Oh yeah, once you start seeing it, you realize that we're swimming in propaganda and people are simply regurgitating it uncritically like chatbots.
3
France's Parliament Calls Europe to Break with America and Partner with China
(arnaudbertrand.substack.com)
Reading Marx is like unearthing the Necronomicon in a university library, a forbidden text that lays bare capitalism's inner workings. But the true horror lies in realizing you're surrounded by people who treat exploitation as 'just how things work.' Suddenly the world reveals itself as a self-sustaining asylum, where the so-called 'rational' diligently reproduce the madness of the system.
I find hashtags are kind of essential for using Mastodon
You don't understand the relation between one set of jihadists and another that are funded by the CIA to fight their adversaries?
yeah the headline is a little bombastic, but the article itself was interesting
seems fine for me, here's the content:
Mainland China is on track to surpass Taiwan in semiconductor foundry capacity by 2030, according to a report from Yole Group, underscoring Beijing’s progress in its push for chip self-sufficiency amid ongoing US tech restrictions. The mainland’s share of global foundry capacity is projected to reach 30 per cent by the end of the decade, up from 21 per cent in 2024, the French market research firm said. Taiwan is currently the market leader with a 23 per cent share last year, while mainland China is already ahead of South Korea at 19 per cent, Japan at 13 per cent and the US at 10 per cent. “Mainland China is rapidly becoming a central player,” Yole Group said, attributing the shift to Beijing’s intensified efforts to build a self-sufficient domestic semiconductor ecosystem since Washington launched a tech war that aimed to curb China’s progress in critical areas such as chips and artificial intelligence (AI). Beijing has doubled down on its “whole nation” approach to its self-sufficiency drive. The state-backed China Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund, known as the “Big Fund”, has successfully fostered the development of key companies such as Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) and Hua Hong Semiconductor, two of the country’s leading wafer foundries. Domestic fabs are set to play a bigger role over the next few years, according to the report, which said local chipmakers accounted for 15 per cent of foundry capacity in 2024. That share will be “significantly more” by 2030, the report said. Chinese chipmakers have been investing heavily in expanding their facilities to meet surging demand from sectors such as automotive and generative AI. China was expected to start three new fab construction projects this year, one-sixth of the world’s total, according to a report published in January by US-based industry association SEMI. China’s self-sufficiency strategy, along with expected demand from automotive and internet-of-things applications, would help boost capacity by 6 per cent for chips made with process nodes between 8 and 45 nanometres, SEMI added. Despite the projected gains, the mainland still trails Taiwan and South Korea in advanced process nodes, which are crucial for producing high-performance chips with greater transistor density. SMIC, China’s top foundry, had difficulty advancing its process nodes from 7-nm to 5-nm, Canadian research firm TechInsights said in a report last month. Two years after its 7-nm chip first appeared in a Huawei Technologies smartphone, “SMIC’s 5nm process node remains elusive,” TechInsights said. The report came after it looked into the chip used in Huawei’s new laptop with a foldable display, which also used 7-nm chips from SMIC. Meanwhile, global leaders Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and Samsung Electronics are locked in a race to achieve mass production at the 2-nm node level. TSMC was expected to reach that level this year, while Samsung has reportedly planned to reach the same stage in early 2026.
There are plenty of videos from Ukraine and Israel that you can watch online. These missiles can hit specific buildings.
You agree with me there then.
If you're saying Russian response to NATO expansion was rational then we agree.
And I’m against that. Are you not? I don’t see what point you are making.
The point I've been making this whole thread is that Europe is the only entity in this equation that is not acting rationally in its own interest. Both US and Russia are pursuing their interest, meanwhile Europe is not.
Yes, that’s what NATO argues. NATO’s intervention in Libya was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Similarly with NATO’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia, they claim they were enforcing UN mandate.
Incidentally, Russia says that their intervention in Donbas is directly modelled on NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. Just as NATO did, they waited for LPR and DPR to separate, then they recognized their independence, and then had them invite Russia to intervene on their behalf. So, Russia is enforcing UN mandate as well following this logic.
As I said, of course each side will always twist the narrative to their advantage. You cannot just say that one side is right and pretend that you are being impartial and unaffected by propaganda.
