747.41kW, or around six and a quarter NVIDIA GB200 NVL72 racks. Max power consumption was rated for around 1.75MW.
I think my electric company would pay me a visit if I fired that bad boy up in my house lmao, to bad the auction closed already. Oh and it closed at 480k lmfaooo
Gabe Newell: “We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate’s service is more valuable.”
Steam pulled regional pricing from my country not so long ago. You bet your ass sales went way down and people who were buying games because it was easier just went back to pirating them at that point.
Like you expect someone in south America who makes a tenth of what someone in the US makes to pay the same prices (actually more than the same since this country has like 70% tax on “imported” digital services), get real
No it isn't, but it does highlight the main issue:
Communism would work if it weren't for people trying to co-opt it for power
Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism is the end goal (since, it being automated, means there should effectively be no way to hijack it), but we ain't getting there for a long time. Let's go for socialism first and work from there
That’s just human nature unfortunately. We like to help one another and hate to see another human being suffering because we know that could be us. But capitalism has conditioned and limited us out of our human nature to help one another, because either there is no profit in helping the poor or destitute, or we lack the means to help.
People are products of the environment. These influence the ideas people have, who then shape their environment which in turn further influences the ideas people have.
Being conditioned by the material conditions of Capitalism is the opposite of Idealism, it’s Materialism.
Its a realistic view of humanity, not a realistic view of the world we have allowed the greediest among us to create. You should read The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity, it goes extreme in depth to explain just how wrong your nihilistic view in humanity is, cooperation is the norm, what Capitalism has created is the anomaly.
This goes into a fight over philosophy of human nature. However, since the days of the Roman republic over 2000 years ago where capitalism wasn’t even a concept, people have used political systems to consolidate and gain power over others. It is undoubtabele that there will be people who try to co-opt the system for their personal gain
I’ve been to Capitalist countries, I’ve been to Communist countries.
Guess which system has their people immigrating to the other system on rafts with their children, just to try the other system. Guess which system builds walls to keep people IN, guess which system has beggars asking for milk for their children instead of money.
Your comment isn’t the dunk you think it is when it brushes up against the harsh truth that is reality.
Bruh I’ve seen families begging for food outside of grocery stores in the United States of America. Now what communist countries had beggers asking for milk?
Every source i can find puts homelessness rates in China at max 1,000,000 and all of them say that they live in shelters, not on the streets.
Cuba had been under embargo from the USA since 1962.
Laos has a massive poverty proborm because of debt which is a capitalist construct.
That statistic on Vietnamese homeless Children is 16 years old, and every source ive found states they have been making great strides since then to fight poverty and homelessness.
You Capitalist Apologists are so blind to reality it is pathetic there are 18 capitalist countries with higher homeless populations than China. You literally have to divorce yourself from reality to attack Communism. You might as well be covered in shit, while mocking someone for having toilet paper stuck to their shoe.
Socialism is usually built from the remains of a previous brutal regime. Starvation doesn’t end overnight.
This is the case for both Russia and China. After stabilizing they had an unprecedented improvement in nutrition, longevity and such.
The same can’t be said for the vast majority of capitalist states, who still experience starvation despite being perfectly capable of feeding everyone.
This is oddly worded and has some strange conceptions.
If you open a coffee shop and can’t handle the stress and can’t manage to afford to operate it… then you have failed. If you open a coffee shop and run it well for a few years and decide to sell your functioning business or largely step down from active management with new leadership… then you successfully ran a coffeeshop and did not fail at it.
If you marry someone and divorce them, and its anything but a mutually agreed, low to no drama, no fault divorce, then yes the relationship and marriage failed.
Now the book/author example is worded much more sensibly. If you write books for a few years, and can support yourself from this or hell even if you really enjoyed it, and then you move onto something else, I don’t think anyone would consider you a failed author. You did the thing, got some works published, excellent, you are a successful author!
