nephs @ nephs @lemmygrad.ml

Posts

49

Comments

339

Joined

2 yr. ago

I used to have my local environment synced to prod. Saving meant deployed.

Everything was feature flagged by default, we never broke production in years. That was early 2010s.

I heard someone say (can't remember where, somewhere YouTube) that nerds like to be pedantic. Therefore, we need to point them to our books, so they can be pedantic from a good place. :D

How could laws be enforced to public block chains, though?

Isn't the point of block chain to have full integrity, "no censorship" and "no external control", or something like that?

There's a video from Jones Manoel, Brazilian communist, on the topic a few months ago.

Highly recommend his work, use captions and auto translation!

https://youtu.be/-9i2S5i3Oi0

Edit: got a summary from https://summarize.tech/www.youtube.com/watch=-9i2S5i3Oi0:

In the YouTube video titled "É comunista e não é ateu?", the speaker explores the relationship between communism and atheism, arguing that communism does not necessitate atheism. The speaker challenges the idea that human behavior is guided by a completely rational and all-powerful reason, instead emphasizing the role of socialization and unconscious influences. The speaker also discusses the evolving role of religion in society, asserting that people's primary actions are secular and materialistic. The speaker concludes that there is no inherent contradiction between being a materialist and holding religious or spiritual beliefs, and acknowledges the complex relationship between religion and ideology. The speaker encourages viewers to engage in further debate on the topic.

        00:00:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "É comunista e não é ateu?", the speaker begins by thanking viewers for their support and announcing the completion of a project. He then addresses the common belief that all communists must be atheists, stating that he will engage in a debate on the topic. The speaker argues against the idea that communism necessitates atheism, citing the concept of Illuminism and its belief in the all-powerful reason guiding human actions. He explains that this idea of onipotent reason has been challenged by Marxist debates on ideology, which reveal the existence of social structures that shape human understanding and perception. The speaker also mentions the contributions of Freud's debate on the unconscious and Soviet psychology's focus on the historically specific role of consciousness within social and production relations. Overall, the speaker argues that the idea of a completely rational and all-powerful reason guiding human behavior is a relativized concept, as it must be understood from a class perspective and in relation to social structures and unconscious influences.

    00:05:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "É comunista e não é ateu?", the speaker discusses the limitations of theoretical reasoning in shaping human behavior. They argue that socialization plays a significant role in forming our behaviors and understanding of societal dynamics, such as capitalism. However, even someone deeply immersed in Marxist theory may not be able to fully practice anti-capitalist values in their interpersonal relationships and individual actions. The speaker also addresses the misconception that Marxism necessitates atheism, explaining that it is rooted in a specific understanding of religion as an all-encompassing ontology and cosmology. Instead, Marxism offers a humanized perspective on relationships and power structures, which are not divinely given but rather shaped by human relations.

    00:10:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "É comunista e não é ateu?", the speaker discusses the evolving role of religion in society, specifically in relation to the idea that "God is dead." The speaker argues that while people may attribute certain events or outcomes to God, their primary actions are secular and materialistic. For example, to eat, one needs money, and to get money, one must work or find ways to acquire it. When people are sick, they seek medical help rather than relying on divine intervention. The speaker asserts that God has become a secondary figure in people's lives, and this is socially acceptable. The speaker also mentions that while people may pray for help or success, they still take action themselves, such as studying for a test or looking for a job. The speaker uses the example of Iran as a country with a strong religious identity but also a highly industrialized military, demonstrating the separation of religious and secular spheres.

    00:15:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "É comunista e não é ateu?", the speaker discusses the idea that there is no inherent contradiction between being a materialist and holding religious or spiritual beliefs. Contrary to the belief that religion occupies an all-encompassing ontological role in explaining the workings of the world, the speaker argues that one can be a firm materialist and hold a separate place for spirituality in their life. The speaker also emphasizes that the concept of God as an all-powerful being does not necessarily conflict with a materialist worldview, as people can establish relationships with various deities or spiritual entities without contradicting their materialist beliefs. The speaker concludes that there is no philosophical contradiction between being a consistent materialist and holding religious or spiritual beliefs.

    00:20:00 In this section of the YouTube video "É comunista e não é ateu?", the speaker discusses the complex relationship between religion and ideology, specifically in the context of justifying feudalism. He argues that religion, particularly Christianity, played a significant role in legitimizing feudalism as the primary ideological apparatus. The speaker also emphasizes the importance of both passion and reason in political movements, using examples like the Cuban Revolution and the figure of Fidel Castro. He suggests that religion and superstition have a place in political movements, rather than being negated or contradicted by theoretical understanding. The speaker references Nelson Verne's book about the Prestes Column and the belief among the people that the leader had supernatural powers. He concludes by acknowledging the importance of socializing scientific knowledge and complex theoretical understanding, but also recognizing the role of religion in shaping people's beliefs and understanding of the world.

