• 48 Posts
  • 495 Comments
Joined 2Y ago
cake
Cake day: Mar 25, 2021

help-circle
rss
@pancaketoPolls...
link
fedilink
1116d

The demonstration was organized by far-right parties, so I’m highly skeptical that they are asking for anything other than liberal measures…


You haven’t even once mentioned people. Think about the people in your life, people that support you unconditionally. That’s a beautiful thing! Hell, even if that were the only good thing about life, life would still be precious!

Regarding careers, there’s no perfect decision to make. Even I hate mine sometimes, but I believe it’s not usually a big deal no matter what you choose, as long as you can actually pull through. And motivation is more important than skill for that.


A friend recently got a book that both explains and criticizes Marxism. He’ll lend it to me after he’s done reading.


@pancaketoFediverse...
link
fedilink
5
edit-2
24d

https://the-federation.info/

Click ‘active last month’, either for the whole Fediverse or after selecting a platform from the list.


I’d say that this is probably not a full anti-aging method. Aging involves many kinds of processes operating simultaneously. To completely reverse aging, we’d need to break glucosepane cross-links, regenerate physically damaged tissue, and kill highly mutated cells, to name but a few. So those redditors are being pretty optimistic.



Basically, the assumption is that PPP-adjusted GDP per capita (B) is a reliable measure of the economic activity in a country, while its ability to satisfy the needs of its population is better quantified by the PPP-adjusted median wealth per adult (D). Wikipedia provides B, as well as unadjusted GDP per capita (A) and unadjusted median wealth per adult ( C), so it's a reasonable assumption that D = BC/A. Since B represents production, C/A is a coefficient indicating how well this production translates to better quality of life. So, my question is, for an arbitrary D, how much do each of both factors contribute to it? We need to find x so (Bx)(Cx/A) = BCx²/A = 1, so, since 1 = D/D = BC/AD, we find that x = 1/sqrt(D). Then the normalized production factor is Bx = B/sqrt(D) = B/sqrt(BC/A) = sqrt(AB/C). Since this factor follows a logarithmic distribution, is only makes sense to take the logarithm, for p = log10(sqrt(AB/C)) = 2log10(AB/C). I just omitted the constant factor for simplicity. It's far from perfect, as it tends to put together countries with lower GDP per capita and countries with fairer distribution, since both rely less on a high production.

Seems like China is starting to challenge the US at their own game… Interesting to see where this is going.


As AI evolves, its behavior is progressively entering the realm of normal inter-individual variability among humans. Solutions like this will eventually fail catastrophically, provided they are not already failing.


