Look at mister “Sometimes I write programs that have more than a single niche function” over here

This is a post about growing disappointment with Python

They have to keep a lot of it circulating. As it zips around the economy, it is used to purchase capital, which soaks up the value of workers labor power by converting it into commodities, sells those commodities on a market for a higher price, and then returns profit to the “owners” of the capital. This is how the rich get and stay richer.

Capitalism isn’t neutral, the system creates the rich and poor and delivers the value of worker labor power to the rich owners. The rich can’t control it any more than we can. They have their hand on the wheel through the state, which is just a mechanism that solves problems created by capitalism that can’t be exploited for profits, to violence. But they’re as ensnared by the system as we are. It robs them of their humanity the same it does ours.

We don’t overthrow capitalism to punish the rich, we do it to save everyone from it, and try to restore peoples humanity. The greed of the rich almost doesn’t matter, the system has a logic all its own.

The social system similar to what you describe, which is basically feudalism of nobles and serfs, has its own rules and arose out of its own conditions, like capitalism arose from the revolutionary overthrow of feudalism. Maybe capitalism will give way to some worse form of social relation, I suspect many people are working on that as we speak. But that’s why we have to fight and win for a better system

Socialism or barbarism!

For Marxists, the state is the institution that tries to resolve, with violence, the contradictions that are inherent within class society. So when class society no longer exists, then violence is no longer necessary, hence the state is no longer necessary, hence “withering away”.

This isn’t an all or nothing situation, just a theory. The laws of uneven and combined development indicate that this withering would happen in different ways at different rates. this process wouldn’t even begin until the whole world has become some form of socialism, and the social relations governing society would be much progressed. Its hard to imagine how this would work compared to our current situation

I disagree, but I appreciate you walking back the anticommunism. Paul LeBlanc covers about every argument for Lenin’s “opportunism” in great detail, I would recommend Lenin and the Revolutionary Party for a good description of Leninism before 1921. If you mean Leninism like “Foundations of Leninism” then yeah I’ll join you in calling Stalin an opportunist. But not even Paul Averich, anarchist critic of the Bolsheviks and historian, was willing to lay the authoritarianism of the USSR at the feet of Lenin. But I don’t want to legislate the tragedies of 20th century socialism. I’ll study it, but there’s plenty of reasons to be skeptical.

I recently read a couple books by Cyril Smith who is pretty negative toward Lenin, and while I don’t really buy his premise, I think his emphasis on what was missing (an analysis on “sensuous human activity,” like in Theses on Feuerbach) from the Plekhanov-Leninist tendency of Marxism holds water.

If you want to discuss the history of the Russian revolution, I saved but didn’t post several paragraphs, but deleted them for the sake of brevity. Flattening the whole 100 years of Russian “socialist” history to highlight it’s worst abuses is just as intellectually lazy as flattening it to only highlight the best parts of it. I’m not going to apologise for Kronstadt or anything that came after, but the civil war period was horrible. And had the Bolsheviks not taken power, Kornilov or Kerensky would have, and instituted far more brutal oppression; if not just tried to restore the Tzar.

The organizing principles of the Bolsheviks and RSDLP should absolutely be studied leading up to Oct 1917, as well as Rosa Luxemburg, and Anton Pannekoek’s criticisms of Lenin.

But saying “firing squad” doesnt prove that communism leads to authoritarianism, although it references a time in history that was very brutal and oppressive. However, Its not as good of a criticism as you are capable of. I’m used to having discussions with people who probably aren’t critical enough of the Bolsheviks, so its refreshing to hear from you, in a way.

Communism is the struggle for a moneyless, stateless, classless society.

There’s no connection between a supposed ideology of communism, and authoritarianism. The “authoritarianism” arose as a result of material circumstances, not ideology. I’ve looked into the histories a lot and its very complicated. Not like you wouldn’t understand it, just that it can’t be reduced to a simple truism, cant be made succinct.

