Vampire

joined 4 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I have a bit going with my kids where we come up with a new meaning for the acronym every time we see one. "It stands for Bring Your Dog", "It stands for Bully Your Dad" etc.

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 5 points 10 hours ago

I love them all equally Care-Comrade

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 12 points 10 hours ago

Come to !sports!sports@hexbear.net where we pirate sports for fun. Check our sidebar.

 

You can modify your body with food & exercise. You can take the body you have and alter it a bit to a better version.

What you can't do is replace your body with a different person's body.

Therefore, you shouldn't have the goal to look like some image from media.

You should have the goal to look like you do now, but a bit better.

Some people need to hear this.

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 4 points 4 days ago

[and unprepared]

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 2 points 2 weeks ago

Americans will ban you from Lemmy if you do

 

Not because there is ethical consumption under capitalism, but because ethical purity is the wrong goal.

Leftists keep getting distracted by moralising. The aim is to lift the working class.

'There is no ethical consumption under capitalism' is a catchcry used to argue against consumer action because it is morally impure. I don't care whether my actions are morally pure; I care about the results they produce.

Leftists are shit at focusing on the results of their action. The end-game of leftists is to feel morally superior: never mind that no good results have been achieved.

Using syllogistic logic:

  • Surface premise: 'There is no ethical consumption under capitalism'

  • Hidden premise: And we should only take actions that are ethically pure

  • Conclusion: therefore we shouldn't reform consumption

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 5 points 2 weeks ago

Honestly any/all Yanquí pop culture can be assumed to carry hegemonic brainwashing

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 2 points 3 weeks ago

is this true?

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 2 points 3 weeks ago

Regenerate your population then, if you're so smart.

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I've had dinner with gangsters and murderers.

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago (9 children)

There's better criticisms of Pinker.

I don't like guilt by association.

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 10 points 1 month ago (3 children)

I've been avoiding most internet because I have no temptation to hear the opinions of idiots.

Two people who aren't Ukrainian, don't speak Ukrainian, have never read a book about Ukraine trying to make their opinion on Ukraine win an argument? No thanks, not my choice of pastime.

Maybe I'm part of a trend? People have seen through the slapfights and are ready for something else?

I want to learn from experts, not tabloid comment-sections. e.g. this is good content - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhn3ssSH4nY - look at her CV, she has a right to speak.

[–] Vampire@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Probably Cybernetics by Wiener is the basic text?

 

What should I read to understand how to build and verify a cybernetically valid system? (e.g. cybernetically valid planned economy)

I understand that production needs to be controlled, and that the decision-making needs to be linked to the front-line workers (because they have eyeballs on the reality of the work). And it's a design-error if decisions are made removed from work, because the controller doesn't have first-hand knowledge.

But I don't understand how to describe that in formal terms. Is there a list of all possible system-design-errors? Is there a methodology/checklist for confirming if me mum is cybernetically valid?

Is there a textbook on all this?

 

Curious.

view more: next ›