MLRL_Commie [comrade/them, he/him] @ MLRL_Commie @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

128

Joined

6 mo. ago

Oh.. think it'd be funnier without that one, that's already enough I think

What's the gun, sunglasses, and hat backwards one?

Fair enough. Probably just some social anxiety lol

I have yazidi acquaintances in my area (not gonna tell more than that for opsec) who yesterday told me they were celebrating Easter excitedly. Any comrades know much about Yazidi culture/Religion wanna help me find some sources to understand this a bit better? They're super nice, and I'm sure they'd explain if I asked, but I'm kind of embarrassed to know them so long and just now realize I know less about their religion than I thought. And Wikipedia is useless, and other sites that come up on Google are giving very conflicting information.

Something changes once a language is standardized, and that standardizationis malleable in direct relation to how important the "standardized language" is to the current culture.

Like Vampire said, Standard Arabic is very conservative because the Quran is considered holy only in the form of standardized Quranic arabic. So, you can see Modern Standard Arabic as being a ship with an anchor in the Quranic language and thus moving very little.

Regarding many European Languages, there was a standardization around the time of the protestant reformation because of the translating of the bible into languages. The example I'm most familiar with is the Dutch/German separation based on 2 major translations done in the area near Amsterdam and in the highlands of the German south. Translators were the closest thing to modern linguists, and attempted to find the most broadly understandable way to write something (with, of course, class differences and such taken into account). And people became grouped geographically by which translation they could understand well enough. To extend the anchor metaphor, this bible translation was similar to the Quran but without the specific necessity for not changing. So it had a braking effect with regards to diverging linguistic trends, but can't really be called an anchor.

I'm sure some people understood that this was an interesting development, where they were not only expected to do simple trading/travel across a Sprachbund, but were expected to understand writing and complex concepts in a specific wording. The consequences of that might not have been fully realized. That is a super interesting thing that I want to study a bit into.

English had Shakespeare as possibly the biggest braking trend in the past 300 years (up until WW2). I find it really interesting to try to analyze how much English has changed after becoming the Lingua Franca of most of the world relative to before that. Does being spoken broadly cause converging or diverging change? I assume is has a strong converging element, but does that converged lanuage also change faster (think of spreading of memes)?

idk if i gave any answers, but I also love thinking about this

Yeah that article is so full of bullshit that I don't believe it's main claim. Comparing LLM's to understanding built by children, saying it makes "creative content", that LLM's do "chain of thought" without prompting. It presents the two sides as at all equal in logical reasoning: as if the mystical intepretation is on the same level of rigor as the systems explanation. Sorry, but I'm entirely unconvinced by this article that I should take this seriously. There are thousands of websites that do translation with natural language taking examples from existing media and such (duolingo did this for a long time, and sold those results), literally just mining that data gives the basis to easily build a network of translations that seem like natural language with no mysticism

Is it emergent?! I've never seen this claim. Where did you see or read this? Do you mean by this that it can just work in any trained language and accept/return tokens based on the language input and/or requested?

I think you're mistaken in how that other support works, and are idealizing our enemies. I also think that this thinking confuses support and criticism for sharing some sort of axis together, when I'm arguing they are entirely independent. You have people who are unwilling to think or criticize, of course, but no system is above criticism. But this is irrelevant to support, which we give to systems which we support in their totality at the moment. If we are using this term to distinguish ourselves from unthinking BNMH libs or fascists, then we are failing elsewhere to even need such a term. We should be distinguishable in deeds and propaganda. They, despite claiming so, do not lend universal support and would abandon Hilary if she went too far left (somehow), and the MAGA's would drop Trump if he dropped his xenophobia and corporation supporting. They're lying if they think their support isn't limited

It's why I'm fully convinced that the term is only used to avoid full-throated support because people are unwilling to take their own claims seriously. Of course I have criticisms of China, but I'm not going to water down my claim of support by hedging a possibility to back out without losing face. If China fails to be good I will have been wrong. I have criticisms but support anyways.

See my other comments, I'm against the term critical support being used at all. Nothing exists without criticism possible

See my other comment. I'm not claiming that China is above criticism, but that critical support is a useless distinction, because nobody supports universally despite any change any state. Even fascists ony love their state as long as it protects their structures and would stop supporting when that stopped.

My point is that the light visible between "support" and "critical support" is immaterial and unnecessary to distinguish. There cannot be a place which you have no criticism of, because such a thing impossible in a constantly fluctuating, changing world where the new contradictions will present ways of being better.

Critical support insinuates supporting some but not all of a state, but creates some other object called just "support" (universal support, might be how it should be called) which doesn't exist.

Critical support has always seemed to me a way to downplay ones own support to hedge for a possible admittance that they were wrong 'but not fully wrong' in the face of future criticism.

You can add other caveats about what you support and what you don't (like a comrade above did), and that's fine. but you either support or don't support china as a whole. I think that, despite policy failures, China will improve those things as well as continue to grow both morally and in production/strength. So I support them.

Nah, we don't do "critical support" for China. That's reserved for enemies who are forced into our corner in a larger context (like Russia right now). And even then, what is critical support anyways? Just reserving some future retraction of support? So its support now until conditions change. But that is all support, I think? I support China. They may be slightly too slow/conservative in their approach, but this will only be possible to determine afterwards. Given the context of the world as it is, I can't imagine criticizing China for anything except not being far enough ahead of the rest, which is absurd because they are ahead, just not as much as some western Marxists believe they should be

I think you could even make the argument stronger: Deng didn't even act like a capitalist, he wrote and said exactly what the strategy was and looked to the west more like "You can come and do some exploiting of our labor, but we will win from that in the end. You'll still come though because Capital can't resist this" and it worked so well that capitalists and western leaders convinced themselves that he didn't believe himself.

Don't do this, stay. Were much worse off without you, regardless of how much is or isn't someone else's analysis, we need you.

Same, I can feel annoyed by the disagreements but I still find myself enthusiastic to read it. Xioahongshu(2) is a good comrade.

For sure but that's my point. To throw it in conservatives faces to make yourself feel better, use the stated goals. But, to really understand the problem of the US in the world, the stated goals isn't relevant and leads one astray in the analysis.

damn this picture fucked met up a bit. I though the woman on the right was wearing the grasses as a skirt, and then though that the woman on the left was bending at some ungodly angle and fitting into the tiny grass skirt that the dude (is that mussolini?) was holding and checking out.

Yeah it just depends on the goal stated, because war is politics. If the political goal in Iraq was overthrowing the government and getting oil, the US won. If it was ending resistance in the middle east, the US failed. If it was to create a chaotic region which can be used for profit and war for the coming centuries, the US won. Libya is almost exactly the same.

The US has several times achieved its material goal while failing its stated goal. They might do that in Iran, too, though I think it'll be harder than Iraq was because Iran learned from the past decades and I'm unconvinced that the US did

I would also love a link. A colleague sent me some shitty warmongering documentary about these ships going around the European coast and was offended that I said it was probably bullshit overblown Propaganda. I'd love to show it

To add, the weight of the human isn't much, but the weight of the chair; safety equipment for the human; the extra metal needed to make space for the human, the chair, and the safety equipment; the extra distance for equipment to steer/handle from the pilots seat as opposed to a distributed system all add up to sooooo much space and weight.

Also you can put fuel in the center (you usually don't cuz a human is sitting there) and that changes so much about the mechanics of the wings and the control system capabilities. The limiting factor was humans, but the next limiting factor disappears with the humans in the form of limited distribution patterns of fuel weight/less room to shift fuel during flight phases for different manoeuvres