That's literally been my whole point here. However, the historical facts are important. It was NATO that refused to disband after the USSR dissolved despite the fact that it's entire mandate for existence disappeared. It was NATO that rebuffed Russia's offer to join it. It was NATO that broke its promise not to expand easier. It was NATO that played games with Minsk agreements. The history very clearly shows which side has been consistently escalating tensions since the 90s.
I disagree sorry. It would be wrong and stupid for Europe to wage war against their Russian neighbors and create an environment that ultimately would lead to self-harm.
If the threat was existential then there would be no choice. The same way Europe had no choice but to resist nazi Germany during WW2. However, this course of action only makes sense if there is a credible existential threat. In case where things can be resolved diplomatically, then diplomatic approach should absolutely be followed. We are in complete agreement here.
No. Why would you presume that?
Then why spend so much time talking about what you think is moral or justified. Your adversary does not care one bit about that. They have their own morals and their own justifications for what the do. This is why I keep saying that focusing on morality is not productive. What you have to focus on are national interests. What does Europe want and what does Russia want. You have to develop empathy to see things from the perspective of your adversary and to understand WHY they do the things they do. Then and only then can you start having meaningful dialogue and try to find common ground.
The reason this war happened was precisely because the west refused to try and see things from Russian perspective and to genuinely understand their interests and goals.
I think we are talking past each other… these questions are clearly in bad faith and what follows shows that you misinterpreted the question that elicited the previous answer you are referring to.
I'm not sure what I misinterpreted. You keep pointing to me saying that Russian economy has improved throughout the war as some sort of a gotcha in terms of the underlying reasons for the war. And I keep explaining that these things are tangential. Russia did not go to war to improve its economy, and had its economy suffered, it would have continued the war anyways because Russia sees this war as being existential.
I feel I’ve already explained myself way too much in too many ways, and I don’t think we are gonna reach anywhere here. I don’t think it’s worth continuing.
I feel the same. Have a good day.
Do you think the US reaction was “rational”?
I do, it's rational for them not to want to have nukes on their doorstep just as it's rational for Russia to want the same.
That said, putting nuclear weapons is not the same as having a treaty. I would not want the US to set up nuclear weapons in Europe… I would be completely against that too.
Yet, the US does precisely that in Europe right now making it a target for Russian nuclear weapons.
Whenever a “defense treaty” takes any action it’s always gonna be controversial because each side is always gonna gonna argue that they are the ones that are actually defending themselves, each is gonna have a version of what they consider “pacekeeping”, “humanitarian protection”, etc.
NATO has been invading countries contrary to all international laws and norms. Only valid peacekeeping is done through the UN.
But why would you think that the Russians would be any different?
Russians literally wanted to join NATO and create a joint security framework that would be acceptable to everyone. Why did NATO reject that?
if Russia DID set up an organization in the same level of NATO (so the same level of “aggression” whichever you believe that level is), do you really think that Europe should be “rational” in waging war against the country that the treaty is written with?
If Europe thought it could win against Russia and it had credible evidence that Russia was setting up an organization to invade Europe then it would be rational for Europe to take military action. However, none of that is actually happening last I checked.
You qualify he level of harm by saying “the way Europe is”, implying that there’s a level of harm inflicted to Russia, just that you don’t think it’s in the same level as Europe.
No, it doesn't imply a level of harm. I'm literally saying Russia is not harmed while Europe is harmed. I've also provided you with concrete sources detailing the state of things in Russia. I think I've been quite clear regarding what I actually meant.
Do you really think Russia received ZERO harm? the war caused no suffering at all to any Russian?
I think there was initial harm to Russia at the start of the war, but on the whole it seems pretty clear that the overall situation in Russia has improved compared to prewar period now. Amusingly, a lot of it has to do with the economic decoupling from the west. This forced Russia to actually start investing in domestic industry and revival of what became the rust belt after the fall of USSR. You keep talking about harm to Russia, but you still haven't provided any examples of what you mean by it. I've given you plenty of sources supporting what I say. Feel free to explain in concrete terms what you believe the harm to Russia is.
We can of course try and take measures to try to prevent that person from committing acts that cause harm, but that does not mean that this person is immune from being judged in moral grounds.
Do you think Russians are losing sleep over you judging them?
