Tbf it’s not that anybody saw that coming. Maybe Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta and all the other anarchists but aside from them, nobody could have known it.
Why do democratically elected government officials constitute a “class?” How would Socialism be Capitalism?
Bakunin himself was incredibly antisemetic, and considered the State itself to be a Jewish Conspiracy, so I’m not sure we should trust the background of his arguments.
The soviets were democratic but the bolsheviks smashed the soviets as soon as they realized they wouldn’t infiltrate them and stayed a Soviet Union in name only. Why wouldn’t they keep the soviets as a decision making body if the were interested in a democratic government?
No, the Bolsheviks did not smash the soviets. The Factory Committees were replaced with the Union system, because the Factory Committees were acting in their own interests irrespective of the needs of the whole. The Union system added the interconnected element to the Soviet Planning system. The Soviet system retained until the collapse of the USSR.
The wikipedia article on Soviet Democracy makes this clear, the Soviets were the main operating organ of the USSR throughout its lifetime. If you believe the Soviets to be democratic, then you believe the USSR to be democratic, or misunderstood the history of the Soviets within the USSR. This is on top of you referencing a wild anti-semite who considered the state itself to be a Jewish conspiracy as reasoning for complete anarchism alone.
I think you need to hit the books for a bit and come back later. Blackshirts and Reds goes over what did work, and what did not work in the USSR. There were definitely issues with it, but it was democratic.
The above commenter is wrong about it being capitalist, but they’re right about there being a ruling class in the USSR. The ruling class was the communist party, the “intelligentsia.” Communist party members pre-selected candidates for all political appointments, and becoming a member of the communist party involved passing through multiple stages of party-administered education and then having your past scrutinized and approved by committees of existing communist party members.
At its’ highest level of membership it never surpassed roughly 3% of the population. That is a politically privileged class that enjoyed better wages, benefits, general living conditions, and political influence than the general population.
The above commenter is wrong about it being capitalist, but they’re right about there being a ruling class in the USSR. The ruling class was the communist party, the “intelligentsia.”
The Bolsheviks and the Communist Party were not the Intelligentsia. The Intelligentsia predated the USSR, and was a cultural term for engineers, mental leaders, and other “educated” classes. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was made up of various members, not exclusively Intelligentsia. In fact, the close-link to the bourgeoisie that pre-Revolution Intelligentsia had caused distrust towards the Intelligentsia.
Communist party members pre-selected candidates for all political appointments, and becoming a member of the communist party involved passing through multiple stages of party-administered education and then having your past scrutinized and approved by committees of existing communist party members.
This does not make the CPSU a class, nor does iy mean it was not democratic. The US functions in much the same way, outside of fringe areas where third parties win.
At its’ highest level of membership it never surpassed roughly 3% of the population. That is a politically privileged class that enjoyed better wages, benefits, general living conditions, and political influence than the general population.
Yes, Marxism has never stated that people cannot have it better or worse. Anarchists seek full-horizontalism, while Marxists seek Central Planning.
Even at the peak of disparity in the USSR, the top wages were far, far closer than under the Tsars or under the current Russian Federation, and the Workers enjoyed higher democratic participation with more generous social safety nets, like totally free healthcare and education.
The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was absolutely progressive for its time, and would even be considered progressive today, despite the issues they faced internally and externally.
The Bolsheviks and the Communist Party were not the Intelligentsia. The Intelligentsia predated the USSR, and was a cultural term for engineers, mental leaders, and other “educated” classes. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was made up of various members, not exclusively Intelligentsia. In fact, the close-link to the bourgeoisie that pre-Revolution Intelligentsia had caused distrust towards the Intelligentsia.
I’ll concede on this point, the communist party and intelligentsia aren’t necessarily equivalent, though the intelligentsia did make up the largest organized bloc within the party.
This does not make the CPSU a class, nor does iy mean it was not democratic. The US functions in much the same way, outside of fringe areas where third parties win.
Party membership in the US is open to all US citizens with some exceptions. Some states even have open primaries allowing non-party members to vote. This system is flawed and is in some ways a facade since the parties are not legally required to hold primaries, but this particular element of the US political system is more democratic than the Soviet system.
CPSU members make up a privileged class because they occupy a higher position in a state sanctioned social hierarchy. It represents a controlled social stratification, enacted ostensibly for the common good. I see this as a sort of paternalistic distrust of the proletariat as a whole by a subset of it.
Yes, Marxism has never stated that people cannot have it better or worse. Anarchists seek full-horizontalism, while Marxists seek Central Planning.
I’ll note here that Anarchism doesn’t necessarily state that people cannot have it better or worse either. Anarchism primarily positions itself as opposition to the centralization of power which can lead to social stratification, but differences in standard of living are allowable insofar as it is not a condition imposed upon one by another.
