expertise combined with the large amount of resources capital can Marshall to push there message makes electoral politics extremely difficult for communism or any program that goes against consumption like environmentalism. Even if you completely eliminate capital and it’s control over media in one nation foreign actors will still come in using the same expertise and resources to try and bring back capitalism. So since communists can’t compete electorally with a free press they go towards autocracy to keep power.

but you have many capitalists competing, so the power is kinda distributed inside the capitalist class.

This isn’t always true, and is arguably not the natural state of capitalism. Capitalism, without state intervention, will tend towards monopoly as economies of scale and market power push out any competition.

Note: all of this is steal manning dengism, I am not a tankie advocating for it

They are in the first stage. Classical Marxist theory divides development into two revolutions / stages:

1. The first revolution is the bourgeoisie overthrowing the feudal order, eg. The American revolution, the English civil war, French revolution of 1830. After the bourgeoisie take over they will use the proletariat to industrialize and develop the means of production. This will eventually lead to a boom in efficiency and production, the peasants moving from the countryside to cities, and abundance of necessities. Eventually though everyone’s needs will be met and without an expanding market to profit from capitalist will be forced to produce more efficiently with less labor to get profits from there now limited market. This will lead to mass layoffs and unemployment which leads to

2. The socialist revolution where the proletariat overthrow the bourgeoisie and sieze the productive forces. They will then distribute labor fairly so you have 8 people working 10 hours instead of 1 person working 80 and 7 others unemployed. This then leads to communism where people have control over production and use it to guarantee well being and leisure instead of profit.

In order to get to this communist phase though you need to industrialize and develop the means of production so you can provide people with basic needs with little labor. The problem is the two major countries where socialism took hold, Russia and China, were still largely agrarian feudal societies. So they had to develop the means of production, Russia, and maoist china did so with 5 year plans, which had some success and some catastrophic failure but was ultimately pretty inefficient. So after mao a new leader in China named deng Xiao ping took over and followed a policy of allowing capitalism into the country to develop the means of production and industrialize. This unleashed powerful forces in the country that needed to be tamed by an even more powerful state, otherwise they would take over like they did in other capitalist countries. Then all the bloodshed from the original Chinese revolution would be for not as they would have to do another revolution to remove the bourgeoisie again. So the state maintains tight control to avoid “regressing” into a capitalist democracy until they fully develop and industrialize. At which point they will use that powerful authoritarian state to disposses the capitalist class and usher in communism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat was supposed to describe the will of a fully conscious proletariat majority being executed by and with the consent of that class. In other words a democracy unclouded by bourgeois interest and false consciousness.

The problem was that at the time of the Russian revolution the proletariat weren’t the majority, the peasants were, and what proletariat there were lacked full class consciousness. So Lenin used the vanguard party to emulate what a dictatorship of the proletariat would do, but that wasn’t an actual one as Marxist would’ve described.

That analogy seems a better fit for a lot of Jewish holidays then Christmas. Passover is about the mass death of innocent Egyptian children. Chanukah is about a revolt against Greek rule where:

The Maccabees destroyed Greek altars in the villages, forcibly circumcised boys, burnt villages, and drove Hellenized Jews off their land.

Christmas is just about some baby being born ( on probably a different day)

zippo lighters

I’ve never had any luck with zippos, whenever I tried to use it it wouldn’t work and I had to refill it. I hear you have to use them often but I’m not a smoker or arsonist so will only use a lighter maybe once a month. Any tips or recommendations for lighters that you don’t have to use often but will last longer than a cheap disposable one?

What an uncreative and semi-racist insult. These people abuse and oppress women and gays, marry children, run an authoritarian theocracy and you choose to make fun of them for living in a sandy environment?

It’s the thin blue line flag , you’ll see it all over the US by right wingers who think police are the only thing keeping us from murdering each other.

This article goes over a bit of both if you trust npr more than some random socialist propagandist but The trends for both are nationwide. Police staffing has been going down since BLM became a thing and public respect and love for cops went down. This one doesn’t give years but it says 5% over the last couple years. The change is bigger in larger more liberal cities. Chicago is down 13% since 2018 , san francisco which inspired this meme is down 20% since 2017 while at the same time seeing a ~30% decrease in crime over the past year.

Crime is also down all over the country, home break ins have been steadily declining since 2018 when the police staffing “problem” started. Murders have also dropped 12% over the past year along with alot of other crimes

Not saying less cops = less crime, just debunking the classic thin blue line narrative of less cops = more crime

You could maybe argue that if the drop was only in small petty crime. Yeah a shopkeeper may stop reporting shoplifting after the 10th time the police don’t respond. That under reporting goes down as the crime gets more serious. Your probably going to report a home break in to the cops even if you know they won’t do anything since you’re going to need a police report for insurance, home break ins have been steadily declining since 2018 when the police staffing “problem” started. This seriousness holds very true for murders which have dropped 12% over the past year

That’s assuming the victims would be under reporting, if you’re saying the police departments, government etc. Are under reporting then that’s getting into conspiracy territory. Especially because we’re seeing this trend reported across the nation so the conspiracy would have to be massive.