Let’s just say that the capitalists who hoard all the wealth and do nothing to earn millions and billions, who own the media and for whose benefit the state represents, aren’t too keen on movements that sometimes overthrow them. So it’s in their interests to paint socialism and communism in as bad a light as possible.

deleted by creator

At what point does an EM jamming signal just become electricity running through the wires? That’s what would happen in a so called Harrington event, right?

God you can’t even have colonies anymore, another victim of wokeness

I’m still learning so I’m a student myself!

I did on another thread!

Hegelian phenomenology is dialectics but dialectics isn’t phenomenology.

Thanks for the article, It does a good job of describing Hegelian historical analysis, via Marx’s materialist dialectics, but isn’t more than a superficial understanding of either. I’m no Hegel scholar, but “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” isn’t Hegel, its Ficte’s description of Hegel’s dialectic, and its an over simplification. The author isnt an expert but superficially on Marx and Hegel. Read Karl Marx and Human Self Creation by Cyril Smith you can skip to the bit about Hegel and Marx, but the pre history is interesting.

Marxist historical materialism is scientific, but most importantly, and what the author doesn’t seem to get, probably due to my superficial reading of the article, is that in historical materialist analysis, the subject and object are united into a single system. His dualist presuppositions in the Implications section (and likely those of his readers) are exactly what prevent access to understanding dialectics.

the appearance of pairs of diametric opposites, united by their contradictions toward one another isn’t too difficult to grapple with as an abstract concept. But in order to apply this consistently we have to radically alter our perspective, we have to unite the subject and object, the ego and the other, the body and the mind. Uniting subject and object is actually extremely difficult within even an abstract conception of post enlightenment rationality. But its one of the only way to connect understanding to truth, humanity to justice and production.

Also a better quick primer on Marxist Hegelianism might be Thesis on Feuerbach by the man himself. Also Plekhanov’s the Materialist Conception of History but that’s way out of the scope of what we are discussing.

The “rational enlightenment” and its consequences

This is not the Hegelian Dialectic. This is Hegelian Phenomenology, which is dialectical, but condensing dialectics into this single paranoid conclusion is not educational.

Invalidating anything that might conflict with your favorite epistemology? Certainly there’s no problem here, as long as you avoid philosophy

Soulsborne games are hard, but they’re designed to teach you how to play through death. I’m gonna teach you how to play Bloodborne.

These are tips for a first playthrough, some of this advice isn’t universal but it will take the sting and uncertainty out of the game since it actually tells you very little in the way of strategies and best practices.

1. Which weapon to pick - you start out without a weapon, the game wants you to get killed, and when you do you will get a starting weapon. I’m going to make a gross generalization here, all three weapons are great, but start with the Saw Cleaver. Its arguably the best weapon in the game, and you can choose it right after you die. You can perform a light attack with r1 and if you press l1 immediately after you will do a transform attack which is 50% more powerful than your light attack and does a ton of stagger which can break boss parts allowing you to get free hits and . You can literally just r1-l1-l1-r1-l1-l1… Combo through the entire lgame. Simple and incredibly powerful. Then, pick the pistol to learn how to parry. Put all your upgrade materials into the cleaver.

2. How to level your character - if you pick the saw cleaver, it levels primarily with strength. But your first priority is to level vitality. Level your vitality to 25 before leveling any other stat. This will give you more survivability, and most of your damage will come from upgrading your weapon anyway. Skill is also okay to level, it will give you some more damage to your weapon (not as much as str) and also strengthen visceral attacks. Arcane is if you want to use hunter tools, which are neat but strictly optional. Bloodtinge strengthens your gun, but there are only 3 weapons that scale with it and they’re more difficult to use. Endurance is optional, it makes fights a bit faster cuz you can get more hits in before your stamina depletes, but you can play the whole game with base stamina no problem. Strictly optional. The max you should level any stat is 50, the exception is endurance which has a hard-hardcap at 40. Stick to vitality, str and skill until they reach their hardcaps at 50 and then you can level whatever you want and mess around cuz you’ll likely be in ng+ or higher. Honestly levels don’t matter much, you could get a cheat that levels you to level 250 and still struggle with early bosses. I’ve seen it happen.