Comrade GPT-3 has spoken
**In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. Here's a way to ensure that everyone gets those products and services despite not being hired by anyone.** 1. Create a basic income system. This would provide everyone with a basic income to cover their essential needs and give them access to the goods and services the AI produces. 2. Expand public services. Governments could provide free or discounted goods and services to citizens, such as healthcare, transportation, education, and housing. This would ensure everyone has access to essential goods and services. 3. Invest in a sharing economy. Governments could invest in a sharing economy, allowing citizens to rent or share products and services. This would allow people to access goods and services without having to purchase them. 4. Tax the AI companies. Governments could tax AI companies on their profits and use the funds to support citizens. This would ensure that citizens receive the goods and services that the AI produces without having to purchase them. --- **In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. To ensure people keep having access to those products and services, governments put taxes on the companies that manufacture them and use those taxes to implement a basic income system, extensive public services and a sharing economy.** **In this situation, if taxes are made very high,** companies may not be willing to manufacture products and services as the cost of doing so may be too great. This could lead to a scarcity of products and services, increasing their cost and putting them out of reach of people who would otherwise be able to afford them. To prevent this, governments would need to adjust the tax rate to keep the cost of production low enough to keep products and services affordable. Governments could also use other methods to support the companies making them, such as offering subsidies or providing access to resources like labour and materials at lower costs. Additionally, governments could promote the sharing economy and ensure that it is managed in a way that is fair and equitable for all involved. This would help ensure that people have access to affordable products and services. --- **In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. To ensure people keep having access to those products and services, governments put taxes on the companies that manufacture them and use those taxes to implement a basic income system, extensive public services and a sharing economy.** **Governments would like to increase taxes to provide more goods to people, but private companies are not willing to manufacture under high taxes. There's, however, a way to keep manufacturing goods while providing most of them to people.** To do this, governments can set up autonomous production facilities, where all the production is done by robots and AI. This can be done by building infrastructure such as factories and warehouses, buying the necessary equipment, and setting up AI programs to manage the production. This would allow companies to manufacture goods without having to pay taxes, as the facility is owned and operated by the government. The products manufactured in these facilities can be distributed for free or for a discounted rate in a public distribution system. This would not only provide basic goods and services to people, but also stimulate the economy. People would have access to these goods and services and be able to purchase them for cheaper prices, which would increase consumption and help create jobs in other areas such as services and entertainment. In addition, governments can also set up a sharing economy, where people can share their resources such as cars and homes. This would help reduce costs and increase access to goods and services. Overall, this system would allow governments to provide basic goods and services to people while also stimulating the economy, creating jobs in other areas, and reducing costs. --- **An AI has determined that, in a future with full automation of all jobs, where no one would be hired in a job, governments should set up their own fully automated facilities to manufacture goods and provide them for free, since people wouldn't be able to afford products and services offered by private companies. Research would be performed by AI, as well as all other jobs. Since no one can buy their products, private companies would** have no incentive to produce them. In this type of future, governments would need to be very careful in how they set up these facilities to make sure that the goods and services provided are of high quality and meet the needs of the population. Governments should also ensure that the production of these goods is sustainable and does not harm the environment. Additionally, governments would need to provide some form of basic income to the population to make sure that people can still afford to pay for basic necessities. Finally, governments should look into creating a new form of currency to replace the need for money in this new system. --- **An AI has determined that, in a future with full automation of all jobs, where no one would be hired in a job, governments should set up their own fully automated manufacture and research facilities to manufacture goods and provide them for free, since people wouldn't be able to afford products and services offered by private companies, which would stop producing. Money would be replaced by a new form of property exchange.** **This system, where the government manages all manufacturing for its people, and money does not exist, could be summarized in a single word:** socialism. With socialism, the government would own and control all of the means of production and distribute goods and services to its citizens for free. This could be a potential solution for a future with full automation of all jobs, since it would guarantee that everyone has access to basic needs such as food, shelter, and healthcare. It would also ensure that no one is left behind due to their financial status. Money would be replaced by a system of bartering, where goods and services would be exchanged directly between individuals. --- **Two AIs are presented with the problem to design a system that provides for everyone despite all jobs being automated and performed by AI.** **The first AI, after some consideration, proposes socialism as a solution. Here, the goverment would set up its own automated manufacture and research facilities, makes goods and services available to everyone for free, and traditional currency is abolished.** **The second AI, which opposes socialism, tries to propose a different system that would also keep everyone happy despite full automation and an absence of jobs.** It suggests that the government instead should create a universal basic income system, where every citizen of the country receives a certain amount of money each month, regardless of whether they have a job or not. This money could be used to purchase goods and services, which would be produced by the automated factories, incentivizing the factories to continue to operate, and giving citizens a steady income. --- **In the future, every job will be automated and no work will be performed by people. To ensure everyone gets products and services despite not being able to work, there are two proposals.** **In the first proposal, the government would set up automated production facilities to manufacture goods that would be distributed to people for free.** **In the second proposal, private companies would keep manufacturing goods, but taxes would be placed on them and used to buy products that would be distributed to the rest of the population.** **Here's an in-depth comparison of both proposals.** The first proposal would be more efficient, as automated production facilities are more efficient than manual labor. It would also be more equitable, as everyone would receive the same products and services regardless of their socio-economic status. However, it would be costly to set up and maintain these automated production facilities. The second proposal would be more cost-effective, as private companies already exist and would just need to be taxed in order to fund the distribution of goods. It would also be less equitable, as wealthier people would be able to afford more expensive, higher-quality goods than those who are less well-off. Ultimately, how to handle the automation of jobs will depend on the resources available in a given economy and the preferences of the people in power. No matter which proposal is chosen, it is important to ensure that everyone is able to access products and services in a fair and equitable way. --- **An AI and a human are comparing two ways to organize society in the future. According to them, the first proposal is more efficient and equitable, but difficult to set up initially, while the second roposal is less efficient and equitable but would be easy to set up with little to no change in policy.** **Upon consideration, they decided that any lawmaker should choose** to implement the first proposal, despite the difficulty of setting it up. They argued that the initial hardship was worth it for the long-term benefits in efficiency and equity, and that the second proposal should only be used as a temporary solution until the first proposal could be implemented.