Even at the peak of disparity in the USSR, the top wages were far, far closer than under the Tsars or under the current Russian Federation, and the Workers enjoyed higher democratic participation with more generous social safety nets, like totally free healthcare and education.
The USSR was by no means perfect, but it was absolutely progressive for its time, and would even be considered progressive today, despite the issues they faced internally and externally.
I am in full agreement here, though I would argue that this was achieved at a cost to personal freedoms (i.e. censorship and political persecution). Innocents were harmed in order to preserve the centralization of power in the hands of the communist party. I won’t go so far as to say the evils outweighed the good that was done, only that they were not necessary and ultimately led to contradiction and collapse.
I’ll concede on this point, the communist party and intelligentsia aren’t necessarily equivalent, though the intelligentsia did make up the largest organized bloc within the party.
I don’t personally see a problem with the government largely being made up of educated people.
Party membership in the US is open to all US citizens with some exceptions. Some states even have open primaries allowing non-party members to vote. This system is flawed and is in some ways a facade since the parties are not legally required to hold primaries, but this particular element of the US political system is more democratic than the Soviet system.
There is some truth to this, yes, but we have to consider historical context. The US is in a fundamentally different geopolitical position than the USSR ever was, the USSR was under constant threat.
CPSU members make up a privileged class because they occupy a higher position in a state sanctioned social hierarchy. It represents a controlled social stratification, enacted ostensibly for the common good. I see this as a sort of paternalistic distrust of the proletariat as a whole by a subset of it.
Yes and no. They made up a more privledged subsection, yes, but this does not make it a class. The Means of Production were collectively owned, and managed via elected officials and Soviets. The Soviet system was more democratic with respect to what you could vote for, even if it was less democratic in other ways.
I’ll note here that Anarchism doesn’t necessarily state that people cannot have it better or worse either. Anarchism primarily positions itself as opposition to the centralization of power which can lead to social stratification, but differences in standard of living are allowable insofar as it is not a condition imposed upon one by another.
I’m aware of what Anarchism espouses, but given that we haven’t seen much example of actually existing Anarchism, we are left with unstable Revolutionary periods, such as in Catalonia, or in Enclaves like Communes.
I am in full agreement here, though I would argue that this was achieved at a cost to personal freedoms (i.e. censorship and political persecution). Innocents were harmed in order to preserve the centralization of power in the hands of the communist party. I won’t go so far as to say the evils outweighed the good that was done, only that they were not necessary and ultimately led to contradiction and collapse.
All governments censor, all governments persecute political opponents, or remove the conditions that allow them. Given, again, the historical context of the USSR, these were unfortunate necessities for much of its existence.
I do disagree on centralization leading to collapse, this was one aspect of the USSR that worked remarkably well. The USSR didn’t really “collapse,” it was killed off from within. I would argue that secluding themselves only partially from the rest of the world and slightly liberalizing until it became very liberalized towards the end marked the shift towards more bourgeois corruption.
If there’s no exploitation, and if everyone can voluntarily join the communist party and the unions (and is encouraged to do so), how can you say there was an owning class?
Ok, so in the USSR, the country with no exploitation of labor and which promoted membership of party and unions, the owning class was the working class, right? Or are you gonna do some mental gymnastics to say it was the politician class?
I love how tankies (and in varying degrees most Marxists) have no analysis of (vertical) power structures. As Bakunin so perfectly predicted:
So the result is: guidance of the great majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, say the Marxists will consist of workers. Certainly, with your permission, of former workers, who however, as soon as they have become representatives or governors of the people, cease to be workers and look down on the whole common workers’ world from the height of the state. They will no longer represent the people, but themselves and their pretensions to people’s government. Anyone who can doubt this knows nothing of the nature of men.
That the Russian Soviets were incapable of providing the anatomy for a truly popular democracy is to be ascribed not only to their hierarchical structure, but also to their limited social roots.
Nobody in their sane minds argues that there wasn’t overbureaucratisation in the USSR. That’s a well established truth. The question is, if people aren’t only allowed but encouraged to join the party, and if there’s no exploitation of the working class, what’s the argument to suggest that the “bureaucrats were the new owning class”
But we agree that they were the ruling class? Once everything belongs to the state, it really belongs to those who rule the state.
And there is power structure within parties. Being member of the party doesn’t make you an equal to every other member. Many people were not only encouraged but coerced to join the party and do as the higher ups say. Centralism is never democratic.
Once everything belongs to the state, it really belongs to those who rule the state.
Again, not that easy. Khruschev didn’t decide that the iron in the factory #3 would be used in the steel beam factory #7. The planning of the productive forces was an incredibly complex process in which thousands of bureaucrats union members were involved. Calling that amalgam of workers an “owning class”, especially when they’re not extracting surplus value at all from the workers seems a big stretch to me.
Centralism is never democratic.
