Urist

AES referer to acutally existing socialism in this context. I think most socialist have to go through some traumatic internal development in order to mature and and grow their political views. The main part of Marxist theory, as per my understanding of it (still learning), is to analyze the means of production through the view of historical dialectial materialism.

I will explain these terms after a quick digression. The kernel of my belief in socialism is just the basic belief that every person by birth has the same right as me to have a good life. I also understand that earth's resources are finite and that our means of production are as well (although increasing, historically).

Thus the crux of the problem is this: If we both want something that is finite in supply, how does my gain not come at your expense? The answer is that it is not possible, which begs the question of who gets the pie? The easy answer is that we share it, but then how? This is where we begin to move away from morals and ethics and should start to analyze this objectively, more as a social contract. For me, that is what the origin of socialism is.

Now, anyone born today has no part of any pie by right. Sure, some get bestowed something by their parents, but the truth is that all of earth is owned by someone or something (with few caveats). Who owns what is clearly a matter of history (usually those that owned something yesterday owns that and maybe even more today).

So how does this fit in with the idea of a social contract that should serve the goal of an egalitarian society? It does not. It is clearly not in the direct personal interest (from a materialist point of view) for the people that own something to just give that stuff away and so we see that they don't.

I am already now hinting at the core Marxist idea of dividing people into classes according to ownership, since after all the poor have in common that they deserve a larger share and the rich have in common that they do not want to lose their wealth (after all it is finite at a global scale, so without the development of the means of production it is static). The unadressed term dialectical is in essence the study of contradictions within societies such as these, in order to solve them.

From the historical point of view we see the rise of capitalism as a bourgeoisie revolution (against the prior feudal economic structure on which another societal structure rested). Marxists do not believe that the vehicle of this revolution was that some people started nailing messages on doors nor that somebody just woke up and wanted to free themselves of feudal tyranny and so did. They instead argue that the technological and material development forced a shift in power away from those that held landed power and over to the mercantilist bourgeoisie.

Thus we only need to view the historical trend that the powerful rule, and the fall of feudalism seem almost inescapable. If we return to actual Marxist theory again, we can recognize that the means of production is dependant on a social class that does not really reap the full benefit from it: the workers. Analogously to the bourgeoisie revolution, we believe that the technological and materialist development of capital (i.e. the means of production) are what is needed for everyone to have enough to share, and that it must be wielded by the workers (the proletariat), whose interest it actually is to divide fairly among all people.

I have tried to make this more colloquial, at the unfortunate expense of accuracy. However, if parts of this story resonates with you, you might just be a budding socialist yourself. I would either way implore you to analyze the world from the pragmatic point of "what if everyone did/had the same as me" even if you do not believe that we are all more or less equal. In the same line, if you think you are entitled to more than anyone else, how would you stop those that disagree they deserve less from taking your wealth? If you think you are entitled to defend your wealth by force, why are those that need commodities not entitled to take what they need by force.

And thus we return to the necessity of a social contract or maybe just plain socialism.

I would urge you to think about the question of wether or not there is a "correct" way to attain socialism. I am not talking about hypothetically in a synthetic environment, but in the real world where the material gain of the proletariat comes at the expense of the bourgeoisie (and will until we arrive at gay space communism, which is again purely theoretical).

How would you nationalize the resources and means of production of your country so as to distribute it fairly among the people? How would you stop those that resist on some stupid basis of "inalienable rights to private property" (🤢 btw)? If you are thinking about a country other than the US, how would you stop the hegemon from coming after you, either by assassination, invasion or both?

It is easy to critique AES states based on a comparison to fantasy. If you think that you have theory that is not just pure speculation that can never be realized due to it inherently ignoring material reality, please share it.

Note that I am not asking you to prove anything to me so that I can pick it apart at the seams while providing no viable alternative myself (that would be hypocritical with regards to the point I am trying to make). What I am asking is for you to consider this line of questions along with the specific historical material reality that have given way to say the PRC in particular.

I use this to help my grandma remotely! The two steps needed were to join her into my Tailscale network and set up SSH with key authentication only.

Now I am able to SSH into her computer and enable VNC (remote control) and connect to the VNC-server over an SSH-tunnel like this.

Mac has a decent terminal (even defaults to zsh IIRC), homebrew for package needs, no obnoxious ads in the desktop UI, great (although pricey) hardware. I am an avid Linux user forced to use Windows at work. I would much rather use a Mac.

Why hate? It allows for easy functional programming with vectorized operations that bind to C for efficiency.

No, it means only people with good pensions can retire early. Incidentally, this is by design those with high wages since these are the basis of earning pension. However, the ones that may actually need to retire early due to the stress of hard menial labor are not in this group of high earners.

In effect we will see people at offices doing easy work close their pcs and have an office retirement party at an age of 65 that poor Olga of 70 years (or more) will have to clean up.

1. Bleed the fish by cutting along the neck and splitting the heart in two.
2. Gut the fish.
3. Use a flexible and thin knife to cut along the rib bones in the belly starting from the neck.
4. Follow the bones with the knife down toward the tail.
5. Cut toward the back by following the bones with the knife.
6. Cut the bone that lies in the side fin up toward the neck.
7. Cut the bones from the dorsal fins.
8. Use a pair of fish bone tweezers to pull out the bones running through the middle of the fillet.

3-6 are the parts that require skill. 8 is only needed in some fish. Others have bones on the side that just go 1/3 of the way down and you can just cut that part out in a V formation.

This is is terrible advice. You need different methods to fillet different fish. This I would only do on small fish with soft bones like mackerel or bridge.

Took me like three minutes to discover that this user was banned for impersonating another user (see the appending "2"?) and posting AI slop as a shit post in their name. Of course, that is not as satisfying as getting rage boners on Hexbear users, because of course we are going to be tribalist to the point of fault. This post should be deleted. It is not lore, it is bait and you swallowed it.

Not on NixOS!

services.immich.enable = true;

Phoronix and Gamingonlinux are awesome!

Setup Mint for grandma, and had to do it again recently as she had bought a new computer and found Windows annoying and unintuitive.