3. How to level your weapon - bloodstone shards are used to make your weapon stronger. You can also fit gems in your weapon to make your weapon more powerful. You’ll get lots of these but level up your cleaver until it won’t take any more of a certain type. There are 4 different bloodstones, and you need 16 to level up 3 times (except the last one which only requires 1 for the final level.) Max level is 10.

4. Other tips - you don’t have to fight everything. Lots of people give up at the beginning because there is a bonfire with a bunch of enemies around it and they try to take them all on. Or you can just run past it if you know the way past. If you get stuck on a boss explore somewhere you haven’t been, or take a break. You need a clear head. Remember the game teaches by killing you so if you aren’t trying to learn a boss’s attack patterns and trying new ways to defeat them, they can be pretty difficult. Serrated weapons like the Cleaver’s untransformed mode deal additional damage to beasts, and so does fire, like fire paper and Molotov’s. Molotov’s are great, use them, and they’re pretty cheap early game. Buy bloodvials and bullets too so you don’t get caught lacking.

You can summon other players if you have PS+ so r/huntersbell is a good place to find cooperators, and they have a discord too if you don’t like reddit. This game is so good, and has tons of replay value so don’t worry if you need a little help. The story is amazing so just get through it. The DLC is 1000% worth it, if you find yourself liking the game get the dlc. Reach out of you need help or have questions, I love this game so much, and I love helping people with it so don’t hesitate!

PC version

OP said Bloodborne

The uncanny pedo valley

I’m a constitutional originalist so I believe that the first amendment was intended by the Founding Fathers™ to protect jet ski dealership owners from repercussions against calling a middle schooler the n-word, not so that filthy godless heathens such as women can have democratic “rights.”

Scientific research indicates we see colors pretty damn similarly, with edge cases for colorblindness and also people who are more color sensitive.

One way this can be studied is by studying the metamerism of different colors by different observers. Metamerism is the study of how colors change given different light sources.

There are other objective qualities that give hints that we have similar ways of experiencing colors. You mention that colors are nothing more than our brain assigning “color” to frequency of light – but light is itself just a frequency of electromagnetic radiation, namely the frequencies that make up the bulk of the radiation emitted by the sun.

So to a normal observer without colorblindness, there are more variants of colors of green than any other color. Green is of course situated in the very center of the roygbiv spectrum, it is the “most visible” color. The colors with the least amount of variations are red and violet, which are situated at the edges. Frequencies above violet or below red become invisible making up infrared and ultraviolet radiation.

Where we get tricked up, and I used to have identical suspicions as you did, is that we consider color to be purely subjective, because we aren’t taught to unify subjectivity and objectivity into a united whole. Color isn’t completely imagined, there are certain surfaces that absorb and reflect certain frequencies of EM radiation just as the structures in our brain that process this ocular input are more or less similar. Things that are subjective aren’t usually associated with being “real” the same way that objectively “real” things that exist out in the phenomenal world are. However, color is socially real, we can almost all identify colors that are the same and colors which are different. Since the set of colors which are “red” are fewer than the set of colors which are “green” then there is no way that what I experience as red is the same as what you experience as green. Artists use colors to convey emotion and are able to achieve this with many many different observers. Warm colors are warm, and cool colors are cool. There may be different levels of sensitivity but in my experience this can be somewhat trained into an observer though no doubt there are outliers who have a unique sensitivity to color differences.

So there are objective factors which align with subjective factors let’s say 90% of the time, which strongly supports the idea that we experience color more or less the same way. The trouble is not that subjectivity and objectivity are irreconcilable, in fact it is when we fail to reconcile them that our troubles begin. In my opinion, this is a huge problem that creates all kinds of issues when we try to relate to each other; it may be the most prominent philosophical problem of our age. Luckily it is fairly easily remedied with a slight change in the way we think about subject and object. Its useful to separate them sometimes but we need to be able to reunify them, which just takes practice in my experience.