The fact that the USSR wasn’t as democratic as ideal, doesn’t mean that the existence of a state can’t be democratic. “Centralism” is an umbrella term covering many different possibilities of governance, and a single party ruled by elected leaders of worker councils is a recipe of some sort of centralism that can provide a very reasonable degree of democracy. I’m not arguing this was the case for the USSR. If you want to read on a practical case of the existence of democracy within a Marxist-Leninist single-party regime, I recommend you have a look at a book called “How the worker’s parliaments saved the Cuban revolution”, from Pedro Ross, which describes this exact form of functioning of back and forth between the central government and the worker councils in which millions of Cubans participated to overcome the worst consequences of the “periodo especial” after the illegal and antidemocratic dissolution of the USSR.
I myself am from a country with a rich history of anarchism in the 20th century: Spain. By the 1930s, the CNT, a union of workers which proposed some sort of anarcho-syndicalism (which I bet you’d be happy to agree is a good method of governance), had more than a million members, which for the population of the country at the time was absolutely huge. The lack of centralization of sorts initially among the leftists, and their consequent weakness to respond to threats, is actually the very reason why fascism could trump the democratic government in many places of the country and destroy this anarchist movement and all social progress for the following 40 years. Funnily enough, the dictatorial USSR was the only country which assisted the republicans in their civil war against fascism, other than the admittedly heroic volunteer corps from the brigadas internacionales.
Khruschev didn’t decide that the iron in the factory #3 would be used in the steel beam factory #7.
Who do you think makes such decisions in a capitalist context?
Funnily enough, the dictatorial USSR was the only country which assisted the republicans in their civil war against fascism
Even funnier they didn’t support the CNT nor POUM.
According to Worshiping Power by Peter Gelderloos, decentralized structures have an advantage in self-defense but a disadvantage beyond their base territory. That’s why both the Spanish Civil War and the Makhnovshchina were lost once the popular front strategy were implemented.
Why no mention to the democratic participation in Cuba in your response?
Who do you think makes such decisions in a capitalist context?
Markets make those decisions in a capitalist context, surely not a committee of experts consulting the unions.
According to Worshiping Power by Peter Gelderloos, decentralized structures have an advantage in self-defense but a disadvantage beyond their base territory. That’s why both the Spanish Civil War and the Makhnovshchina were lost once the popular front strategy were implemented.
I’d have to read that book to give an actual answer to why that analysis is made. My point is that the coup was allowed to happen to that degree in the first place due to the failure of anarchists of arming the working class and stewarding it against the increasing threat of fascism.
Let’s get that straight: Your argument that the USSR didn’t have a ruling class was that Khruschev didn’t make all the decisions. Capitalism has a ruling class (the owning class) but they don’t make the decisions either. It’s the market that does in capitalism. Sounds like capitalism doesn’t have a ruling class by the criteria you introduced. On the other hand, the USSR had a committee of elitist experts and the union bureaucracy. Which to me sounds more like a ruling class. Maybe try to use some consistency.
My argument – following Simone Weil – is that both liberal capitalist states and bolshevik states are at their core bureaucracy as in the bureaucracy is the ruling class. In liberal democracies, there are 3 bureaucracy: the state bureaucracy, the industrial bureaucracy (think (middle) management) and the worker bureaucracy (unions). All of them are detached from those they are supposed to represent. Bolshevik states, as self proclaimed worker states, unite all these into one, which doesn’t change alot. The problem is the vertical power structure within unions and parties and stuff. That’s something, I am as convinced as before, most Marxists have no analysis of. I will not repeat the Bakunin quote but I think he nailed it (even tho he wasn’t a perfect person over all).
the failure of anarchists of arming the working class
Well, it’s not that easy to arm the working class without weapons. Guess who had weapons and decided to side with the republicans instead of supporting the revolutionary socialists? Why no mention to the relationship between the USSR and CNT in your response?
The funny thing is that you’ll have a hard time defending that the North Europe ones are governed by the property owning class… So this one is actually false. But it does apply to all countries that call themselves communist.
Anyway, it’s a very rare oddity for a country to have such a strong middle class that rich people can not reign free. Good for those few ones that managed it.
(And yeah, talk about non-sequitur on the 4rt one. It’s ridiculous. Yeah, the best way to fight climate change is by supporting a revolution lead by the OP’s favorite fascists. No explanation needed.)
The funny thing is that you’ll have a hard time defending that the North Europe ones are governed by the property owning class… So this one is actually false. But it does apply to all countries that call themselves communist.
All of the Nordic Countries are Dictatorships of the Bourgeoisie, they have seen sliding worker protections over time and increased disparity. Occasionally, Capitalists will make concessions to keep their power for longer, that’s what happened in the Nordics.
You are correct about Communist countries, they are directed by the Proletariat, who now owns the property. I doubt that’s what you were meaning, though.
Anyway, it’s a very rare oddity for a country to have such a strong middle class that rich people can not reign free. Good for those few ones that managed it.
