You’re talking as if you’ve never slammed you pussy on a rock really hard

I mean… Humans ARE assholes. Some are cute beyond imagination, while some are just… horrible.

It’s okay to say, “I wish the best for my friends and family over the entirety of humanity”. It’s the winning strategy of game theory plain and simple, isn’t?

“Start by being nice and cooperative. If faced by defection from the other side, do not cooperate until the other side cooperates again”.

The simplest example would be sharing a house as housemates. Some humans are assholes who you’d never want to share space with. Some, you’d desperately want as housemates.

Minoxidil: Increases blood flow by dilating blood vessels. More blood flow means more resources for hair in the region that the minoxidil is acting in. More resources = hair grows thicker. CANNOT grow hair for follicles that are dead. Effects go away when you stop taking it.

Finestaride (probably the one you’re talking about): blocks DHT that causes male pattern baldness. Prevents hair loss caused by DHT (for most people). Effects last only while you take it.

Hence, people generally combine these things. Finestaride to stop mpb/lessen its pace, while minoxidil to make fine hairs at the hairline grow thicker.

I mean it does have legitimate narrow use cases imo ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Everywhere? Nawww not rlly

Ok, let’s bring back the dinos

Yes they do. And it still doesn’t change the fact that the swastika means Nazism for Jewish folk and people who had to witness the horrors of WW2 and the Holocaust.

So, if a Hindu (while knowing what the symbol means for a Jewish person) went up to a Jewish person and waved the symbol in their face, it wouldn’t be so nice now, would it?

Similarly, waving the hammer and sickle in front of a Polish person and saying, “akshually it means worker liberation” would be pretty dickish.

The swastika is a holy symbol in Hinduism. Absolutely not associated with genocide for a thousand years.

The Nazis adopted it, and now Swastika = Nazi.

The hammer and sickle was used to represent industrial workers and farmers to unite against the bourgeoisie. The USSR adopted it, and suppressed Eastern Europe under abject authoritarian rule for half a century.

For individuals who have had to go through that crap, yeah… Why would they not hate it as much as the Swastika?

AI is new means of production. The fight mustn’t be against this new means of production. Rather, it must be to seize these new means of production.

“AI bad” is not a coherent argument.

The riper the better

But it is. Bikes don’t need gas

So here’s the thing. I wouldn’t view it as impolite in all cases. It just… depends on the context a lot.

I have no love for my cultural heritage at all. The reason I came to Canada was to get away from… all that, right? So if you’d ask me excitedly about my “roots”, I would give exceedingly one worded answers hoping that you’d drop the topic. I don’t want to glorify the culture I grew up in, because there’s nothing to glorify. Ah, now if you wanted to have a sociological discussion about it, I would be very interested in talking with you. So as I said, “context”, right?

Often, racist white folk also tend to ask about “culture” as a sly way to remind non white folks that they “aren’t really Canadian” or whatever. Yeah, it makes no logical sense to do that, but well… It happens. So you know… It depends.

Lemme explain the sensibility even when we use 1.a.1. I said the idea of a nation itself should cease to exist.

An analog would be religion. If someone asked me, “what’s your religion?”. I would say, “I’m non religious”. I wouldn’t reply by saying, “my religion is atheism”.

Similarly, if someone asked me what nation I belonged to, I would say something along the lines of “technically, I’m under the jurisdiction of XYZ state, but I do not identify as a member of any nation.”

I’m hoping that this becomes the majority viewpoint. That’s how my answer is sensible even with 1.a.1.

And as for “will inevitably rise within any sovereign state which will persist for a long enough time”, it’s not true necessarily. Example being myself and so many other people (anarchists, lib socialists, even right wing libertarians). Yes, it has been true throughout history (descriptive), but I’m hoping it isn’t going forward (normative).

My bad. I incorrectly assumed that the above terminologies were common knowledge. I should’ve provided direct links. Well, here they are:

Difference between nations and states

Definition of a “nation-state”

When I talk about nations and states, I talk from the perspective of these definitions. As you can see, they’re not really synonyms. It’s not squabbling about terminologies. If we have a different understanding of what different words mean, then our logical arguments are going to look very different. I’m not saying that your definition is wrong or whatever. I’m just clarifying how I define these terms in my arguments. That way, you can understand what I mean to say.

As for the “questions” you posed… I’m not sure exactly what answers you want me to provide. I already told you that I do believe that states need to exist. We’re in agreement there. I just don’t think that it’s healthy for society to divide itself among different nations. Seems quite a waste of mental space, resources, etc. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

That’s why I didn’t propose an anarchist vision. I do recognize the need for states. Just very very weak ones.

Nation states are a different case altogether though. You can have a multinational state. Sure, it is easier for a state to continue existing if the landmass it controls identifies as a single nation. That helps give it legitimacy.

I’d recommend reading more about nation states and why nations ≠ states.

How about the concept of a nation itself ceases to exist? How about free movement of people, very weak states, consumer cooperatives as the only capital controlling entities who are allowed to buy labor only from worker coops? Economic democracy, competition, choice and so on?

How about a world without kings and non consented rulers, a world where we stop wanting to conquer each other, and instead focus on conquering the limits set on us by nature? How about a world where we build a Dyson swarm, solve interplanetary, interstellar, and dare I say intergalactic travel?

Aight imma go cry myself to sleep now

From what I recall, the reason why they specifically reflect the green is to moderate the amount of sunlight they absorb.

Hence, if plant life exists, around red dwarfs, it is likely to be red in color.

And I’m not dead yet so I guess I’ll be alright

In “Way less sad” by AJR

Wow. That’s the spirit of good faith dialog!

You’ve provided no evidence, absolutely nothing. I highly doubt you can even define what “artificial intelligence” actually means. I define it as follows:

“An intelligent system is any system that has a set terminal goal, and that can change its approach to achieve that terminal goal by learning from environmental stimuli.” Hence, most machine learning models qualify as AI according to this definition. The first machine learning model was created in the 20th century.

That being said, you dehumanized me before. That’s not nice. Whatever you say actually affects the person on the other end. I hope you touch grass sometime and learn how to interact with other humans, offline or online. I’m blocking you now. Hope you better.

Employee owned businesses while better than capitalist owned businesses, aren’t the solution imo and the wrong thing to focus on.

Ownership by the “working class” > ownership by the “workers”. This can be established by consumer cooperatives which sadly aren’t referenced enough.

Ah, now if you said that worker coops must be the only institution allowed to sell labor, then I’d definitely agree.

So basically:

• means of production are owned by the working class through consumer coops.
• selling labor to operate said means of production is done only by worker coops.

I don’t see why AI won’t be ubiquitous in the future. Is the timeline of this future debatable? Yes.

Yeah, saying “everything doesn’t need to learn how to read” is really stupid.