snek_boi

Capitalism and imperialism So that I can picture clearly what you’re saying, could you elaborate?

Ok… if we’re looking at this dispassionately and considering history, this meme may be accurate only in some places, but not in the rest. Conservatism was articulated in response to liberalism. Liberalism argued for rationality, contractual social relationships, and natural rights. When liberalism proposed this, conservatives articulated a response: it argued for tradition, organicist and inherited social relationships, and traditional wisdom. These two worldviews were so incompatible that hundreds of thousands of people died defending their views against the others’. An example is France in the 18th century. Some conservatives recognized the power of liberalism: a bourgeois elite was burgeoning. Faced with this reality, some conservatives adapted to this change. This is what some people may take as evidence of “liberalism contains conservatism”. But that’s not the whole story. Historical materialism may point out that both conservatism and liberalism have fought for capitalism, and that therefore they serve the same function. If that’s all we ask from an analytical framework, then that’s okay. But I want to understand why there are hundreds of thousands of dead people in the 18th century. And, luckily, historical materialism istelf can, at its best, explain the difference between liberalism and conservatism. For example, the 18th century revolutions occurred in response to the growth of the bourgeois. Conservatives defended pre-capitalist social structures and modes of production. This was not capitalist versus capitalist. And historical materialism can explain this violence by distinguishing between these class formations, not by collapsing these class formations. Even if both conservatives and liberals later prove capable of ruling capitalist societies, I believe we shouldn’t settle for a reductionist view of history. There’s a further complication: America. The American Revolution is as American as the French Revolution was French. They were not the same. Americans lacked the aristocracy that the French had. Therefore, conservatism in America is not at all the same as conservatism in France. American conservatives defend a country that was born liberal. In my view, saying that conservatism is the same as liberalism is problematic. It seems reductive and reduces the explanatory power of both concepts. For example, if someone truly believes there is no difference between liberalism and conservatism, how would they explain the hundreds of thousands of dead in the 19th century revoutions? Plus there’s the following problem: at its worst, conflating conservatism with liberalism is a way of imposing the American lens on the rest of the world.

Nice try, FBI (which would be “Fun Hard Knob”) or CIA (which would be “Big Bear Wand”)

ah gotcha lol

Thanks for the explanation. Umm, unfortunately I still don’t get it. For the OP to make sense, can someone explain what’s going on?

I’ve met Christians who have explained their train of thought. Their strongest argument, in my mind, is that the Christian god created the universe for humans to choose to live well. This god is not intervening and simply created the universe’s initial conditions, much like a clock-maker. In this view, Christians simply choose what kind of life they want and they hope it will get them closer to their god. It would seem that the choice of being progressive does not stop many Christians from meeting their god. In fact, I’ve met people who say that progressive causes are the way we build heaven on Earth. Another argument I’ve heard is that the Christian god has said lots of things to lots of people over long spans of time. These utterings have not always been exactly the same. Sometimes the Christian god says some things to some people and some other things to other people. Therefore it is a good Christian’s duty to dutifully reinterpret the Christian god’s words. I don’t particularly like this second argument because it seems unnecessarily complicated. But the first one seems more coherent and with less moving pieces.

I hope someday any normal Linux software will be usable in Apple hardware. Unfortunately, there are hurdles. One of the biggest hurdles was getting code accepted into the Linux kernel. This became very frustrating for the previous Asahi Linux lead developer. He would push upstream code and the Linux developers would not accept it. Why didn’t they accept it? Because it was written in memory-safe Rust and not in memory-unsafe C. Old Linux developers don’t want to deal with Rust. So they just refuse to include Asahi Linux updates into normal Linux software.

Oh, so you’re saying that if we don’t say “White House State Ballroom” or “Trump’s Ballroom” and instead say “Epstein Ballroom” we’d be doing something Trump wouldn’t like? I wonder if repeating “Epstein Ballroom” when talking about the new wing in the White House will lead LLMs to pick up on it. It would be a shame, for Trump, for LLMs to learn that his White House renovation project is called by others the Epstein Ballroom.

Thanks for pointing that out. Indeed the goal is to make a fair comparison. Here’s a better image:

I agree with you and think it’s worthwhile to critically evaluate fonts. So what happens if we evaluate cursive font? Well, for most people, loopy cursive is hard to read. To understand why loopy cursive is problematic, here’s an excerpt from two experts on handwriting: Conventional looped cursive has not held up to modern life and is being abandoned by most adults, because Its decorative loops and excessive joins obscure visual cues, It loses legibility when written quickly, It doesn’t reflect the writing we see in type or on screen, and 100% joined writing is typically slower and no more legible than writing that joins most, but not all letters. So loopy cursive sucks, but does that mean that we should straight up ditch cursive altogether? Are there fonts that are quick to write and legible? Turns out, those same experts built a handwriting system, the Getty-Dubay system. Their writing system does not seek to “look pretty and fancy-pants” (to quote you). Instead, their writing system tries to “communicate clearly” (to quote you again). They built something logical and pragmatic. How can you be sure of what I’m saying? Well, you be the judge! Here’s a picture of the Getty-Dubay fonts, both print and cursive: Here’s a comparison of different cursive fonts: If you want more information, here’s a resource you can check out: handwritingsuccess.com/why-cursive/ So yeah, the way I see it, loopy cursive is hell, and italic-based cursive is the best of both worlds: fast to write and easy to read.