It’s not really rare, it happened in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. Social Democracy is not fascism, but the idea of the Middle and Upper classes collaborating, ie the petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie against the proletariat, is something Social Democracy shares with fascism.
(And yeah, talk about non-sequitur on the 4rt one. It’s ridiculous. Yeah, the best way to fight climate change is by supporting a revolution lead by the OP’s favorite fascists. No explanation needed.)
Can you explain how OP is supporting fascism? Is Marxism “fascist” to you? Why?
Except you oversimplified and it matters. The entire point of capitalism is to centralize money in the hands of a few at the expense of the rest. Capitalism itself demands continued growth, which is unsustainable.
All forms of government are subject to corruption, but only some forms of government are broken by design.
Capitalism itself demands continued growth, which is unsustainable.
Green energy is a growth industry. No reason why capitalists can’t make money building and renting new green infrastructure.
If anything, we could use a huge injection of new capital spending. We’re just not getting it into energy projects. We’re getting it into fantasies and scams, like Crypto and AI
Why? Capitalism cannot solve Climate Change, as it depends on the highest possible profit margins and rampant consumerism. Transitioning from a profit-focused system to fulfilling uses and needs in Socialism, where the Proletariat is in charge and can collectively agree to tackle Climate Change, is the only path forward.
This seems like you just want to be edgy and doomerist with nothing to back yourself up.
Capitalism cannot solve Climate Change, as it depends on the highest possible profit margins and rampant consumerism.
It’s definitely possible to do “Green Capitalism”, so long as the profit margins of green capital exceed dirty capital.
But Americans have huge investments in old dirty infrastructure that they want to use until it falls apart. That’s the real difficulty. How do you convince people with a $1B pipeline through the West Texas gas fields to scrape that project and build lower-profit windmills/solar farms and HVDC cable lines instead?
Our current leadership could subsidize green energy to move the market. But this would force existing businesses to build new capital rather than rent seeking on existing capital.
Compare the US to France, which has a huge legacy investment in nuclear power. They’re capitalist, too, but they aren’t in a rush to burn more fossil fuels.
Capitalism can’t do green. If you were to make an accounting of all of the environmental damage that capitalist industry has done to the ecosystem, the cost to clean it all up would dwarf the revenue. Capitalist economists are incapable of calculating such “negative externalities” because they don’t understand basic thermodynamics. I used to work in environmental remediation and am happy to talk more about this if there is interest.
Goldman Sachs would argue otherwise. There are enormous rents to extract from an energy source that’s functionally boundless. And as the capital costs plunge, investment soars.
the cost to clean it all up would dwarf the revenue.
Oh sure. Repairing the harm that the fossil fuel industry has done would require an incalculable amount of capital and labor. And there’s some stuff we’re never getting back. Millions of species driven to extinction, for instance. How do you even put a price tag on that?
Capitalist economists are incapable of calculating such “negative externalities” because they don’t understand basic thermodynamics.
Capitalist participants don’t need to calculate long term tail risks and external costs precisely because they’re external. Even the most environmentally conscious investor is only really interested in the 40 years between when they start making serious investments and they retire. C-levels who only plan to stick around for 5 years, maybe 10 years at the longest, have even less concern for the long term consequences of their decisions.
But that problem isn’t unique to capitalism. Soviet economies were also incredibly short-sighted during their early iterations. The Russians were notoriously sloppy in their industrial development. China’s only refocused on ecology in the last fifteen years (hat tip to President Xi Jinping). Cuba’s ecology is more a consequence of the embargo than their eco-socialist philosophy. Vietnam’s industrialization has carried a huge cost to the native wilderness and ocean space.
Still, a real five / twenty / fifty / one-hundred year economic plan gets you a lot farther than “How much money can we print inside the next fiscal quarter?” hyper-capitalist mentality. Government bureaucracies that seek to reproduce themselves indefinitely need to crunch the numbers on this in a way that fly-by-night businesses do not.
But if you’re just looking to industrialize green at a rapid pace, capitalist economics does the job as well as any other system.
Sure, no arguments there. I guess it’s the “green” label I take issue with. Carbon-free capitalism is definitely possible as long as there are enough critical elements to produce all of the necessary solar panels and wind turbines (and I guess fusion reactors if we’re really ambitious about printing money 🤑). I do wonder about rent collection long-term though, especially with such decentralized energy sources. Overproduction will also come sooner than everyone thinks. But I guess these are much better problems to have than imminent eco-catastrophe.
I think she’s as fine a candidate as we’re likely to get. The biggest bonus is breaking the glass ceiling, once and for ever. Not just a woman but a woman of a colorful heredity. It will be the best thing to happen in this era of bullshit politics.
No talk of issues or positions here. Just “her sex and skin color.” Maybe that will get some people out to vote, but they did the same thing for Hillary and it did not work. “First woman president, she deserves it”
There are a thousand things more important, and yet our country managed to have a streak of electing only men for hundreds of years, despite the fact that there have always been just as many women in the country. It shouldn’t matter, but it does.
