The root problem is capitalism though, if it wasn’t AI it would be some other idiotic scheme like cryptocurrency that would be wasting energy instead. The problem is with the system as opposed to technology.
If you think that sounds like “Žižekian nonsense”, then you obviously don’t understand what Žižek argues, because he clearly doesn’t say anything silly like “human ideology” (or “Žižekianism”, for that matter). The article you posted also does wonders completely breaking down Žižek as an abonimable human being - while not truly engaging with his ideas. It is pretty worthless, takes things deliberately out of context, and, after rigorously defining him as a persona non grata, invests no proper effort to do what actual communists like Marx and Lenin did - acknowledge that even enemies like that can give contributions to understanding, and things to learn from and work at doing so.
Does he sometimes spew bullshit? Absolutely. Does he believe in “human ideology” or spout anticommunism on a worse level than The Black Book of Communism, as the article wants to imply? Only if you deliberately misread and misinterpret him.
Yeah, look, I did read the article, and the article, unlike the person who might very well have done that in their work, did not do that. All I see is the same flipping of materialist analysis into an ideological dogma, that becomes ahistoric, trying to repeat instead of following material developments towards communism. From a quick look at your links, there’s even a lot I agree with, especially in criticising the French intellectuals. It still reads like a polemic removed from reality, that values its own farts more than understanding and working towards change, but it has value. And the article you linked in the beginning does nothing, but try to opportunistically recruit people away from one ideologue (which Zizek can definitiely be called) to another idealist “team” that tries to redirect proletarian material interests and analysis. You seem to think it’s a contest of who can quote “great people” the best and who can be the most orthodox, which treats it all like a religion instead of a material movement to change the world and mode of production.
In the end, I fear, we will be on other sides of the river, each seeing “their idealist perversions” across from “our materialist analysis”, but I at least won’t cross the river for your side any time soon.
Nice burn, even brought in the “libertarian”, at least be consistent, if I am a Zizekian heretic, I’m not an individualist libertarian who’s afraid of authority, I am of course a liberal anticommunist reactionary who won’t acknowledge the achievements of “really existing socialism”. You strike me as someone who would have written a hit piece on Marx for profiting from British imperialism and his capitalist buddy Engels, citing the letter and his drinking habits to make clear that he is an immature mind, then join some utopian socialist fringe group.
Nah, human ideology is much broader than a single economic system. The fact that people who live under capitalism can’t understand this just shows the power of indoctrination.
What you’re saying is that you’re not self aware enough to realize that you have an ideology. Everyone has a world view that they develop to understand how the world works, and every world view necessarily represents a simplification of reality. Forming abstractions is how our minds deal with complexity.
Do you think people should be treated with respect? Do you think there should be consideration for your condition so you are not exempt from certain events, activities, opportunities?
These are matters of ideology. If you say yes to it, it is ideological in the same way when you say no to it. There is no inherent objective truth to these value questions.
Same for the economy. It doesn’t matter if you think that growth should be the main objective, or that equal opportunity should be the focus or sustainability or other things. You will have to make a value judgement and the sum of these values represent your ideology.
Observations may be objective, but the values are always subjective. Two different people can look at the same set of facts and come to entirely different conclusions of what constitutes desirable actions based on their world view.
You entirely missed the point of what I said. Two different people can agree on an objective fact that a table is a table, but disagree on whether it’s a good looking table.
It is an objective fact that a harmful act harms someone. That one observer likes that outcome does not alter the objective moral weight of the act. Harmful acts are objectively wrong, regardless of preference.
From a basic empirical observation of the effects of harm, one can arrive at a moral system based on objective reasoning. In this way, ideology can be avoided.
The reality is that real world is far too complex to be understood with perfect accuracy. Therefore, everyone necessarily makes assumptions and simplifications leading them to see different options as being more harmful. What you’re describing is frankly an infantile understanding of how empirical observation works.
Will me being infantile stop humans from hurting each other? If not, why would I be motivated to change?
Will me growing up (to stop being infantile) get in the way of my refraining from hurting others? If yes, why would I be motivated to change?
In my infantile state, I can clearly see that - even in a complex world - harming other living beings is wrong. I don’t like being harmed, so why would they like being harmed?
Maybe you need ideology to simplify the world. But that doesn’t mean that I require it. That’s part of the complex world you assert we live in, yes?
You’ve just explained your simplistic ideology in this thread, and you’re not even capable of understanding why its simplistic when it’s explained to you.
You have failed to show that it is an ideology. You have explained that you disagree with it, but that’s not the same thing.
It’s an empirical fact that living beings don’t like being hurt. Therefore, it avoiding hurt is good. That’s not an ideology, it’s reasoning based on observable facts. An ideological position would be “we need to hurt living beings to further our interests”. The ideological position involves those interests.
Seeing all living beings as equal (e.g. in terms of prioritising not harming them, just as I would prefer not to be harmed or to harm myself) is about not having an interest, and therefore is clearly not ideological. It’s also objectively true, because in terms of cosmological time, the consequences of all living beings become equal.