But the reality is that the attack was a bad thing.
The reality is that you can't just arbitrarily pick a point and decide that history starts now. The attack you lament was a response to decades of actions by the west that have been well documented, and with many people having warned that continuation of such actions would lead to a military response from Russia. Now that it happened you evidently want to ignore the actions that led up to this response and frame it was Russia being wrong morally.
There are no real winners here.
I think the side that's actually growing stronger both militarily and economically is objectively the winner.
Before, you told me that these things (the economic growth, etc) had nothing to do with the war… now you are using those things as a reason why the war was ok to wage?
Do you have reading comprehension problems? What I said was that growing the economy was NOT THE REASON why Russia went to war. However, in the course of the war Russian economy did improve because Russia managed to do good planning. Let me know if you're still struggling to comprehend this and I have to use smaller words. I've explained this three times now.
In wars like these, you are either profiting from the suffering of others or (and often, in addition to) causing suffering for sections of your population. It does not matter whether it’s Russia, US, Europe or whoever it is that wages the war.
The cause of the war was NATO expanding to Russian borders and Russia responding to that. This is now acknowledged by everyone including the former chief of NATO. This is what the conflict is about. The fact that Russia managed its economy well during this time does not imply that Russia is profiting from the war. It's absolutely incredible that you have so much trouble understanding these basic concepts.
I literally said it 3… maybe 4 times… but I’ll repeat that I think the west was wrong in what they did, that NATO should not have expanded. I agree with those western academics.
And yet, you also continue to insist that the war was unjustified and unprovoked, citing Chomsky over and over here. Pick a lane bud.
The one that states that the action was not “rational” because NATO wasn’t really a threat FOR RUSSIA (it might be a threat to expand it BECAUSE of the “unjustified” reaction many were predicting Russia would have). This is not the same statement, Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆.
Yet, the sources I provided you very clearly state that NATO was a credible threat to Russia. In fact, this article in National Interest that was published in 2021 EXPLICITLY states that the goal the US had was to break Russia:
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/strategy-avoiding-two-front-war-192137
It is absolutely surreal that you continue that NATO was not a threat to Russia when the key NATO member openly discusses policy of dismembering Russia in preparation for war on China. This is absolute clown shit.
So you are saying that if there was a bordering country (let’s say… Belarus… for example) that decided to strike a military alliance with Russia (let’s say they decide to call it “Union State Treaty”), then this should be seen as a “provocation” and you’d think it to be a “rational” reaction for Europe to wage war?
I'm saying that when USSR put nuclear weapons in Cuba we know what the reaction from the US was. This is not a hypothetical debate.
I don’t think war is the answer to a defense treaty
NATO is not a defense treaty. It's an aggressive organization that has been invading and destroying countries for decades now. Go read up on Yugoslavia and Libya as two examples. Meanwhile, the key member of NATO has been at a state of continues war all around the world.
I disagree that it was really a threat… the same way that I would not have seen it as a threat if Russia started making some NATO-equivalent treaties with countries in the Europe-Russia border.
It's entirely irrelevant what you think. What matters is how Russia perceives NATO. The fact of the matter is that NATO should have been disbanded when USSR dissolved. Yet, for some reason it was not. Then Russia offered to join NATO and create a joint security alliance on equal terms, but was rebuffed by NATO.
You keep trying to paint this as a neutral situation, but the facts are against you. NATO is the organization that has been expanding towards Russia despite giving guarantees to the contrary in the 90s.
Ah, so the economic boom has nothing to do with the war? Because what I wanted to ask is whether the war caused self-harm or benefit.
Russia did not invade Ukraine for economic reasons. The economic boom is the result of Russian being much better at restructuring its economy than Europe.
In your last bit there it seems you are hinting that Russia was harmed by the war, even if it wasn’t harmed “the way Europe is”.
Where was I hinting that?
Chomsky is too. I believe that if you don’t have morals in regards to which decisions are beneficial for a society then is when discussing these topics does become “not constructive”.
The elephant in the room is that the west is not able to impose its morals on Russia. We can control what we do in the west, and the question becomes whether we should take actions that lead to war or to peace.