I stopped donating after the debate. I sent a donation today for 3x my usual. If they only respond to money, then withholding it is the only way to make them listen.
Bernie 2024, even if he dies of a heart attack first day his appointments would change the country for good and I don’t trust any party politicians on Palestine.
Seeing AOC oddly shill for Biden before he dropped out… which I’d expect from Pelosi, Schumer & Schiff, but not from her. She may actually be trying to get the VP spot.
She just did the calculus that Biden was our best shot, due to a whole shitton of different factors from Biden’s support among elderly voters, union support, money raised, polls being pretty crap for a few cycles now, shit like that.
Now there will be logistical challenges, we have a lot of uncertainty ahead. She wanted to avoid that until we got some better answers.
Or you could read her arguments, which were direct and pragmatic. She was talking about how difficult this would be logistically, and that it would have been better to do 6 months ago, you know, when the progressive wing of the party raised the issue.
AOC was “shilling” for some consistency, backbone and party unity out of a pragmatic need to beat back fascism. Now that this choice has been made, I’m betting she will continue with the same intent.
Further, Bernie and AOC are rather well aware that the progressive wing of the party would likely be blamed for “party disunity” if Biden stayed in and lost. They will not do anything to let the DNC scapegoat their caucus.
AOC has always been considered an outsider to Democrat leadership. She prob was thinking things through, but I don’t think it is because she thought Biden was going to win.
Politics is about getting the things you want, not dunking on people that disagree with you on a couple of things. You gotta compromise with people to get what you want. People feel like being uncompromising is somehow admirable, but in politics it means you get nothing. MAGAs are uncompromising, and they get a lot of likes on social media for it, but they’ve accomplish exactly nothing after winning the House in 2022.
Biden has been good for the progressive wing of the party, and they may not get as good of a deal with Harris as they did with Biden. They will have to negotiate compromises with someone new and may not get as much.
So do you rather politicians compromising and getting something to benefit you, or grandstanding and accomplishing nothing except providing a small amount of entertainment for you?
Biden has seriously hurt the party. If they enthrone Kamala without doing some balanced process to have her debate or compete against anyone else, and she somehow beats Trump then… I fully expect Republicans to take the House & Senate because of the damage Biden did to the party.
Politics is about compromise. I fully agree with you on that. To get things passed, you actually have to call up Republicans and ask them if they’ll try to work with you and what their vision is, and what they’d like to do… and try to come to an agreement.
AOC has likely done the same here. She saw an opportunity to get something or to help progressives in some way, which required taking a backseat for a little while, but ultimately she’ll get something in return. I get it and understand that. It was just surprising.
The DNC & Clinton seriously damaged the Democrat party in 2016, and Biden has restored some consistency, but it shifted significantly the right after that. Lest not forget Biden gleefully supporting a genocidal maniac and sending weapons to kill thousands of children. Its pretty sad when Democrats argue that more children would have died under Trump, so that somehow makes it okay.
Maybe, but then the swing state could end up with a GOP governor. That’s one reason why VPs are often from safe seats, eg Harris, Pence, Biden, Palin, Quayle…
The shortlist I’ve seen thrown around a lot so far is pretty much Whitmer, Shapiro, Cooper, and Kelly. Maybe someone like Beshear, but I’d call that slightly lower odds than the others. I think they will probably lean away from a 2 woman ticket too
This is why I’m really hoping they don’t pick Shapiro. Having three democratic governors in a row is a fluke in PA and I don’t think we’d avoid getting a Republican next.
That would be cool but I suspect it will be a white, straight man to balance out the ticket for the racists and sexists. Maybe someone from a swing state.
Pandering to the right, yes - but this is just how coalitions work. Obama’s ability to appeal to rank and file white workers in places like Michigan is part of how he won. A lot of Obama voters in those states voted for Trump.
Not everyone on the right is an ideological zealot (even if those are the most visible and make up the base). Being able to pick up some votes among “center-right” voters is a long-standing electoral strategy for the Democrats.
As an outside observer I find it hard to believe that a place as right-wing as the US would elect a woman of colour as president. Isn’t that double red rag to the nutjob bulls?
We elected Obama already, and the people who are so racist/sexist that they wouldn’t vote for Harris are mostly voting Trump. Plus, her being a woman means she can go way harder on Abortion, which is a winning strategy atm since support for abortion rights is insanely high and Republicans are actively trying to ban it completely.
I think bernie could wipe the floor with any sitting senator of any age he comes up against but with bidens age and recent performance there is no way you will convince everyone with bernies age factor.
I’m an engineer. When you see something really badly designed and think “wow, those engineers are so stupid! I could have done a better job myself!”
Please know that we did think about it. It’s just that some guy with an MBA decides the schedule, and another guy with an MBA decides the budget, and terrible designs get released no matter how much we protest. I’m sorry we couldn’t figure it out fast enough and cheap enough, though.
