Well because men are physically stronger than women and because some men are wife-beaters or rapists or cheating on their wife, since decades already now there's been a movement to portray all men as raping pigs.
So it's no surprise that young gullible persons (both men and women), after that insane propaganda campaign that commences with kids at a young age, eventually got convinced all men were worthless pigs.
And now, cry me a river, there are national health report findings saying that "too many men suffer in silence".
Maybe it's time we look out as to whom are the actual people responsible for this state of affair?
You cannot spit in the air and expect it to not eventually come back in your face.
P.S: as a sidenote and very, very, very interestingly these same movements that describe men as pigs turn a complete blind-eye to actual patriarchal societies and religions, which is honestly quite shameful.
> Most hobby use cases would be fine with the 1GB, 4GB, or even 8GB versions.
Oh yup... I'm running unbound (DNS resolver) at home 24/7 on a Pi 3 from 2015 since years and years. Zero issue. I run that on a Pi because that one really needs to be on 24/7 and hardly consumes any resources (I mean: it's just DNS queries). But a Pi simply ain't good for much more than that.
> I thought we all established long ago that trying to use a Raspberry Pi like a computer or laptop replacement was not a good idea, because every past Rapsberry Pi thread has been inundated with comments encouraging everyone to get a NUC or a used computer instead.
I fully agree. For the proper stuff I encourage anyone to buy used enterprise gear with proper RAM (i.e. ECC RAM) and a proper CPU (like a Xeon).
I've got four NUCs too but the real workhorse is a used Xeon with ECC RAM.
> The Raspberry Pi is great if you need what it offers, but at some point the mainstream Raspberry Pi community lost the plot and started treating them like laptop, desktop, or server replacements, which they were never great at.
I agree. I've got like seven Pi (I was an early adopter of those) but don't ever plan to buy another.
It's like you said: they lost the plot (not just the community: those who make them too).
Ah yup the Stasi: a big success of The Socialist Unity Party of Germany, working with their friends in the USSR, to crush dissent (by suppressing speech, imprisoning people, etc.).
I'll just note that today in France there's one TV channel that isn't a leftist one and the left is working hard to make it shut down, under the excuse that it's an evil far-right racist channel. One channel that isn't a socialist (or downright communist) channel and even that is too much: just like the stasi, they want to crush dissent and have that channel closed.
Leftists cannot conceive that people from the other side of the aisle have a right to freedom of speech, so they'll do everything they can to remove it.
That's what the stasi was. And the people with the mindset that made the Stasi possible are hard at work in the world today.
Let me ask you: as he apparently was so good at predictions, did he predict the millions of deaths of the russian famine in the 1920s and the millions more of death of the soviet famine of the 1930s?
And did he predict the "wonderful" living conditions of people in communist Russia and in the eastern european USSR satellite countries?
People from the comfort of their western countries love to cite Marx but go to Poland for example and ask them how much Marx is loved.
I also find it a bit thick to talk about the coercivity of the capitalistic states. IMO it can only be analysed when put into perspective with the coercivity of states like North Korea, Cuba, Russia, China, etc.
It's nearly as if what Marx didn't predict was more interesting than what he did.
I am not a Marxist and quite opposed to it, but this is weak moralizing. It is amazing how the west has decided to define it's self by the particular economic system they have adopted. It is sad and from the way I look at it Poland is the west (a gateway between the east and the west) It's a country that is more influenced by Western Latin Christianity though out it's history. One could define it many ways I suppose but what makes poland not western (other then connection with the USSR, which if that is how you define it is completely asinine.).
Give him a good argument against what he is saying rather then just weak moralizing.
In the same way, greedy apes rationalize their obviously harmful behavior, they defend the broader system as the tribe that sustains their wealth as a primordial proxy for the apes survival. It is a subconscious/instinctive reaction to a "personal" attack.
GPs whataboutism is just more of the countless examples, how rationality is lost in the face legitimate critique. He cant give good arguments against marxs predictions.
What saddens me, is the normalization of this behavior, because it opens space for harmful populists and ultimately will drive us down the cliff into dark ages.