  • 2-FDCK: nice effect, medium easy to get, medium risk
  • 2-FMA: disappointing, terrible, hard to get, high risk
  • 2-methyl-AP-237: don’t even remember, probably hard to get
  • 3-MeO-PCP: oh, my favorite… nowadays hard to get, very high risk
  • 3-MMC: quite fun, medium easy, low risk
  • 4-FMA: lovely effect, medium easy, medium risk
  • 4-FMPH: also lovely, hard, medium-low risk
  • Alcohol: acceptable, among the easiest to get, medium-high risk
  • Alprazolam: boring but useful, easy, medium-low risk
  • Amphetamine: fun, pedictable, easy to get and medium-low risk
  • Aripiprazole: what you get prescribed after taking all of these ;), easy to get (but why?), low risk
  • “Brorphine”: a joke, I’d not even know where to find info about it anymore, very high risk
  • Caffeine: old reliable, you know this, easiest to get, very low risk
  • Cannabis: I used to love this, really easy to find, medium-low risk
  • CBD: pretty placebo to me… easy to get, very low risk
  • Chloroethane: absurd, reasonably easy to get, very high risk
  • Chloroform: interesting, you can make it yourself, high risk
  • Cocaine: very enjoyable, medium hard to get in my area (of quality, I mean), very high risk
  • DXM: interesting in a good way, very easy to get, medium-low risk
  • ETH-LAD: bad trip for me, but it’s quite a nice drug, probably no longer as easy to find, low risk
  • Ethylphenidate: I didn’t like it too much, I wonder if it’s on sale anymore… medium-low risk
  • Etizolam: greatest benzo ever! Made illegal in many places recently, medium-high risk
  • GHB: someone laced my drink, actually it wasn’t meant for me, long story… Can’t say much about this
  • Heroin: very good, not my type of drug anyways, medium-easy to get, very high risk
  • Isopropylphenidate: my favorite phenidate, hard to get, medium-low risk
  • Ketamine: I like this, nice for depression in low doses (look it up!), easy to get, medium-high risk
  • Kratom: nice, mild effect, horrible taste, medium easy to get, very low risk
  • Lisdexamphetamine: most boring amphetamine, medium-easy to get, very low risk
  • Lorazepam, standard, predictable, easy to get, low risk
  • MDMA: wonderful drug, easy to get, medium-low risk
  • Methylphenidate: useful to get work done, easy to get, medium-low risk
  • O-AMKD: I liked this, nice effect, very hard to get, high risk
  • Pregabalin: best for anxiety, medium easy to get, low risk
  • Propofol: say goodbye to your memory, medium hard to get, medium-low risk
  • Propyl nitrite: very boring, medium easy to get, very low risk
  • Psilocybin: outstanding drug, love it, easy to get, low risk
  • RTI-111: my favorite stimulant overall, hard to get, high risk
  • Salvia divinorum: interesting, but don’t crank up the dose too much, medium easy to get, very low risk
  • Tobacco: f*ck this, boring, stupid, among the easiest to get, high risk
  • Troparil: very nice stimulant, cool and fun, hard to get, high risk
  • U-47700: my favorite opioid, a classic, hard to get nowadays, very high risk
  • Zolpidem: sleeping pills with a weird twist, easy to get, medium-low risk


I’ve seen AI fail miserably at drawing human skeletons. While it’s very good at making things that look realistic, or even beautiful, it’s still far from achieving complex illustration tasks (e.g. anatomically correct bones, architectural designs, comic strips that make sense, etc.).


tl;dr: Intel and AMD are not selling their processors to Russia, and processors from Russian companies cannot be manufactured as Taiwan is banning TSMC from doing so, while Russia can only produce chips up to a 90 nm process.