And yes, we do mistakes all the time too. It’s just that we usually know about the obvious ones.
As a software engineer, this applies to my entire industry as well.
I’m forced to write subpar software, sometimes with atrocious security simply because some idiot set an unrealistic budget.
The worst part is, my current projects are all government funded. The German government implemented processes to prevent corruption, which force unhealthy competition and backhand corruption onto the bidders, which then churn out bad software, which causes gigantic costs down the line, because nothing works. Great job.
Excellent point about government sponsored anti corruption measures, too. Here in the US our government contracts award “points” to businesses which are minority or woman- owned.
In practice, the same construction companies simply institute shell companies, and make their wives/daughters/sisters the owners of these shell companies, charge a premium, and have the “owner” subcontract the work back to the same old company, effectively making themselves an extra 20 percent…
Small businesses (which may be minority or woman owned, but they don’t play golf with the government buyers) are still totally forgotten.
At least in my case, I can’t come up with a system that doesn’t suffer from these problems, but still keeps corruption in check.
For example, I was in a bidding process for my own software. Our contract has a legal time limit, afterwards it has to be renewed using the same bidding process as the first time. It makes perfect sense for us not to rewrite our software - it’s working just fine after all. But legally, we’re bidding on rebuilding the entire thing, have to compete with laughably low offers from all over Europe, and when we won the contract we decide, almost by accident, to keep using the old software, but on a very tight budget.
The pragmatic thing would have been, to just extend our contract, but that could mean endless contracts to extremely high prices for software that just happens to be embedded deep enough to be irreplaceable.
This is a completely fair point. If I were given the proverbial golden keys to rewrite bidding practices, I imagine whatever I wrote would be subject to perverse incentives of some kind.
Yes, another tragedy is when sales guy from company A talks to sales guy from company B.
You want a submarine to also fly into space? Oh yeah, we can do that! Our engineers are really smart, shouldn’t be a problem. We’ll have that design over to you in 2 weeks!
Later, when talking to the engineering team…
Well, I don’t see what’s so hard about it. We’ve had submarines and planes in WW2, you’re telling me we can’t innovative and combine those ideas? Well, this is an opportunity for you guys to really show off the engineering ability of the company… And I can’t move the promise date now, I already talked to him on the phone and I’m about to go on my cruise. Call me if you need anything!
That’s not a good analogy because typically cameras don’t change the things they’re observing. But, a camera with a flash…
Imagine a guy driving down a dark road at night. Take a picture of him without a flash and you’ll get a blurry picture.
Take a picture of him with a powerful flash and you’ll get an idea of exactly where he was when the picture was taken, but the powerful flash will affect his driving and he’ll veer off the road.
You can’t measure something without interacting with it. This is true even in the non-quantum world, but often the interactions are small enough to ignore. Like, if you stick a meat thermometer into a leg of lamb, you’ll measure its temperature. But, the relatively cool thermometer is going to slightly reduce the temperature of the lamb.
At a quantum level, you can no longer ignore the effect that measuring has on observing. The twin-slit experiment is the ultimate proof of this weirdness.
Sure. So, imagine a rectangular pool of water. You have a little weight on one end of the pool bobbing up and down producing waves. Then you put a wall halfway down the pool with two gaps in the wall. The waves from the wave-generator hit the gaps and go through. At the back wall of the pool you can measure the wave height. What you see is that at some points there are big waves, and at other point no waves at all. What’s happening is that the waves coming through each gap travel different distances. If the wave from one gap is at a trough when the wave from the other gap is at a peak, they interfere with each-other and the water doesn’t move much. If, instead, the distance is right so that both waves are at a trough or both waves are at a peak, the wave height is doubled at that point.
If the weight bobbing up and down is very regular, the pattern stays very regular. The places on the back wall with no waves are always in the same spot, and the places with big waves are in the same spot.
Now, do a similar experiment but instead of using water, you use light. To keep the waves all the same wavelength / frequency, you need a laser. So that laser shines forward and hits a barrier with two small slits in it. When the laser hits a wall after that you get the same pattern of bright spots and dark spots. Light is acting like a wave and the light waves are interfering with each-other in the way you’d expect.
But, what if you turn the laser way down. You can reach a point where instead of getting a continuous pattern on the back wall of the experiment, you only get an occasional “blip”. What’s happening there is that the intensity of the laser is so low that you get a single photon being emitted, passing through the slits and hitting the back wall.
So, this basically shows that light is acting like a particle. It is emitted from the laser, passes the slits, and hits at one single, specific point on the back wall. So, this shows that light is both a particle in some ways (individual light “packets” can be emitted and strike one specific spot on the back wall), and it’s a wave, because the light passing through the two slits interferes and produces a strong/weak pattern on the back wall.