A friendship that doesn’t last… in most cases, is kind of objectively less of a friendship than one that lasts for a long time. It can still have been a real friendship, but it obviously was not important enough for one or both people to continue it if they … did not continue it.
People going through hobbies as phases is linguistically literally correct, as many people do this. I do agree though that phrasing this derogatorily as if there is somehow anything wrong with changing hobbies overtime is somehow bad or indicates anything negative, unless youre doing that extremely overenthusiastically and/or fiscally or physically dangerously.
Fandoms do ebb and flow. They rise and fall in popularity and enthusiasm. I again do not really see how this is somehow indicative of a culture that prizes only permanent things.
Perhaps by now its obvious I am autistic but… it doesnt make any sense to praise or criticize a fandom by its popularity alone. Praise or criticize it by the kind of community it fosters, the in jokes, the style, the lasting marka its made on other things, the quality or appeal of its content.
I mean I agree with the ending of this, that temporary things can still have been good, but… yeah a good bit of this person’s examples seem to me to be not well thought out.
I disagree with your sentiment, and think the examples work. If your aim was to run a coffee shop forever and you quit, then yes you have failed. If, on the other hand, your aim is to enjoy and have the experience of running a coffee shop, then doing so for two years and stopping is a success. Similarly with a relationship. You can have succeeded in having a mutually fulfilling relationship that you both have happy memories from, even if you then grow apart. It succeeded in its aims of spending time enjoying being a relationship.
The original image specifically mentions quitting running the coffeeshop because they can’t handle the stress and cannot afford supplies. That is failing at operating a business.
And as I said about relationships, yes, you can have a good relationship that ended on good terms, but a marriage that does not end mutually and amicably (most that end, end badly) is objectively a failure. Perhaps this is old fashioned of me, but I am reasonably certain that in nearly all cases a wedding marries two people for the rest of their lives at least in aspiration, so divorce represents a failure of that mutual aspiration. It is significantly less of a failure if two married people separate on amicable terms, but it still literally is a failure of the concept of marriage.
A friendship that does not persist is objectively not as good or successful or important as one that does, barring exceptional situations where two people wished they could remain in contact but have no actual means to do so.
I feel as if I am repeating myself, though I do not mean to be an ass. To me this is simply what these words mean.
So I guess, respectfully, I disagree with your disagreement haha.
Yeah you can run a coffee shop and stop doing so without failing, but the way the person described quitting running the shop was failure.
Likewise yes you can absolutely enjoy a temporary relationship, nearly all relationships are temporary (not until death), but a marriage that ends is literally a failed marriage, and a friendship that ends or fizzles out just is less of a friendship than one that persists for a very long time.
I think what it comes down to is some people have a fundamentally different way of thinking about it. Myself included. Setting my intention on something far in the future doesn’t necessarily mean I actually intend on achieving it. In fact, I’m almost 100% sure that I won’t. Given enough time, I’ll be a completely different person. Holding myself to what the younger version of me decided is foolish.
If I end up not being able to financially support a business I started, but I successfully provided for myself with it for years and learned a lot, it’s still valuable. If I spend 20 years in a relationship that ends, but it leads to greater self-understanding and helps me build better relationships in the future, it was worth it. It’s conceivable that a person could live an entire life doing things that you would classify as failures. But also feel completely satisfied and happy with it. So that suggests it might be a flawed perspective, no?
People change, their learn new things and their wants and objectives change.
I would be wary of considering a failure that somebody who started with the aim of running a coffee shop forever, at some point changed their minds and quit.
It depends on how they quit - if it was good while it lasted and it was their own choice to quit because their hearth wasn’t in it anymore or even for hard-nosed business reasons, it doesn’t sound like a failure to me. For me a failure would be quiting against one’s wishes. In fact I would see the staying running a business you’re fed up with against your wishes a failure.