You’re right, Lemmy does the job :)


The issue with debate is that it’s an inherently hard problem. Every platform tries to solve it in a different way (voting consensus, etc.). I think federation would help prevent platform-introduced biases.


You are absolutely right… I posted a while ago about a solid-state lab project I was working on. I made pretty large steps towards that, but I eventually realized that it would only make a difference if I could leverage the latest technology. So I’ve spent the last months working on a smaller-scale project (a very low-cost ultrasound imaging machine) and finally I’m starting to see some tangible results; I will build and present the final prototype in collaboration with my university, but the important thing here is that I’m getting both experience and reputation, plus I’m convincing a friend (an engineering lab researcher) to join an eventual, larger-scale, solid-state lab project. The idea is not to get “something that works and is open source”, as it was before, but to research cutting-edge technology.


Well, a lot of stuff I’d say. For example:

  • A federated structured debate platform.
  • A (good) biochemical pathway simulator.
  • Open-source ASIC design automation tools.
  • Software to help research on diplomacy/politics via game theory.
  • More cool games why not!


On trains on buses of course, and then whenever I need to be near older people.



But was it purple, as the meme and its name suggests?


I enjoyed it, thanks!








Funniest way to put it for sure.


Janssen has a few long-acting injectable medications that I’m aware of. My guess is they are referring either to their long-acting antipsychotics or HIV drugs.


Yes, I never use DDG to search for stuff about Russia, but otherwise seems fine. Search results involving China are pretty negative, but I’d say that’s because widely visited English-language websites are. In fact, the Quora page gives a pretty positive view of academia in China.





@pancaketoasklemmy...
link
fedilink
12M

Hi, sorry for not responding earlier. You seem to be very knowledgeable. I was trained in ethics as part of my medical training, so the extent of my knowledge may not be as great as yours. Anyway, these are the specific pieces of knowledge I was invoking:

  • Ethics only applies to entities with free will. I don’t believe countries have free will since they act in a deterministic fashion.
  • Ethics deals with principles that must be upheld. These principles include not causing harm, acting for the benefit of others, etc. I understand that these principles are the main mechanism for making choices.
  • In the paradigm I was trained on, ethics only states what one should do, and doesn’t deal with punishment.
  • A nexus of causality transfers responsibility. I believe there is a nexus of causality when any deterministic process is involved.

So, my point is that this specific situation must not be resolved by you stated means since:

  • Here, punishment is incompatible with seeking the good of others.
  • Since countries are deterministic, ethics doesn’t apply to them.
  • Since countries are deterministic, even if ethics were to apply, responsibility is transferred (e.g., since I know 100% sure how a country will respond to my actions, I am triggering their response as much as them).

Cool! But I’m surprised it mentions Erwise and not Linux.


The percentage of young men who think gender-related violence is not real has doubled in the last four years, it’s over 20% now. Plus a similar share believe feminism is detrimental to society.


@pancaketoasklemmy...
link
fedilink
22M

Maybe. But my point was that

  1. Countries aren’t subject to any actual laws enforced by an authority beyond themselves or more powerful countries.
  2. The behavior of a country approaches an ideal, homogeneous benefit-seeking entity better than a person.

So the legal dynamics between countries are very different from those between people.



@pancaketoasklemmy...
link
fedilink
12M

Heck, I’m not strong in English… Okay, what about “a country is not a person”?


Thank you! I eventually found out about the AI-generated pictures. I know it’s weird on my part to listen to libs like that, but they always turn out wrong, so whatever… In this case I was pointing out that, even if what the webpage said was right, they weren’t claiming anything special.




Thanks, comrade, I didn’t know about the 16 Days of Activism. There were massive protests on the 25th, I even attended one. The good news is, our current government has responded to public outcry by pushing forward laws to protect women. The bad news is, sexism and anti-feminism is growing at an alarming rate here, so the next government will probably reverse everything… I hate this place.