But, the truly mind-blowing part of the experiment is what happens if you record the positions of each hit on the back wall when the laser is tuned way down and only emitting one photon at a time. If you record the location of the hits (or say, use something like photographic film that you expose over multiple days while you run the experiment), what you see is that there are points where you get many single-photon hits on the back wall, and points where you don’t get any single-photon hits on the back wall. And, the points where you don’t get any hits are exactly the points where you get dead zones from the wave interference when you run the laser at full intensity. Even though you’re only allowing one photon to go through at once, it’s still acting as if it’s going through both slits in some way.
The obvious question at that point is “Which slit is it actually going through?” So they measured that, and as soon as they could determine which slit the photon went through, the interference pattern disappeared. Instead it looked exactly how it would look if you blocked the other slit. But, when they stopped measuring which slit the photon went through, the interference pattern comes back.
This revealed a few fundamental things in quantum mechanics:
Everything is both a particle and a wave. That applies to things we mostly think of as particles like protons and electrons, but also to things that mostly act like waves like electromagnetic radiation (light, gamma-rays, x-rays, radio waves, etc.)
Measuring fundamentally changes the result. It’s not possible to observe passively. This isn’t just a vague statement though. There’s an equation that says that the uncertainty in position multiplied by the uncertainty in momentum is always bigger than a certain value which is related to the Planck Constant. It’s a tiny, tiny value so it doesn’t much affect human-scale things, but massively influences things at a sub-atomic scale.
For many quantum phenomena, something can be in an indeterminate state and interact with the world in some ways until something forces the quantum state to collapse. Instead of going through either of the two slits, there’s a probability distribution about its position, which doesn’t collapse until it interacts with the back wall of the system, which forces the wave function to collapse and results in a single spot being produced on the back wall.
Thank you so much. This made it more than a little more clear. I’d heard of this before but never took the time to understand, and this comment really helped. I studied math, thankfully avoiding the confusing physics fun.
Ah, then the addition of two sine waves offset by a certain phase would have been easy for you to understand. It’s always hard to guess how much someone will already know.
<span style="color:#323232;">"If you wanna watch telly, you should watch Scooby Doo
</span><span style="color:#323232;">That show was so cool
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Because every time there was a church with a ghoul
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Or a ghost in a school
</span><span style="color:#323232;">They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
</span><span style="color:#323232;">The fucking janitor or the dude who ran the waterslide
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Because throughout history
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Every mystery
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Ever solved has turned out to be
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Not magic"
</span>
And accurate, fighting both existing and new minimum marriage age requirements has been a priority for Republicans in like 10+ different states over the past 5 years or so.
For better or worse the more correct name GNU/Linux did not catch on and is universally shortened to Linux. Android uses the Linux kernel, but is not GNU/Linux, and therefore is not Linux.
This is some ass-backwards logic. You’re trying to redefine Linux and then declaring that Android does not meet your novel definition. If Android, Alpine, and Chimera are not Linux, then what are they?
Operating System Concepts by Silberschatz, Galvin and Gagne is a classic OS textbook. Andrew Tanenbaum has some OS books too. I really liked his OS Design and Implementation book but I’m pretty sure that one is super outdated by now. I have not read his newer one but it is called Modern Operating Systems iirc.
Sadly no, because while Android is based on Linux, it is so far removed that the kernel is wildly different. Some teams such as mobian, SFOS, postmarketOS, etc. have got fair dinkum Linux running on android devices though.
Firstly humans having lizard brains is pop science nonsense, and secondly humans and lizards are amniotes. And thirdly, the Android userland is Apache 2.0 licensed, regardless of whatever proprietary apps might or might not be installed on top of it, and the vast majority of Linux distros’ kernels have proprietary binary blob drivers installed in them.
My non-joke answer is apprenticeship. Kids could actually learn how to do a valuable job rather than graduating from high school with almost no useful skills.
TIL that the US doesn’t have apprenticeships. We have them over here in Australia, for the usual trades. But we also regulate a lot of those things - we’re not allowed to handle our own electrical work if we’re not trade qualified.
How does it work in the US, if a kid wants to become, say, a plumber?
Wait, you don’t it in the US ? Kids who aren’t comfortable in school start learning a trade at 14, so by the time they’re 18 they have some skills.
I get that it’s a pitty that non everyone reads philosopher or learn about history and science, but on the other hands, some kids are really uncomortable at school, so having them working one week, and going to school one week is an alternative which pulls some student out of the failure cycle
I know it’s a joke but this is science memes and it plays into a widespread misconception about early humans that we were some kind of blood drenched carnivores. Not true. Humans have always mostly eaten plants supplemented with some meat or other animal foods.
Also it’s not like “getting food is easier” is the only hypothesis out there as to why we settled down. Another one, IMO much more in line with human nature, is that we figured out how to ferment beer and for that reason planted buttloads of grain.