As for relationships, some of the biggest failures I’ve seen involved people staying in something that had become hellish “for the sake of children”, due to money constraints or just for keeping up with appearences, whilst I would consider a successful relationship when people live well together for some years and when they do drift apart do the adult mature thing and separate by mutual agreement, often still being friends afterwards.
I think it’s more about what we mean by “failure”. That probably sounds silly so I’ll lean into the coffee shop example. Imagine if a coffee shop was successful, but then something beyond the control of the owner happened to make it no longer profitable. In this world, the business may have failed, but it may not be accurate to say the business owner has failed. Or maybe the business becoming less profitable is directly because of the owner, who may be taking less time being active in managing things, perhaps because of other things in their life taking their attention. Again, there’s a sense in which they’re a failure here, but in practice, it may just be that their life circumstances and priorities have changed. It might be failure with respect to the coffee shop, but I don’t think that’s failure with respect to their life. Even if the reason the coffee shop shut was because they didn’t anticipate how stressful it would be and they regret ever attempting this endeavour, I think that considering this a failure risks not acknowledging the growth and learning involved.
I liked the marriage example because I used to be engaged to someone who I spent the first chunk of my adult life with. We broke up because we had grown into people who were no longer compatible, and it was a moderately messy breakup because we didn’t want to acknowledge that fact. I think that in this, and many other relationships I’ve seen, people’s aversion to “failure” causes them to stick it out for far too long in bad relationships, which ironically leads to messier breakups and a situation which is much more clearly a failure.
I think the big problem that OP attempts to highlight is an overly binary view of success. Like with the coffee shop thing, I posed personal and commercial as two different axes of success, and I think there could be more. It encourages us to attempt to gauge the “objective” value of things that are incompatible with that kind of quantification — the bit of your comment about longer lasting friendships is something I actively disagree with you on. Some of my most cherished friendships are ones that belong to the past and it wasn’t because of lack of importance why they stopped because active: most of the time, it was just that we had become different people, in different circumstances, such that our lives were no longer compatible. There is still great love and care that exists between us, but as active friends, things have changed. In a way, these friendships feel like they were actively successful, because of how instrumental they were in helping me grow to the person I am now. I don’t think failure is a useful lens to view outgrowing something
Edit: I worry I have come across as overly argumentative, so I want to clarify pre-emptively that whilst there are aspects of your comment that I disagree with, I appreciate the time you spent writing it because the ways in which I disagreed was thought provoking. The primary reason I wrote my response was more an exercise in articulating myself than an attempt to sway you — this subject area is subjective and nuanced enough that agreeing to disagree is more than fine.
I feel like you’re completely missing the point of the post?
The post is a critique of how we as a culture generally these things as failures when we don’t have to. You insisting these examples are failures is not constructive, nor does it disprove OPs point, as the entire post is about how they are seen as failures.
The problem is that people change, places change, environment changes constantly. It was successful but then failed. Was the whole thing a failure or a success? It just was. And then it stopped to be.
The complicated words like success or failure are merely constructs of culture. Is a sun successful when it finally dies?
Anything that is a construct of culture and society can be ignored in the grand scheme of things.
Either this is implying that Linux users are hiding who they are to fit in, and Windows users are comfortable in their own skin, or this is just transphobic as fuck.
If it’s the former, this may be the wrong sub for you. If it’s the latter, this may be the wrong world for you.
Soma is a wonderful game that covers this type of thing. It does make you wonder what consciousness really is… Maybe the ability to perceive and store information, along with retrieving that information, is enough to provide an illusion of consistent self?
Or maybe it’s some competely strange system, unkown to science. Who knows?
I think the definition of consciousness needs to not be solely about abilities or attributes. It needs to account for the active process of consciousness. Like a hair dryer can burn things… but a fire is things burning. Without the active nature its simply not conscious.
Depicted: Incel “Alpha” Males hoping to one day have a submissive wife sex slave, that cooks, maintains the house for them, and raises children, so that they can continue being children themselves. Women are just lining up for this lifestyle, aren’t they?
lemmy.ml
Top