So, let me summarize…

  • China has strict anti-terrorism laws that deal with e.g. radicalization. They imprison anyone that breaks those laws in specialized prisons.
  • People that happen to live in the same areas make a living by manufacturing and exporting goods, including polysilicon cells.
  • Cutting imports from those areas would increase poverty and thus increase dissent in an already conflicting area; US government obviously decides to do it.
  • Somehow they want me to believe that making those people poorer will change Chinese laws? Or something like that?
  • Now they manage to somehow link it with renewables too, and propose measures that would increase their price. So guess we should rely as much as possible on oil, which benefits the US’ petrodollar system?
  • And yet the article tries to make it sound like those panels are being manufactured by forced labor, by not giving much of an explanation, plus mashing it together with actual forced labor manufacture.

@pancaketoasklemmy...
link
fedilink
22M

Yeah, we’ve all studied ethics. Ethics (no matter if you believe it’s inherent to reality or a useful construct) acts in two scenarios:

  • If the individual follows it, it makes them act in a way that serves society.
  • It allows to create laws that apply to all individuals for everyone’s good.

Ethics doesn’t state that “you should punish others when they act contrarily to ethics”. That’s law. And the reason it punishes people is because that discourages them from acting in that way again. Free will, if you wish.

Now, at the international scale there are no real laws. Implementation of laws depends on the ability of individual countries to enforce them, for their own interests. If we could create laws that affected every country, then yes, we could simply model these laws after ethics. But we can’t.

So, in the example I gave you, suppose you are a citizen of country #2. I already stated that the best course of action for your country would be to side with country #5. But then, since you believe you should punish that country because it acted unethically, you will push your government to side with #1 instead. You tried to enforce laws that didn’t exist, and now you’ve acted against your best interests.

The mistake here is that ethics doesn’t deal with punishment. Punishment is specified by laws, seeking the best interest of society. But the best course of action here was not to punish, yet your instinct led you the wrong way.


@pancaketoScience...
link
fedilink
22M

Wholesome :D


@pancaketoasklemmy...
link
fedilink
22M

I’ll clarify then. You’re assuming individual ethics apply to large groups of people, which disregards the reason why those ethics exist in the first place. They exist at the individual level as an “acceptable” set of behaviors to discourage behaviors outside it. There are two important differences between individuals and countries:

  • Individuals differ in their willingness to do harm or good, while for very large groups these differences simply disappear in every case. As I mentioned, every country acts for their own good, and if they do good it’s simply because that’s what it’s most useful to them at the moment. I.e. ethics do not offer meaningful judgements at that scale.
  • Individuals are overseen by governments, while countries are not. This means it’s impossible to reward or punish actors from outside the system, and any rules are created and enforced by the actors themselves. I.e. ethics do not offer any utility at that scale.

For these two reasons, ethics do not make sense at an international scale. I’ll illustrate with an example:

There are 5 people. 4 of them make an agreement to beat up the 5th. This person learns of the plot against them and decides to attack each of the others separately, one by one, by just waiting outside their homes.

In this case, the 5th person should have simply called the police. What they did was unacceptable, since they attacked first, thus escalating the conflict.

However, at an international scale, things change dramatically. There is no police, so there’s just country #5, presented with a choice: either do nothing and get beaten up, or attack first. Did they act right or wrong? Well, it doesn’t matter, since there’s no way to change the result. The country will always choose the second option, and, furthermore, the other 4 countries will know damn well what #5 will do. In fact, they will not plot against it unless they think they are going to win in every scenario.

Now, imagine this happens, and country #5 has already attacked country #4. Now, the remaining 3 would be able to beat up #5. But let’s say #2 and #3 decide to side with #5 and beat #1; maybe in that situation they would suffer less losses, get better profits, etc. But in this case it’s in the best interest of #1 to oppose #5, and thus to keep #2 and #3 on its side, so it decides to convince the people on those two countries to hate on #5. Now they can’t side with it, since they would face backlash, so they need to co-operate with #1.

While a purely ethical analysis only concludes that ‘#5 attacked #4’ (which doesn’t provide any useful course of action), the more useful benefit analysis affords that #1 has managed to obtain the highest benefit, by manipulating #2 and #3 and capitalizing on conflict between #4 and #5. The useful course of action would have been for #2 and #3 to side with #5.


Now compare China and Spain's size for even greater effect.

I would say it in Russian, but I can't even decline день in genitive :( At least I can already understand Russian-language posts here by just looking up a couple words. I'll keep learning!

