The end goal is near-total eradication of the natives. Similar to native americans in the U.S. Israel is a settler state, much like the U.S was, and actively drove the natives out of their homes. They're almost done though, we're seeing some of the final acts of the ethnic cleansing/genocide.
Once there are barely any left, they'll feign sympathy to garner support, and that'll be that. Another win for imperialist settler states. Nothing unique or special about it.
Any chance you have an nvidia card? Nvidia for a long time has been in a worse spot on Linux than AMD, which interestingly is the inverse of Windows. A lot of AMD users complain of driver issues on Windows and swap to Nvidia as a result, and the exact opposite happens on Linux.
Nvidia is getting much better on Linux though, and Wayland+explicit sync is coming down the pipeline. With NVK in a couple years it's quite possible that nvidia/amd Linux experience will be very similar.
18 months ago, chatgpt didn't exist. GPT3.5 wasn't publicly available.
At that same point 18 months ago, iPhone 14 was available. Now we have the iPhone 15.
People are used to LLMs/AI developing much faster, but you really have to keep in perspective how different this tech was 18 months ago. Comparing LLM and smartphone plateaus is just silly at the moment.
Yes they've been refining the GPT4 model for about a year now, but we've also got major competitors in the space that didn't exist 12 months ago. We got multimodality that didn't exist 12 months ago. Sora is mind bogglingly realistic; didn't exist 12 months ago.
GPT5 is just a few months away. If 4->5 is anything like 3->4, my career as a programmer will be over in the next 5 years. GPT4 already consistently outperforms college students that I help, and can often match junior developers in terms of reliability (though with far more confidence, which is problematic obviously). I don't think people realize how big of a deal that is.
Is this a joke?
This is a strawman, the socialist argument isn't about how hard executives work, it's about relationships to capital.
If you want to setup a meritocratic cooperative, be my guest. If the democratic body that runs the cooperative decides that being a CEO is 300x more difficult than being a senior software engineer with decades of experience, so be it (nobody in the real world believes this).
The issue is that this isn't how organizations are run. People aren't compensated based on how much they work, nor is compensation decided democratically. Seed money comes through for example, and those investors put a tiny fraction of the time and effort that workers put in, but their relationship to capital is fundamentally different. They are part of a different class, they don't rent themselves out to the owners of capital and have the surplus value of their labor extracted and divided up to shareholders.
The critique is at the very existence of these different classes. People shouldn't have fundamentally different relationships to capital. Abolitionists of the 19th century fully understood this, abolishing wage slavery (renting people) is an incredibly important thing to do, just like abolishing chattel slavery (buying people) was. These are both intolerable infringements upon human rights to autonomy.
I don't know where everyone is getting these in depth understandings of how and when sentience arises. To me, it seems plausible that simply increasing processing power for a sufficiently general algorithm produces sentience. I don't believe in a soul, or that organic matter has special properties that allows sentience to arise.
I could maybe get behind the idea that LLMs can't be sentient, but you generalized to all algorithms. As if human thought is somehow qualitatively different than a sufficiently advanced algorithm.
Even if we find the limit to LLMs and figure out that sentience can't arise (I don't know how this would be proven, but let's say it was), you'd still somehow have to prove that algorithms can't produce sentience, and that only the magical fairy dust in our souls produce sentience.
That's not something that I've bought into yet.
I support creatives with direct donations. When you buy Netflix, you're supporting extraordinarily wealthy capitalists.
If you actually care about supporting creatives, end all your subscriptions, pirate all your media, and give 100% of your previous subscription costs directly to the creatives you want to support.
Well said. I think principles are really well-formed when they apply to a ton of different topics, even outside of the original scope of what the person writing intended. You listed a good number of cases where these kinds of material conflicts manifest, but there was one big one left out that a lot of leftists omit, veganism.
Even leftists, who are this aware about the cognitive dissonance humans fall victim to rationalize harm, still fall into these patterns. "What I choose to eat is my right", "it's natural that we kill and eat animals", "nature is cruel", "(non-pet) animals don't deserve moral consideration because they're lesser".
It's interesting because a lot of times these leftists aren't landlords, they aren't bourgeois business owners, they aren't benefactors of the patriarchy or imperialism. So their lack of material interests in perpetuating these systems allows them to critically analyze it. Then when it comes to a system of oppression they do benefit from, their critical analysis ends at "mmm bacon is so fucking tasty".
If you're not a vegan this is a super weird take. Hell, as a vegan myself, I don't have a massive issue with trading pig lives for human lives. Yes it'd be ideal if we did it in other ways, but there's an actually decent argument that it's permissible and even good to save humans by killing animals.
Killing pigs because "mmm bacon" though? Yeah that's a bad reason. Pleasure doesn't permit suffering, most humans understand that unlees it's their own pleasure they're talking about.
What's actually being punished? Would she have been sentenced to 8.5 years in prison if she pushed an 87 year old who was slightly less frail and instead of dying sustained major injuries? Would she have been sentenced if she pushed an extraordinarily healthy 87 year old who knew how to gracefully fall and sustained no serious injuries?
It seems that the act of pushing alone isn't enough to sentence a person to nearly a decade in prison. There was likely no intention to kill, though that was the outcome. What if she sneezed on the 87 year old, and in a fit of panic the 87 year old fell over and died? Again, no intention to kill, though that would still be the outcome.
I think it's clear this should be punished more intensely than sneezing, pushing an old person would very commonly result in serious injury, so this is definitely assault.
Within the context of one person's career, socialism on its own can do quite a bit to transform people's relationship to their workplace. No longer would your job be at risk because you've all done too well and it's to "cut labor costs" while profits soar. No longer would you be worried about automating away your job, instead you'd gladly automate your job away and then the whole organization could lower how much work needs to be done as things get more and more automated.
Democracy would massively improve work-life balance.
Of course this comes with problems, all of which exist in capitalism (how do we care for people outside of these organizations who won't have access to work, for example). But if I had to choose between market socialism and capitalism, the choice is pretty clear, and it's something much easier for liberals to stomach.
Your mistake here was saying "puppies" too early. You have to lead with a couple paragraphs of how you're a flexitarian who has a farm and humanely raised animals like pets and then slaughters and feed them to your family.
Then list off the animals you exploit, cows, pigs, dogs, chickens, cats and ducks. Then their brain gets hit with the dissonance of "wait why did I support this and then stop the second they said 'dog'?" That jarring experience can work for the intellectually honest type.
Saying it too early means they can categorize your post as satire easily and not engage with it at all mentally.