> because it opens space for harmful populists and ultimately will drive us down the cliff into dark ages.
I despise populism especially the cheap cowardly sort we have today. But would love a return to the so called dark ages when it comes to intellectual thought and understanding.
The Dark Ages intellectually where a true age of reason (In my opinion). It's fair to call it a brutal time of the collapse of the empire and many wars and strife and suffering, but none of this is due to some kind of intellectual deficiency and many beautiful thinkers emerged who could think and modern notions of cheap populism could never have thrived as they do in the putrid modern liberal nation states with cowardly rulers who can on the one hand claim to have the will of the people though votes and on the other not follow through negating their very authority.
On the country, modern populism is a product of liberal thought and the liberal movements of the past all bare similarities. the later enlightenment thinkers bare this kind of cheap stupid cowardly thinking, one can read their stupid histories and particularly read the stupid smug smiles in their weak silly slogan like prose. The truth is they do not understand scholastic thought in any way shape or form nor do they understand Christianity.
I write this to implore you to look ask if really it is that, some one like Trump or any Populist leader you like accords in any way with the dark ages or if the seeds for this shame to humanity is found in the supposed sophistication of the modern period.
Further you lose faith in humanity if you think modern men are closer to a fully-actualizing human spirit, they are gross shades who's very existences blasphemes the glory of humanity.
> love a return to the so called dark ages [...] The Dark Ages intellectually where a true age of reason
The dark ages have their name, not because of its fundamental research, which was much easier back than, but the dominant christian/church rule of law. You could call it age of superstition instead, that could mostly coexist with past scientific progress, because it was mostly no contradictory relationship and non-public or binding anyway.
Some of the research did directly contradict the anti-scientific dogma of the time and whenever i see people ignore valid critizism of capitalism / from marx, i am reminded of galileo, who showed clerics jupiter moons and got life long house arrest for pointing out gods creation.
> the seeds for this [unscientific, populist] shame to humanity is found in the supposed sophistication of the modern period.
Yet again, you confuse scientific progress with (opposing) power structures. We know since the 1970s about climate change, so who is to blame for neglect here? (Rhetorical question, im not really interested in your take.)
And finally, why i used the word "distorted" in the beginning.
> modern men are closer to a fully-actualizing human spirit, they are gross shades who's very existences blasphemes the glory of humanity.
Starting with a scientific historical angle and ending with "actualizing human spirit" or "blasphemes the glory of humanity" is quite an arc.
I complained about GPs whataboutism with which he ignored marxs critizism and you bring up vague/meaningless stereotypes to dismiss modernity.
This ignorance is the essence of dark ages. When too many people dont have the power/will to break out of their dogma. If you really mean what you indicated, that scientific progress is a force of good, then you also have to question your own beliefs and accept, that nothing is sacred or untouchable. If you disagree with that, then you dont understand science and i should reach for something stronger than "distorted".
I want to start more generally with my position on Marxism, skip ahead
to the first quote for the direct response to what you said. I was a
Marxist and got out of it by examining history with historical
dialectical materialism and found it lacking. I would argue this is
it's self a dogma when one looks at history before 1500s it breaks
down greatly and obviously.
In your own statement and assumption (which I will get onto) about the
church dominating life, according to Marx this is problematic, since
religion is part of the super-structure that helps maintain the
economic order, not the seat of power. While the pope himself might
have been something like a prince/king in papal lands, other kingdoms
the church is not vassal but is a political player between other
political players.
Just look at Manga Carta and the barons war and the church
underpinning this negation. This is not a negotiation between just two
but multiple sides primary 3 the king the church and the barons
lords. The church is arguing for it's own powers separate from the
barons and the king while negotiating between the two.
This is not dialectical materialism put politics happening between 3
parties that is not explainable by material factors alone.
It is you who does not understand power structures for Marxism coming
from Hegelianism (and liberal thought more generally, that is through
political economy and basing it's self firmly in that branch of
Liberalism thought) only understands dyadic forces and wills opposing
and not anything beyond that, but most of history can not be reduced
to two opposing forces and internal contradictions. Most empires/city
states/nations fall due to external forces exploiting weaknesses not
internal pressures leading to a revolution.