Since there’s no written record, it’s hard to know for sure but I believe it was because agricultural communities were able to reproduce much faster and live at much higher densities, so they tended to win conflicts and displace societies based on foraging—even though foragers had better quality of life and didn’t normally experience the food shortages people imagine.
That said, modern foraging societies have largely converted to agriculture after being subjugated and not because they were hungry. So there is some evidence to support this hypothesis.
Also the foraging people might end up living on the periphery of a settlement, foraging and then trading what they foraged with the settlement to make thier lives easier.
Right, that’s what I mean. Agricultural societies were likely better organized and more populous and so better able to defend and expel rivals from their lands. Foragers were forced into increasingly marginal lands over time, and all forager societies today exist on land that is essentially unsuited for agriculture, which is the only reason they have survived to this day.
I don’t know how suitable this is, but I instantly thought of it as sort of comparable to bacteria in the wild, compared to the same bacteria moved to a sterile environment and being fed growth medium. The latter can grow to vastly larger quantities in a comparable area, maybe even in a giant vat. But if there’s enough of a problem with the single source of growth medium, some kind of contamination or just no more supply, the whole colony dies. It’s a more successful colony, but in a potentially far less stable state unless the conditions can continue to be kept that good.
The worst piece of tech I currently own is a small server that must have hard drive issues cause it forgets everything when it restarts and I have to set it up again.
The worst piece of tech that I have ever owned in my life is a CD Cleaner I bought from GameStop back in the day. That shit was straight up a sacrificial altar. It never cleaned. Only consumed.
The worst piece of tech that I have ever owned in my life is a CD Cleaner I bought from GameStop back in the day. That shit was straight up a sacrificial altar. It never cleaned. Only consumed.
Oh shit, I remember those. They “cleaned” by using an abrasive spray to “polish” the CDs. Those things were straight-up evil.
Yes! RIP Dinocrisis. My Gauntlet: Dark Legacy survived the process though. Thing still runs today with a fucking trench etched across the bottom, it doesn’t make sense really.
Funny thing is, out of all the disc “cleaners” we sold while I was at Gamestop, we got very few complaints about it. Make the discs look like they went through hell but the product worked.
I checked the CMOS and ended up replacing it. I thought that was it too. Same issue.
I paid 100 bucks for this server 5 years ago, came with 4TBs. Only thing I ever did with it was run private game servers on it for my friends. Maybe I’ll try replacing it again just for laughs and poop.
The problem with cooperation and compassion is that it literally takes one dick to ruin it. If we could incentivize the psychopaths in society to collaborate for their own good, then at least we’d strike a nice balance, but our economies aren’t structured that way.
A system that can be so easily destabilized is not a system that has planned for the long term. I think we’re slowly getting there, as even the dicks in society are beginning to realise that they can be shunned for their public actions, and that shunning does come with real financial consequences.
I just can’t subscribe to that idea. If it took 1 dick to ruin everything society would never have gotten off the ground in the first place. Hell, even today, our power grid pretty much operates off the principle of 'don’t be a dick and shoot this with the guns we all have" and it took MAGA craziness for people to attack them. I’d say compassion operates within any given system in spite of people being dicks and thats why we have prevailed the way we have.
This, we moved from Tribes to towns to cities to be more efficient but lost the cooperative aspect of the tribe which made it more efficient in the first place. Now corporations do market research until they figure out exactly what we can afford to get our needs met and then charge that price instead of anything related to their actual costs. It’s resulted in a situation to where most people live month to month and can’t afford vacation or even an unexpected car repair.
Thats me. My car, teeth, hair, and some parts of my rental house (thanks landlord) are falling apart and I can’t afford to fix any of it cause rent and bills are due each month and they keep going up. Its fucken madness, its making me insane.
It’s called xenophobia, the fear and dislike of anything foreign. Some people believe that if your group isn’t dominant it will be dominated, and peaceful coexistence isn’t possible between different groups.
These people are afraid that, if the English language isn’t forced onto other people, one day other people will force a foreign language onto them.
C) came to the logical conclusion, that X is bad/wrong/shouldn’t be/whatever
D) genereally mistrusting against X due to a careful nature
E) have had traumatic experience with X (e.g. Being raped/attacked by a member of a specific ethnicity) and hence totally overreacting to an otherwise harmless stimulus, even forgetting the rules of civil behaviour
Those all don’t mean there’s the medical condition of a phobia for X.
A real xenophobic has an irrational fear of anything unknown/alien. Doesn’t mean the person just hates e.g. Mexicans for no real reason. It might even like them once they get to know the better, which often just won’t happen as phobics tend to avoid the cause their phobia instead of treating it.
I just dislike the lax use of medical terms until they’re bereft of any real meaning.
So, a person who yanks “speak English!” to someone, could have many reasons to do. None are neither polite nor politically correct. While the asshole is probably just the uneducated asswipe, the phobic could be helped and probably even feels bad afterwards for being so compulsive and insulting.
kbin.life
Top