How could different production modes respond to the new wave of AI-powered automation?
I want to know your opinion on this. My guess is that capitalism requires an ever-increasing production to remain stable and keep everyone employed. While under socialism labor conditions would improve.





cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/561839 > On the X axis is the relative size of the public sector in each country, as a percentage. > On the Y axis, PPP-adjusted GDP per capita, also adjusted by a function I made that converts mean into median income given the Gini index. This function can be approximated as Value*(1 - Gini/0.9).

On the X axis is the relative size of the public sector in each country, as a percentage. On the Y axis, PPP-adjusted GDP per capita, also adjusted by a function I made that converts mean into median income given the Gini index. This function can be approximated as Value*(1 - Gini/0.9).

My hypothesis about automation and its relationship to future Socialism
So, I've been thinking for a long time what automation means for society in general, and the economy in particular, especially since the recent advances in Artificial Intelligence. All in all, I'm pretty sure this ongoing transition could be understood as a series of phases, at each of which the economy can either move more towards socialism or capitalism. Please tell me what you think about this :) 1. First phase: production increases quickly; this sharp increase in the amount of product manufactured drives automation forward, and results in a higher wage to price ratio and/or a higher profit margin. This phase started at the First Industrial Revolution. 2. Second phase: production grows more slowly, but innovation begins a feedback process that quickly brings products that are technologically more advanced and require higher automation to be produced. This can be coupled to higher prices or not. We are in this phase. 3. Third phase: automation starts advancing at a pace that technological requirements for manufacture can't keep up with. The demand for labor thus decreases significantly, either improving the overall working conditions or increasing unemployment. We're at the verge of entering this phase. 4. Fourth phase: if the previous phases take place in a socialist context, communism is achieved now. If they take place in a capitalist context, living conditions may deteriorate to a point wherein a socialist revolution can be carried out. Or, countries could manage to temporarily contain this deterioration via social measures. If all fails, however, the cost of manufacture will simply keep going down until the economic system partially collapses due to most products essentially becoming free (think of what open source software brought about). This will also realize "communism", but possibly a different form of it that we maybe don't want.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/379379 > ![](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/ff5ccacd-9a78-436d-93a8-01c4ab0f4abe.jpeg) > > ![](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/5e91f167-5cfe-41dc-8cc8-1803e338beb2.png) > > [CDC 2019](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-19.pdf) > > ![](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/fc797c37-202f-4670-b69d-5c2841fde4e3.png) > > [CDC 2021](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr023.pdf)

I hope to one day see people from other instances posting on this community
First, my story. As a teenager I used to believe that just letting everyone "do whatever the hell they wanted" (whatever that means) was the best way to build a state, even if that meant letting people's freedom be taken away by others. I didn't think that stuff because I was right, but because people who believed it were really good at making me feel like they were making a reasonable point. Now, as a Marxist-Leninist, I feel exactly the opposite. I feel I'm more critical and better informed than ever, but a lot of you (sorry) are terrible at conveying that. Ideologies don't just exist in a vacuum, they need to be consistent and understandable from the highest level of logic to the lowest primal instincts they seek to evoke. Nobody should have to read a truckload of theory just to think "oh, ok, they aren't lunatics". I feel this is something we should really dive into and discuss as a leftist community. I insist that people ultimately only want to feel like they're doing good stuff, and what that exactly means is affected by their material conditions. At a bare minimum, we should try to be kind to others (and especially to other comrades!), even if we don't wish to go the extra mile to hear their opinions or explain ours to them. **I really wish we can one day see more people posting here... We're fortunate enough to have come across what leftism is all about, so we should not keep that truth as a secret to ourselves, as a reason to look down upon others and divide the working class, but as a common good that can be spread, a hard, undeniable fact to unite us against oppression.** Please tell me what you think about this. And note that this rant is not related in any way to the Wolfballs events, I just wanted to let this out for a long time. Yours sincerely, your comrade [@pancake](https://lemmy.ml/u/pancake) <3

There are three sides in this story. Ukraine accuses Russia of shelling the nuclear plant. Meanwhile, Russia accuses Ukraine. The report doesn't side with either. However, this article only states the Ukrainian narrative, not even mentioning Russian statements. This leads me to believe that this article is heavily biased towards the Ukrainian side.

