There’s a sticking point that no one’s been able to explain to me:

If you’re in the minority, revolution is against the democratic will of the people.

If you’re in the majority, you have the votes to actually accomplish something with reform. It’s not like we live in a monarchy, reform is possible under our system.

If reform isn’t working to bring about your goals, either your goals aren’t popular enough, or they are popular but the people lack the will and organization to vote for them.

If the people lack the will and organization to vote effectively, they certainly lack the will and organization to topple the government.

My area of expertise is managing complex systems and change implementation. I sincerely don’t understand how revolution is supposed to work where reform doesn’t. No one has been able to give me an answer that doesn’t bill down to idealistic hope. How is this revolution supposed to be implemented, and why can’t we build the foundation for revolution while simultaneously using the tools we have for reform? Wouldn’t widespread support for reform be the best possible proof of consensus?

I dropped this /s

It’s called a dialectic.

I’ve got a theory that Bigfoot sightings are frequently just people who dropped out of society to live a primitive life in the woods. In that case yeah, basically.

Depends. Daily commute is discovery, just grinding through unheard stuff and adding stuff I like to playlists.

Long trips are mostly prog rock, long track times and constant variety help keep me awake and stimulated.

“Truff”

Oh it doesn’t, it’s a hot sauce and one of the ingredients is also black truffle

Classic black Truff sauce. The black truffle elevates just about everything I put it on, and the heat has depth instead of just being heat.

Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It’s round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you’ve got a hundred years here. There’s only one rule that I know of, babies-“God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.”

It’s a matter of memorizing a few algorithms, I did it when I wasn’t much older than him. It’s pretty easy to solve the first two layers unaided, but you’re likely to get into the weeds on the last layer without algorithms.

Because death is inevitable and if it’s going to happen anyway, I can use the brief time here to experience all that I can.

There it is. As far as we know, this is the one chance we have at existence. Revel in it.

Not from Cali, not a programmer (though honestly I could be).

Tell them they only have authority on the US border or 100 miles from it.

Pretty sure they count international airports as borders, so within 100 miles of them too.

Yes, I don’t wanna gleek all over my stuff.

Greedy sociopaths are a fact of humanity, they will always exist and will always be drawn to positions of power. The fitness of any system to avoid authoritarianism is based solely upon the effectiveness of the obstacles it erects to oppose aspiring dictators.

Materialism isn’t just about base economic principles, it’s about ensuring that your systems are suitable to actual reality, rather than just utopian hypotheticals. Anyone can design an idealistic democratic system of government that works perfectly when everyone is kind, reasonable, and cooperative, but such a system is useless. Lasting success requires a system which fulfills the necessities of government efficiently without being exploitable by greedy sociopaths.

Every system has limitations and flaws. The trick is tailoring your system elements to serve your use case.

Fuck French toast because it is decadent but usually entirely to much.

Marry waffles because they are perfect and precious.

Kill pancakes.

The main threat of AI is that it’s software. At least when robots displaced factory jobs, they introduced robot design, manufacturing, and maintenance jobs. But software is infinitely scalable. You don’t have to program every new instance of a software, it’s just copy paste. Sure there’s tailoring, debugging, and developing new models, but the number of jobs displaced is orders of magnitude higher than jobs created, and rollout is relatively quick and easy. Once a software is mature enough, it can displace an entire industry basically overnight.

every time there is an issue discussed it tends to be: women, minorites, whatever have a problem, men are the problem.

This can’t be overstated. There are a lot of loud misandrists posing as feminists, broadly painting men as The Problem just for being men. Speaking up is automatically condemned as condescension, sitting comfortably is encroaching on women’s space, striking up conversation is harassment, glancing at someone in the gym is sexual assault, a drunk hookup is rape.

Of course, there are problematic men who are guilty of these accusations, but the majority are normal people being baselessly lumped in with actual offenders for no other reason than being male. Women get unwavering support for just being women, men get trashed for just being men. That by itself is demoralizing.

Then you combine that with the fact that a large percentage of women want an assertive “manly” man. The boys who err on the side of respectfulness watch the aggressive dudebros succeed sexually and romantically where they fail.

If respect loses to toxic masculinity so often, then it’s only reasonable to think that maybe the guys pushing toxic masculinity know what they’re talking about. And if they’re going to be demonized for being men anyway, they might as well live up to the condemnation and at least get something out of it.

Edit: let me specify, I don’t find Tate compelling, I’m only speaking of the mental state that would bring young men into his influence.