Surely I am speaking sense here, I am not making that tired claim of
Marxist history being unscientific because it's unfalsifiable I think
a scientific measure of history in so far as it can exist is to
explain as simply as possible via the theory history as we see it, and
dialectical materials fails terrible at what it claims to explain once
you look at the middle ages and before.
I say all this to ask only that you actually hold you Marxist beliefs
to scrutiny and ask even what stupid romantic sentimentalities he
has. Let me also say I prefer Marx to most liberal thinkers by a many
miles and what I despise in him is in the liberal thinkers greater
degree.
> dark ages where dark because the church had absolute authority
> i am reminded of galileo, who showed clerics jupiter moons and got life long house arrest for pointing out gods creation.
On your misunderstanding of the dark ages (which I thought you where
referring to either the fall of the Roman empire onwards to the
beginning of the middle ages, the more reasonable definition though
still a pointless pejorative, but you seem to include the entire
portion of history included the early modern period of Galileo),
Galileo was put under house arrest not for heliocentrism at first
(Heliocentrism was not dogma) but a sort of scientific consensus going
back to Aristotle that was rightfully challenged and proven incorrect.
But Galileo was under house arrest not so much for the thesis of
heliocentrism but the attack on the church authority not on the
scientific point its challenge to the authority of the church. Not
right but you would have an easier time opposing the Pope or the
church in this period then criticising the weak dogmas and doctrines
of Marxism under Lenin, least you be branded a Menshevik (literally
the Minority).
The church by this point has been throughly challenged as this is
occurred in the 30 years war. A better example would be Bruno who was
indeed burned for disagree with church dogma
If you want to see unscientific dogma look at Dialectics of Nature,
one of the most stupid works surely and it's idiotic laws that are
completely negated at the time by the experiments of the 'bourgise'
scientists:
The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa.
The law of the interpenetration of opposites.
The law of the negation of the negation.
If you are unfamiliar look them up their is no slight of hand.
This is your Dogma your 'science'.
> the seeds for this [unscientific, populist] shame to humanity is found in the supposed sophistication of the modern period.
You inserted unscientific that is not the way I would criticism modern
Populism (though of course it can be) let be say first Populism is
always Demotric it appears to the people as a mass on some kind of
resentment. It is cowardly because the populist claims to be 'the
people' and by virtue of him taking the position in some political
arena he is not 'the people' and their interests diverge. It is
aristocracy that is honest and it is out of lesser and lesser
Aristocracy that parliaments gain power and come to represent a way of
holding power that requires only the ability to speak vain words to
the people like a prostitute. To be with the majority (Bolsheviks) vs
the minority (Menshevik) is indeed this sort of Populism and a great
shame to the soviet project, you will see this pattern in bourgise
liberal democracies as well it's because they are more alike then they
are different when compared to aristocracy.
None of this had to happen, While material conditions do challenge
things the possibilities are endless in what thinks can adapts to them
and adapt well, though you carelessly call the early modern period the
dark ages the early modern period is the rise of absolutist powers
from absolutist monarchies to absolutist states and (in a way that is
very interesting) the development of theology to support the state in
the weakening of the catholic church and the justifying the absolutist
state (both republics and kingdoms), this is where Marxist analyses
may begin to have some kernels of truth to it in my opinion but the
outcome could have been very different for one if the 30 years war was
won (or even just a negotiated peace before Wallensteins death) then
absolutist monarchies and/or the Holy Roman empire may be what
dominated Europe.
>> We know since the 1970s about climate change, so who is to blame for neglect here? (Rhetorical question, im not really interested in your take.)
Your strange Rhetorical question that actually furthers my point is
exactly what I am saying, those that spread this are free to do so
because of liberal thought, it is that the bourgise had a sword at
their throat to keep them honest and their fetish (in the sense marx
uses it (and excellently so)) is diffused blame and authority
exemplified by Calvin (some one Engels admires FYI)
>> Starting with a scientific historical angle and ending with "actualizing human spirit" or "blasphemes the glory of humanity" is quite an arc.