    00:25:00 In this section of the YouTube video titled "É comunista e não é ateu?", the speaker discusses the idea that highly politicized and educated people with access to the best cultural productions can still be religious, but may shift the role of religion in their lives. They argue that there is no irreconcilable contradiction between being Marxist and having some form of religion or spirituality. However, they acknowledge that guiding political action and strategy based on theological understandings of the world from an anthological and totalizing perspective can be a contradiction. The speaker emphasizes that this topic is complex and encourages viewers to engage with the debate further. They conclude by reminding viewers to subscribe to their channel, like and share the video. 
  

It was a response to comrade arguing that this kind of protest is nonsense, and that some sabotaging should have been done.

It reminded me that at first sight, for me, the hamas attack also looked like a nonsense suicidal attack, but later we could make some sense of it.

I was trying to sustain that because oct7 wasn't nonsense, maybe this case wasn't either.

But I can agree some sabotaging would have been welcome. :)

We're going full circle here.

I agree! My point is: despite the low effectiveness of similar actions (self immolation as a form of protest) in the past, oct7 makes me hopeful that this self immolation case could spark some change, since it's now reasonable to think that conditions may allow for larger implications in the core of imperialism.

I forgot about the high ranking officers, good point.

Still, by itself, it didn't change the policial landscape! By itself, it's barely a victory. Some destruction and violence. Some humiliation. Some setbacks, but Israel and its allies could easily recover from it. To call it a material victory, by itself? It's a stretch.

It was a very successful, heroic, hail mary, though. For the mistakes it caused the zionists to commit, and the support it gathered from the international community, it strengthens the Palestinian cause.

By themselves, Palestinians can't achieve a military victory against Israel and its allies. They barely had (and still barely have) support of neighboring Arab countries. Iran isn't an Arab country. Unfortunately media vibes was kind of a last hope, in this case. That's where the material victory was.

Let's hope Mr burning man sparks something bigger than himself.

I wish I could make the point shorter. Thanks for the conversation, comrade.

Objectively, and immediately, what oct7 achieved? An incursion into occupied territory and a number of hostages captured. Did I miss anything?

Assuming I didn't miss anything immense, In the grand scheme of matters, by itself, it doesn't hurt Israel that much.

Great operational success, but if Israel did absolutely nothing, it would have faded from the international news cycle in 2 weeks. Some pressure would have boiled internally, and Netanyahu would have been removed from power and prosecuted for corruption, finally. But, again, by itself, nothing would have changed in material conditions for the Palestinian cause.

What do you think I'm missing, here?

The unfolding desperation of fascist elites in Israel caused an international backlash of huge proportions. Which was apparently the actual goal of hamas. Also with great success. My point is that there was a risk that that actual goal didn't obtain success. The conditions were right, and success unfolded. Good.

With this case, I think it's too early to evaluate the unfolding impact of this act on internal public opinion of US population.

Operationally, it was successful. Guy went there, did his thing, hurt no civilians, got media coverage, is not suffering anymore. Without any unfolding from external actors, it's likely to go nowhere. Are the conditions right to have this go somewhere? It's a long shot, but let's hope so.

Considering he was an asset to the US military, he technically did material damage to the US military too...

The material damage done my hamas against the IDF was mostly political, and could only be assessed months after the attack because of the repercussion of actions of Israeli government. If the political setback wasn't there, the attack would have been just a "terror suicide attack against party goers".

I think the odds for nothing much to have happened were pretty high at the time. Just like many times before.

I think this man's acts are likely to result in nothing. But it was an attack against the US military forces image. What happens from it depends on the political agents now. The US media and military, the international media, and peer to peer social networks.

Something similar could be said about hamas' flood operation. That it achieved nothing (much), other than zionists fury.

Hopefully his sacrifice, from his own in-empire position, could get some political traction? Unlikely, but not impossible, I think.

Edit: in parenthesis

This whole timeline is complete nonsense. Can we reset back to the one where the Red Army didn't stop in Berlin, please?

Up we go, comrades!

We need a vanguard instance and a mass line instance. Thank you hexbear for holding the mass line strongly!

Lemmygrads questions are too hard. D:

But they're also trained in the English language. I wonder if a bot derived from other languages would behave the same.

My own mind changed a lot since the beginning of this conflict. It unveiled so many things for me.

In the beginning I though that Russia's intelligence had failed Putin. Seeing the dusty equipment on the trains, the western unity in Ukraine defense, and the sanctions, I really thought the decision making was off.

I had no idea about 2014, or the ideologies involved. My own world view wasn't clear either, I probably had an instinctive understanding that I wasn't bonjoursie, but not in clear enough terms to seek action from it.

Zelenski was everywhere, every tech company hoisted a blue yellow flag on their homepages, Russians were denied entry in competition. Which... Don't really contribute to much on the war effort, other than propaganda.

But propaganda eventually bends to reality. Only one line of analysis could explain the whole shit altogether, and it was completely ignored by western media.

Thank you comrades for lighting the way. Thank you independent media.

What's the difference?

You're doing too much western shit. Life sucks this side of the fence, too. And the numbers are not improving for most people, just the rich getting richer, and everyone else is worse than ever.

Freedom is just for the rich.

You got any sauce I can send my English speaking friends?

How much does the world owe Assange and Snowden?

Post it all! Small communities like this need everyone's content! :D