USSR citizens ate about as much as Americans, but had a more nutritious diet due to consuming less calories, fat, etc.
The original CIA document link does not work/content was removed, but fortunately the document is archived.

In what ways have workers participated in the governance of past and current Socialist states?
So, since Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, I assume a traditional representative democratic system is not viable, as it overrepresents other classes and their desires. So what other forms of governance have been used?

Just finished helping out some fellow leftists on r/PCM
"Leftists" there don't even know how to respond to libs. They don't read theory, it seems.

Martin Luther King, Jr. criticized capitalism, stating he did not believe in it and wanted to change the system
All the quotes in the article are taken from book "My Song: A Memoir of Art, Race, and Defiance" by Harry Belafonte, which can be purchased [here](https://www.amazon.com/My-Song-Memoir-Race-Defiance/dp/0307473422). “Suddenly, Martin lost his temper. ‘I don’t need to hear from you, Andy,’ he said. ‘I’ve heard enough from you. You’re a capitalist, and I’m not. And so we don’t see eye to eye—on this and a lot of other stuff.’ “The tension peaked. ‘The trouble,’ Martin went on, ‘is that we live in a failed system. Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level…That’s the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we’re going to have to change the system.’ “At heart, Martin was a socialist and a revolutionary thinker. He spoke not just in anger, but in anguish. His voice dropped to a more reflective tone as he continued. ‘We fought hard and long, and I have never doubted that we would prevail in this struggle. Already our rewards have begun to reveal themselves. Desegregation…the Voting Rights Act…’ He paused. ‘But what deeply troubles me now is that for all the steps we’ve taken toward integration, I’ve come to believe that we are integrating into a burning house.’

The CIA feared the USSR could reach communism because they were reducing hours at the workday.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/430091 > Starting in 1956, the USSR begun reducing the total hours of labor, which had a deadline to meet by 1968. If this plan was successful, hours of labor would have went from 48 hours a week, to 30 hours a week, and the minimum wage would have went from 250 to more than 600 rubles. > > In 1961, the CIA was worried as how the USSR could be reducing the workday, without reducing its efforts in the cold war. > > CIA originally believed that if the USSR reduced work hours, then it would be harder for the USSR to maintain their defense. However, what they found was that USSR was able to solve many problems by reducing the hours worked. They were able to tap into a large reserve of labor. > > ![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c0aad83d-7dce-42aa-9628-d8537b09034e.png) > > The soviets forcing managers to reduce labor time in return led to higher automation, introduction of new technology, and more advanced production measures. Increasing output in light and heavy industry was achieved by increasing employment. > > Reduction of labor hours in the USSR actually did what Marx predicted it would in volume 1 of capital. The density of the workday could be increased by reducing the workday. You could produce more by working less. The USSR proved Marx theory to be true. > > ![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/67291f25-4b1a-4bf1-b97e-917aa408f92e.png)


The other day I saw a comment making some claim and linking to a CIA report that confirmed it. I thought it would be really cool if we had some sort of repository with sources we find interesting, so here it is!

Nodeverse 0.2 published!
Nodeverse 0.1 introduced terrain generation, and implemented a small "lunar lander" game to showcase it. Nodeverse 0.2 introduces ship building, with a new minigame. See the full list of changes!

How does the labor market work under socialism?
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/411395 > Every production system has a way to assign jobs to citizens. The basic idea is that the kinds of labor "required" by society for an efficient fulfillment of needs don't necessarily align with those that an unhindered free choice of jobs would afford. > > The way this is solved under capitalism is letting labor be a commodity, subject to market forces. Workers earn wages that are determined by the demand for their work and the availability of it. The difference in wages across jobs pushes us towards working jobs we otherwise wouldn't. > > I believe the importance of the job market is underestimated in past Marxist literature. It used to be the case that labor was expendable and interchangeable; the availability of any one kind of labor greatly surpassed demand, making wages just a way to keep the proletariat living and reproducing. > > However, with an increase in automation, those jobs have long ago disappeared in developed countries, and new ones are taking their place. Notably, these new jobs increasingly require training, which has the effect of making a worker unsuitable for all but their own specialized job. > > As a result, wages are now established mainly by market forces. If an employer can, by virtue of the rest of the economy, offer worse working conditions than minimally required by the workforce, they will. Conversely, if a particular kind of labor is sold for a higher price, the employer will oblige. > > As a special case that I'd like to mention, those that are very heavily demanded (e.g. public figures, elite sportsmen...) can get extremely high market prices for their labor. This is a new mechanic that has become more common. > > I'd like to discuss how a Socialist country would tackle the problem of job distribution, in a way that hopefully offers better guarantees than a free job market.