I’ve explained to you what an ideology is repeatedly, you seem incapable of understanding what you’re being told. The human brain is not capable of holding the entire complexity of the material reality, and therefore it must rely on abstractions and simplifications to do reasoning. You, just like everyone else, have biases and make simplifications leading you to understand things in the specific way that you do. This signifies your particular ideology.
There are plenty of cases where people try to use empirical evidence with best intentions resulting in great harm being done as a result. Having good intentions is not an ideology, it’s an aspiration. The world view that guides your actions that you put into practice to try to achieve the goals that you believe to be desirable are what your actual ideology is.
There is no such thing as objective morality. One cannot observe that “harmful acts are objectively wrong”. The “wrongness” and “rightness” of an action aren’t observable, measurable or even well defined properties. It is possible to measure the duration of an action, the energy transformations of the action, the location of an action, ect, but not the morality of an action. What units would you even measure it in? Or is morality a dimensionless property?
From a basic empirical observation of the effects of harm, one can arrive at a moral system based on objective reasoning.
Is this objective moral system utilitarian? Deontological? There is no “objective” argument as to why morality should be either.
How would your objective moral system weigh against incommensurate harms? Maybe its possible to compare the intensities of 2 different physical pains, but how would you compare physical pain with emotional pain? What about weighing pain between different people?
In this way, ideology can be avoided.
The obsession with being “non-ideological” and reducing everything to base science, also known as “positivism” is also an ideology.
Right, but the technology has the system’s philosophy baked into it. All inventions encourage a certain way of seeing the world. It’s not a coincidence that agriculture yields land ownership, mass production yields wage labor, or in this case fuzzy plagiarism machines yield a transhuman death cult.
We’d just be disappointed again. The right would hate him more than Hillary and corporatist Dems still control the DNC. They wouldn’t let him win.
OTOH a common opinion I hear is that he probably has more capability for direct lasting change being where he is, and I can see that being true, so there is that bit of small comfort.
I doubt that premise. Neanderthals looked different, but not uncanny valley. Horror and fear may have been involved sometimes, but so was sex and competition… Neanderthals probably just looked like big chinless people
According to commercial genetics testing, I’m more Neanderthal than 90% of other people that used the same major company. My ancestors were into some kinky 👉👌
The professor that taught my algorithms & data structures course said if we were going to keep one book it should be the one for that course. I followed that advice and it’s the one textbook I still have. It’s been 8 years since graduation and I haven’t opened it once. I tend to just read Wikipedia if I need to understand a particular algorithm or data structure.
The best investment I made in textbooks was the class that wanted a Schaum’s Outline book, $15 brand new and still a book I use for occasional linear algebra reference.
Don’t you have university library? I did most of the recommend readings through my studies and found them all there (excepted for one). Ended up being a two reference books which prove themselves to be worth it.
Star Wars is the plot of Hidden Fortress, in a universe similar to Dune, in the style of Flash Gordon, but with genius special effects and Jaws level care for every aspect of the production of the film itself.
That’s an insightful summary! George Lucas was indeed inspired by Akira Kurosawa’s “The Hidden Fortress” when developing the plot for “Star Wars,” particularly the perspective of the story being seen through the eyes of two lowly characters. The universe of “Star Wars” shares many thematic elements with Frank Herbert’s “Dune,” such as the desert planet of Tatooine resembling Dune’s Arrakis and the concept of a galactic empire. The stylistic influence of Flash Gordon can be seen in the serialized adventure feel and the distinctive, retro-futuristic aesthetics. Lastly, Lucas’s groundbreaking use of special effects and meticulous attention to detail in production set a new standard for filmmaking, much like “Jaws” did for the thriller genre.
Star Wars and The Hidden Fortress aren’t that similar. There’s some clear inspiration in some aspects, sure, particularly with the Droids, but the overall plot evolved into its own thing.
Right? I kept hearing this claim so I finally watched Hidden Fortress and now it pisses me off at how much of a huge fucking stretch has to be made. “Oh, two comic relief buddy characters in an otherwise mostly serious film? Must be a Hidden Fortress ripoff!”
Fuck off. You might as well say they’re similar because both movies use moving pictures and sound to tell a story.
I mean it’s been a hot minute since I watched hidden fortress but it’s definitely much more than the droids as far as influence goes, unless I’m completely misremembering it there’s also Kenobi, Luke, and Leia equivalents and Lucas hasnt even been coy about how it was a big influence on the original film as far as I know
The music tends to be left off lists like this but without that fabulous score and the genius of John Williams and the London Symphony Orchestra, Star Wars would not have had the same emotional impact.
Forget the music it’s the overall sound design, music is just a small part of it. Villeneuve’s vision for the whole thing was to make it sound like a documentary: The desert sounds like desert, not like music, the ornithopers sound like – erm, they sound like ornithopters, not helicopters or music, everything sounds natural. As if shot on location, on actual Dune, and that atmosphere is given plenty of screen time, no grand musical scores interrupting the immersion.
EDIT oh wait you were talking Star Wars, not Dune. Yep, completely different beast. Also the THX logo not just the 21st Century Fox fanfare is part of the score I’m going to die on that hill.