Avoiding a war requires empathy. The west has to honestly acknowledge that Russia has legitimate interests of its own, and security concerns that the west has been trampling over. Then the rational thing to do is to find a compromise that both sides can see as being preferable to open war. That's how diplomacy works.
Instead, the west tried to impost its will on Russia while disregarding Russian concerns, and that led to a conflict that the west is now losing.
My point is that Russia feeling entitled to wage a war was also “morally bad” (irrational / self-harm). I’m saying this because I feel that your comments imply that Russia was completely rational in waging war.
Can you demonstrate in what way this was irrational self harm on the part of Russia? I gave you concrete examples in this thread showing that standard of living in Russia has improved during the time of the war, Russian economy has grown, Russian military has become far stronger, and Russia has become a much more important geopolitical player in the world. In what way has Russia irrationally self harmed itself?
My point is that NATO expansion was NOT a threat for Russia. That’s why I think the attack was (to use Chomky’s words): “unprovoked and unjustified”.
I literally provide you with many quotes and references from top western academics, diplomats, and politicians who disagree with your bold statement mr Ferk. I love how you cherry picked a single line from Chomsky while ignoring all the rest to make another straw man. Very mature of you.
Sorry, but if you truly don’t think that decisions that lead to suffering should be “moralized”, and you really think that it’s “rational” and in the “own interests” of a country to wage war in order to grow the economy, then I think we simply disagree on what should be the goals of a society.
You're just putting words in my mouth at this point. What I said is that it's rational for a country to respond militarily to an aggressive military alliance surrounding it. Given that NATO would be able to place nukes in Ukraine that could hit Moscow under 5 minutes, it would be insane for Russia not to respond to that.
Nowhere did I suggest that Russia started the war to grow its economy. What I said, is that Russia managed to restructure its economy away from the west, and it is not harmed by the war the way Europe is.
Chomsky even uses the word “unjustified”. He’s saying pretty much the same thing I said.
Chomsky can use whatever words he likes, but the provocations are well documented. Again, as I've already explained to you repeatedly, talking about justifications is not constructive. You're back to doing moralizing here.
The question is how to avoid conflicts like this going forward. The argument about whether it's moral for Russia to start the war does the opposite of that because it implicitly ignores the role the west played in starting the conflict.
Since people in the west have little influence over Russian actions, it is the most productive to focus on what their own governments are doing. That should be obvious, yet here we are.
Is it true or is it false that the war has motivated NATO’s expansion (ie… adding members)? because that’s all I said
I love how you're trying to be clever here, but let's reason through this using your adult brain Ferk. Explain why would NATO expansion be a problem for Russia if the alliance isn't becoming stronger?
view more: next ›
One huge impact mass FOSS adoption would have is that there would be a lot less software and hardware churn. Commercial nature of proprietary technology is the main driver for constant upgrade cycles we see. Companies need to constantly sell products to stay in business, and this means you have to deprecate old software and hardware in order to sell new versions of the product.
Windows 11 roll out is a perfect example. Vast majority of Windows 10 users are perfectly happy with the way their computer works currently, they're not demanding any new features, they just want their computer to continue to work the way it does currently. However, Microsoft is ending support for Windows 10 and now they're forced to buy a new computer to keep doing what they've been doing.
This problem goes away entirely with open source because there is no commercial incentive at play. If a piece of software works, and there is a community of users using it, then it can keep working the way it does indefinitely. Furthermore, in cases where a software project goes in a directions some users don't like, such as the case with Gnome, then software can be forked by users who want to go in a different direction or preserve original functionality. This is how Cinnamon and Mate projects came about.
Another aspect of the open source dynamic is that there's an incentive to optimize software. So, you can get continuous performance improvements without having to constantly upgrade your hardware. For most commercial software, there's little incentive to do that since that costs company money. It's easier to just expect users to upgrade their hardware if they want better performance.
I would argue that non technical software users would be far better off if they had the option to fund open source software instead of buying commercial versions. Even having to pay equal amounts, the availability of the source puts more power in the hands of the users. For example, building on the example of Gnome, users of an existing software project could also pull funds together to pay developers to add features to the software or change functionality in a particular way.
This is precisely what makes licenses like GPL so valuable in my opinion. It's a license that ensure the source stays open, and in this way inherently gives more power to the users.