I am claiming this kind of politics is weak and breads the weakest
most contemptible kind of men to rule. Though I am not sentimental and
know it will not last. and that is because of enmity if their was a
working class revolution they would eat each other before the year is
up, that is if they where not easily bribed to sell each other
out. (that is why most Marxist revolutions happened because of the
peasants or with great aid of the soviet union, the proletarian
classes are easier to control then the peasantry)
If you do not see sense then you will be disappointed by what comes of
Marxist revolutionaries, not anything scary but sadly pathetic and not
in the least bit scientific.
Finally on the dark ages I don't exactly know what you mean by
unscientific dogmas (can you give an example) or what discovery was a
challenge to Christian dogma, Christian believes in a immaterial god
so a material claim about the world will generally not negate the
teachings about the immaterial.
If you look at everything cynically the think you will most impressed
by is the ancients and the development of religions and least
impressed by enlightment and enlightment ideas. Read the histories and
see if I am right.
I write so much because I care about this subject and I feel I am not
ignorant and have shown how weak Marxism is I know this is long but I
hope you do read it and think about it and if you have a good argument
particularly against my arguments against historical dialectical
materialism please tell me.
Point is, Poles generally hate Marx because they have wasted almost half a century of economic development by being subjected to Marx-inspired economics (commonly called "Moon economics" in Poland) by a foreign power.
There are plenty of places that will hate capitalism because of the way it manifested in those places and where a political system manifests, it will fail and break down at some point and people will resent it.
That is not to say that Poland was ever pleasant under Communism (far from it and I would not argue it was good in any way). But it's quite easy for the person arguing for Communism to do this same style of argumentation against you.
One could also point to older Russians who have a positive and nostalgic idea of soviet history. Again not saying that is true but this kind of argument relies on how people feel about something and the original post was simply arguing a single thesis of Marx being correct.
And that particular Thesis is not in any way defeated by 'Modern Poland dislike communism'.
Capitalism is sort of humanity's default, earliest Ancient civilizations were capitalistic in the sense that capital could be "put to work" to produce income. Whereas Communism is an attempt at alternative to the default, which so far has not worked anywhere.
Many Russians are hardcore imperalists and their soft spot for the Soviet times is for the period where Russia was at peak imperal power, having subjugated 200+ million people across dozens of nations. Not neccessarily for the quality of life under Communism per se.
I would not agree with Capitalism being humanities default, hunter gathers don't practice Capitalism, Again not a Marxist but for the notion of capital to make sense there has to be a way to accumulate and to put what is accumulated into production in some way.
I don't believe in Marx's idea of primitive communism but I don't believe the sort of notions of primitive capitalism, I think violence and the ability to coerce plays the largest role in early development of economies and under all these earlier systems though markets and even capital can emerge, they are an out growth out of the rulers will.
You also have to define what worked means, the soviet union for some time was powerful and as far as I can tell failed only partly because of economic inefficiencies (which while uniquely linked to attempts at planned economy and modern western capitalism is clearly showing lots of areas of great economic irrationalies.), but largely a failed costly war in Afghanistan (costly wars are often the cause of falls the way I see it).
This is not say something that works is good but to say that soviet union did not work while at the same time calling it the peak of imperial power is absurd, it clearly worked in some way to allow for it's power.
The problem with talking about quality of life is that it's subjective and there is little way to argue about it once one brings in factors that make-up well being beyond something that can be measured: honor, pride, connection, solidarity and happiness. What ever one picks (for clarification I do not like Modern Russia or the soviet union).
I really do think the fact that the west defined it's self in terms of capitalism (in addition to democracy or worse anti-totalitarian) is such a silly thing to do, capitalism works in so far as the state of the world or the state of nation allows for it to work the same for the soviet system, it is the soviet union that claimed it's legitimacy though economic truth and so the west (led and started by US and adopted partially by western Europe) decides it's the anti-thesis of communism and if one is ask why it's right, it rests of the truth of capitalism as what becomes an almost religious justification just like the soviet union.