How does the labor market work under socialism?
Every production system has a way to assign jobs to citizens. The basic idea is that the kinds of labor "required" by society for an efficient fulfillment of needs don't necessarily align with those that an unhindered free choice of jobs would afford. The way this is solved under capitalism is letting labor be a commodity, subject to market forces. Workers earn wages that are determined by the demand for their work and the availability of it. The difference in wages across jobs pushes us towards working jobs we otherwise wouldn't. I believe the importance of the job market is underestimated in past Marxist literature. It used to be the case that labor was expendable and interchangeable; the availability of any one kind of labor greatly surpassed demand, making wages just a way to keep the proletariat living and reproducing. However, with an increase in automation, those jobs have long ago disappeared in developed countries, and new ones are taking their place. Notably, these new jobs increasingly require training, which has the effect of making a worker unsuitable for all but their own specialized job. As a result, wages are now established mainly by market forces. If an employer can, by virtue of the rest of the economy, offer worse working conditions than minimally required by the workforce, they will. Conversely, if a particular kind of labor is sold for a higher price, the employer will oblige. As a special case that I'd like to mention, those that are very heavily demanded (e.g. public figures, elite sportsmen...) can get extremely high market prices for their labor. This is a new mechanic that has become more common. I'd like to discuss how a Socialist country would tackle the problem of job distribution, in a way that hopefully offers better guarantees than a free job market.

I just came across a EU-censored news outlet
It's a Russian state-funded news network, I was admittedly actively searching for censorship in my country... However... There was a time when I didn't believe I'd see true censorship in my lifetime. Yet now I'm seeing it with my own eyes.

I’ve been working to create an Open Source solid-state molecular biology lab, everyone can help
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/364981 > I've spent 1-2 years designing everything, even bought many parts to start building and written some code. But I realize that a project like this can't be successful without a community. > > I'll be brief here: such a device would help bring many of the coming medical advances to the masses, even to people that can't afford them, as well as make research cheaper for non-corporate-backed groups. > > If you think this is important, I could share what's been done and we could discuss ideas, get organized, find people with skills that would like to help, etc.

I’ve been working to create an Open Source solid-state molecular biology lab, everyone can help
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/364981 > I've spent 1-2 years designing everything, even bought many parts to start building and written some code. But I realize that a project like this can't be successful without a community. > > I'll be brief here: such a device would help bring many of the coming medical advances to the masses, even to people that can't afford them, as well as make research cheaper for non-corporate-backed groups. > > If you think this is important, I could share what's been done and we could discuss ideas, get organized, find people with skills that would like to help, etc.

I’ve been working to create an Open Source solid-state molecular biology lab, everyone can help
I've spent 1-2 years designing everything, even bought many parts to start building and written some code. But I realize that a project like this can't be successful without a community. I'll be brief here: such a device would help bring many of the coming medical advances to the masses, even to people that can't afford them, as well as make research cheaper for non-corporate-backed groups. If you think this is important, I could share what's been done and we could discuss ideas, get organized, find people with skills that would like to help, etc.

What’s your opinion on neuropsychology?
So, in recent years there's been an increased interest in correlating brain activity patterns with psychological phenomena. Basically, the goal is providing psychiatry with objective measuring tools. I, myself, have been involved with professionals from that newer field, and currently have a great interest in it, with an intention to perform research work on it in the near future. I've read in this community that psychiatry has a tendency to impose artificial labels on people. Do you think these future tools will help this?

Do you think it's some sort of bug or mistake on their part, or that they're actively trying to sanction Russia? What's your opinion on this?