Also if the government had the ability to do this why would they start now? This idea isn’t too complex so someone could have easily come up with it and started doing it a while ago. If that were the case we’d never see crime rates go up as the politicians would just under report every year and make it look like crime is going down. But we have seen reported crime go up, noticeably in 2022 , and instead of hiding that many politicians and police departments showcased it as a reason to Crack down on crime and increase there budgets.

Police staffing has been going down since black lives matter became a thing. They dont get the same unquestioned respect and love like they used too so no one wants to be a cop any more. This one doesn’t give years but it says 5% over the last couple years. The change is bigger in larger more liberal cities. Chicago is down 13% since 2018 , san francisco which inspired this meme is down 20% since 2017 and all the mayoral candidates are falling over themselves to say they’ll solve it even though crime is down.

Revolutions by Mike Duncan. It’s a history podcast with each season about a revolution, American, French, South American etc. with a huge backlog

Already listened through once but now I put it on to go to sleep, cause it’s fine if I miss something now.

I mean openais not getting off Scott free, they’ve been getting sued a lot recently for this exact copy right argument. New York times is suing them for potential billions.

They throw the book at us

Do they though, since the Metallica lawsuits in the aughts there hasnt been much prosecution at the consumer level for piracy, and what little there is is mostly cease and desists.

It will eventually have to happen, cars, including evs, are not sustainable, at least at the current levels of usage. If you look at any climate report looking into it the choice is between Americans driving a lot less or severe climate change. I hope murica will make the right choice but the more we tie cars to ideas of freedom and peace of mind the harder that choice will be. It will be tough to fight considering the tens of thousands of hours of car ads most Americans are exposed to pushing that narrative, so it will require just as much reinforcement on the negatives of cars, traffic fatalities, CO2 emissions, airborne micro plastics from tires, maintenance and repair costs, obesity, sprawled cities, etc.

It may not happen in our lifetime, or at least when your healthy enough to bike/hike , but eventually we’ll have to transition away from personal cars. Id prefer to build towards that future now for the reasons listed above but if you want to delay that’s fine, you’ll just have to explain to your grandkids why you did.

Yeah maybe there are are 2000 mountains, but how many have mountain bike trails? If there are trails then there is probably some organization maintaining them like the state or national park service who can also run the shuttles. Shuttles are also pretty cheap and can stop at multiple trail heads based off requests. You can also rotate where the shuttles go each day / week so if there’s a more obscure trail/mountain then you can just wait until it comes up in the schedule. The towns would also probably want to run the shuttles as well since it will bring business to the area.

Ok, let’s assume we want less people on the mountain, what gives you the right to go to the mountain then? Because you can afford a car? That doesn’t seem fair. Also most people have a car so it’s not restricting that many people. If we say only 30 people should go to the mountain a day that’s way easier to enforce if we say only 2 shuttles of 15 are allowed. It’s also fairer as who gets to go is just determined by whoever signs up first, as opposed to whether someone owns something.

I think many people would like to socialize. There’s a loneliness epidemic and many people are looking for friends but don’t know where to meet them. If I was looking for friends with common interests like mountain biking the shuttle up would be a great place to meet them. Just because I want to get away from civilization doesn’t mean I want to get away from socializing, I hike regularly with groups of people and they mostly enhance the experience. If you aren’t into that that’s fine too, just put on your headphones ignore everyone and set off on the trail solo, nothing stopping you from doing that.

For the last point like I said usage can be controlled, even better then cars, but assuming the same usage a shuttle is less pollution then multiple cars. If like you said there are 5-6 cars at a particular trail head then one shuttle carrying all those people will cause less air and noise pollution and make it safer for animals.

No I haven’t lived in rural America but most Americans haven’t either. Most live in the suburbs, cities or towns. It’s like saying people need to eat less sugar and we should stop using it for every food and people saying “what about the diabetics who need sugar” yeah they do but that’s not the majority of people. We can make exceptions for them while also overhauling our food industry to remove this thing that’s causing health problems for most people.

As for the mountain bike scenario ideally you would take a train to a town near the trail and then the town can have a shuttle up to the mountain. If we did fully invest in public transit this wouldn’t add too much to your trip and has some other benefits.

• This would be good for the park and wildlife in general as less traffic would make it easier for animals to migrate. Less roadkill

• This would lower the amount of development needed in the park as parking lots wouldn’t be necessary.

• It would make mountain biking more accessible for people who don’t have a car or can’t drive.

• It would make it more social, you could meet people on the shuttle on the way up, if there are regulars then a community could form.

• It would reduce the amount of air and noise pollution.

That would work if we invested as much into public transit as into cars. This goes back to designing cities for public transit instead of cars. If we did that with the money we currently are putting into cars we could have high frequency metro lines where inner city interstate / highway routes and high speed rail for inter city interstate/highway routes along with frequent bus service in the cities/towns on the lines. We think public transit is inherently slow and unreliable but that’s because we never invest enough money to make it fast and reliable.