Fun fact about asparagus that I didn’t fact check: Only some people have bad smelling pee after eating asparagus and only some people can smell the bad pee at all. There was science done on this.
There’s a difference between wanting to have good credit so that you can benefit from a garbage system and wanting that system to exist in the first place.
I’m a leftist who dislikes capitalism, but I can admit that credit scores were a step up from the way loans were done before. The old way just made it so the banks themselves decided who they wanted to issue a loan to, and that led to a lot of racism and sexism when it came to giving the loans out.
Still, I do think we can come up with a better system than the current credit score system, and I think you have the right idea to point out it’s flaws to start the wheels turning on improving it.
your conclusion doesn’t follow from your premise. the ability to live indoors is going to be important to people even if they think the system by which we decide who is allowed to live indoors is kinda shit.
I’m honestly unsure. What is the alternative? Instead of a pre-emptive risk assessment of whether or not you can pay something, more people just receive punishments when they end up not being able to? I don’t like being judged or told what I can or cannot pay back a month from now, but on a large scale doesn’t this mostly protect people from dangerous debts? For the opponents, what is the proposed alternative?
on a large scale doesn’t this mostly protect people from dangerous debts?
Not really. It just ends up with lenders offering far more predatory interest rates, which worsens the situation for the debtor. The system is set up in such a way that you can spiral pretty hard with a single misstep.
For the opponents, what is the proposed alternative?
I’d imagine this is the crux of the problem. Banks need some way to determine if someone will pay back their loans, and what better way than to tabulate their history of doing just that? Should banks be willing to take risks in a system with stuff like the 7 year rule?
If it was about the ability to pay back loans, then why does it go down when I finish paying the loan? Its about your ability to pay as much interest as possible.
Part of your credit score is also the present. It’s more than a bit predatory, but not having any current financial responsibilities looks bad. For example, if you have no loans whatsoever but paid back a bunch in the past, there’s little evidence saying you can currently pay them off. At least, that’s the theory of it.
Given that there are plenty of developed countries where credit scores don’t exist (and plenty more where they do but only for businesses), I think alternatives are imaginable. I would know, I live in one such country.
If you want a mortgage here, the bank will:
Ask you about your current loans and potential past defaults
Ask you about your current and past income, marital status, employment status, etc.
Use those variables to pretty straightforwardly determine your loan capacity
I think do a background check in national databases for defaults/“bad payer” status
Contractually obligate you to receive your salary on the same account from which they will automatically pull the mortgage. I don’t think this helps reduce actual defaults much, but it probably greatly reduces the financial and administrative overhead of late/missed payments. Also this ties you into the creditor bank which is good for business, IDK how standard that practice is abroad.
The US consumer economy is very highly dependent on short-term/credit debt, and that is absolutely crazy to me. Some Americans say they “need” a credit card to defer payment on some purchases, and as someone raised in culture where debit is king this sounds absolutely insane. Y’all have been propagandized, here it is perfectly normal to not have a single credit line open before shopping for a mortgage and if anything your banker will commend you for it.
I’d like credit scores systems to be fully public and developed by the government. It would be far better than the three private systems Americans deal with now.
Four*. FICO is another one and at one time was most commonly used for home mortgages. Not sure how true that is today, but it’s still very much in use.
Your question whether rhetorical or not is presented as a bad faith question. And to answer your question…yes. Apple and for walled garden environment.
What are you doing? Like what’s your end goal here? Are you attempting to make a point? Are you trying to say something deep? You’re on fucking Lemmy arguing that apple good for walled garden and locked down systems…
Holy shit, it's so easy to make people on this site mad by just responding to their comments. I'm literally just trying to make sense of your shit take.
Huh, I knew that Nintendo had braindead fanboys but I’m genuinely surprised anyone thinks that corporations teaming up to kill emulation is a good thing.
It is working. It buys them enough time to sell enough new hardware and games. It will take a really long time until development picks up again, since basically every developer associated (not necessarily every one who has contributed to the project) with the yuzu group can no longer legally work on that project. So basically a lot of expertise is lost.
Although i think the need and the drive to use emulators is higher then ever. So the next project without direct responsibility will come eventually I think.
Even as an (older) zoomer in the US, this was never a thing for me. No one cared what phone you used. If you had an Android you wouldn’t be in iMessage group chats but no one judged you for it.
Well considering here in Czechia (the country that’s 90% “middle of fucking nowhere”) it’s scary that a third of active phones are iPhones, how does anyone except the people living in big cities afford this shit? People around me are getting iPhones, but it’s always like 4-5 year old 11s and 12s, literally the shittiest investment you can do
Also can’t wait in a couple of years when this number will probably go up and iMessage will take over any other messaging app
I mean, even those old iPhones have better software support than a lot of low-end/budget Android phones. The iPhone 11 still has iOS 17 and will probably get security patches for another year or two (assuming it gets dropped with iOS 18, maybe Apple will try pushing it another year).
I got a phone that’s 2/3s of the price, started on android 13, got 14 recently, yeah it’s the same but the advantage of it being newer means I have a bigger battery, 90hz display, and more that you just don’t get with a 4-5 year old phone
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.