It's a great shame that this 'dialectic' (if you pardon the phrase) is an evil and a stupid one at that. There is nothing magical people being free to do as they please with money and capital and in it's self has many weaknesses. When one looks at the cost of Americas Incredibly stupid war with Iran today you see how easy it is for a nation to enter into a costly war and it does not matter if they are capitalist, socialist, feudal or what ever why you wish to look at it. Expensive martial stupidity is the greatest reaper of empires and nations.
To me it’s more about the scale of these numbers. After billions, people (like me) kind of lose intuition about how gigantic these numbers actually are. Yes GDP has time in its unit, but it still gives a general idea of the size.
>> Someone at Anthropic must’ve caught wind… just a day after making my decision, they announced Claude Code would finally start supporting AGENTS.md files in an effort to get me to stay.
> Forgive me for asking if I should know, but who is the author? Is he famous?
I think that was tongue in cheek. And by that I don't mean the author's tongue was actually in his cheek.
I also think it went over your head. And by that I don't mean I think it literally went over your head.
It's clearly a joke, but I can forgive some people for taking it literally, given the impact that certain well-known devs have on other companies' decision-making. It's a common enough line that it's plausible this could have been a VIP whose opinions swayed a company. Not him and not Anthropic, of course, but it does happen.
While I agree the sarcasm is obvious, important to remember sarcasm doesnt really translate well if english is not your first language, and notoriously does not translate well online regardless, see:
It's really cool and I do have a Pi in "homeprod" since the Debian 9 days (!): my trusty unbound DNS resolver.
For anyone who wants a way more beefy homelab but still at a bargain price, I think it's hard to beat used Xeon workstations. Buy one with a 4-cores Xeon and then replace it with a 20-cores / 40 threads.
It'll run a ZFS tank and shitloads of VMs without any issue: it's made for that.
I didn't pay it $10, more like $200.
I only turn my Xeon server on when I need it (hence the 24/7 Pi running unbound: that one is up all the time and consumes nothing).
Seen all the attacks and what AI allows for bad guys, I'm beginning to think that running my own DNS and null routing hundreds of thousands of domains (including variations of domains I use regularly, for which I automatically generated hundred of thousands of alternate names: to fight phishing) ain't enough.
I also block every single domain whose name contains non-ASCII character (no Unicode domain names for me / no punnycode: just get lost).
So maybe, maybe, maybe that after all I'll be moving to whitelisting domains. I know some do it and I know it's hard to do right. But some do just that.
It may be time for companies to give the list of all the domains we need to whitelist for their site to function.
Better yet: it may be time for companies to use as few domains as possible.
I don't care about your ads partners. I don't care about your surveillance (pardon, telemetry) partners.
It's too early to tell but a mindset shift may be coming.
I wonder if LLMs might end up enabling reliable automated detection of scam domains.
> no Unicode domain names for me / no punnycode: just get lost
If you exclusively speak a latin language that works but the vast majority of people in the world require a unicode domain name if they want the name to be in their native script.
> Now everyone have to decide on their own what to believe or not.
I decide to believe that communism doesn't look like a nice system and I decide to believe that I really don't believe those saying: "this time we'll make communism work".
Watch out who you assign that idea to though. My grandfather (taking some part in local resistance) was sent to a soviet camp due to a neighbour "informant". He told the family not to bother the neighbour - the information/signatures would be likely forced in interrogation and they'd be made to confess anything that was needed. Yet that neighbour "informant" could likely end up on one of lists like this.
The lists on their own say very little about what actually happened unless you have much more context.
So it's no surprise that young gullible persons (both men and women), after that insane propaganda campaign that commences with kids at a young age, eventually got convinced all men were worthless pigs.
And now, cry me a river, there are national health report findings saying that "too many men suffer in silence".
Maybe it's time we look out as to whom are the actual people responsible for this state of affair?
You cannot spit in the air and expect it to not eventually come back in your face.
P.S: as a sidenote and very, very, very interestingly these same movements that describe men as pigs turn a complete blind-eye to actual patriarchal societies and religions, which is honestly quite shameful.
reply