So you’re mixing up two different meaning of AI to say that AI doesn’t mean the same thing everywhere? When people are talking about bats, the flying mammals, do you also interject with “bats are use to hit a ball” to make some point? No, because deliberately mixing up homonyms is stupid.
It’s pretty clear what kind of AI people are talking about here. Nobody was discussing game AI.
Genuinely not sure if joking or actually dumb.
I think it depends. I’ve had a non-technical PM and he was great. He knew he knew nothing about development and as such did what great managers do, create an environment where we could work as efficiently as we could. If we said it takes X amount of time he wouldn’t try to squeeze out a faster deadline, he’d report “it will take X amount of time”. If we said it’s unreasonably to take feature Y in he’d say we’re not going to take feature Y in.
IMO it’s much harder with PMs who did some development 20 years ago and “know how things are done”. The ones with some technical knowledge almost always butt in.
You’ve clearly already checked out considering I’m not even the person who insulted you. Here’s an idea, maybe don’t partake in conversations you’re not going to bother to even pay attention. I guarantee you’ll automatically come across as less of an asshole.
You don’t think that for the copyright laws to change we also need to change how we view it? How could you be properly critical of the copyright law if you refuse to make the distinction necessary for a certain type of criticism?
I get the “that’s not how the world is” argument, but you can’t talk about how the world could/should be by using only the word that describe the current state of the world. If you want to be critical of the existing system you need to develop a vocabulary that allows for such criticism.
For instance if you don’t make the distinction between the creator and copyright holder you can’t make criticism such as “you shouldn’t be able to copyright works that you haven’t created”. You can’t tell the difference between copyright owned by the creator and copyright owned by copyright owner because those two people are indistinguishable, so the entire criticism becomes nonsense.
alright, be cool be cool be cool, it’s just Margot Robbie.
Yeah I could totally do those one of AMA dooda thingies.
what the fuck was that abomination of a sentence? Okay okay okay, let’s just try to smooth our way out of it.
Bye
I just realized that I called esteemed character performer Margot Robbie a goon. Many apologies. I respect your dedication to the craft.
You should do an AMA. How did it feel being touched by god?
It’s when you write everything in l33t WITH CAPSLOCK ON.
Have you read Lenins works? Because if you have I don’t understand how you could take that article seriously. The article tries to take the 5 points and break down why Russia doesn’t fit them.
Starting with
1)the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life. and I guess 4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves
Lenin goes into great detail in chapter 1 about what constitutes a monopoly, how they become cartels and how cartels turn into the foundation of economic life which then turns capitalism into imperialism. The examples of monopolies and cartels are universally on a national or local level, never on a global level (probably because he simply couldn’t fathom the world we live in today).
The writer doesn’t actually even address point 1). I’m just going assume he lumps it together with point 4) and pulls out a global dick measuring competition to say:“look, Russia has a small peepee, therefor Russia can’t be monopolistic”. It doesn’t matter where Russian enterprises land on the global scale because a backyard monopoly is still a monopoly. If the global monopolistic cartel is so much bigger than whatever Russia has, why hasn’t the international monopoly taken over Russia and exploit it for profits? Because Russian oligarchs together with the Russian government have created their own national cartel. Companies from countries can only play by their rules which is literally what Lenin is talking about:
Cartels come to an agreement on the terms of sale, dates of payment, etc. They divide the markets among themselves. They fix the quantity of goods to be produced. They fix prices. They divide the profits among the various enterprises, etc.
Hence, as per point 1 Russia fits the imperialistic definition. As for point 4, CIS exists as an extension of Russian sphere of influence. Considering other imperialists can’t really divide that region implies the existence of an imperialistic force within that region, Russia.
- the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy.
The author of the article goes back to the same “small peepee” argument, which I already disputed in point 1. A backyard monopoly is still a monopoly.
But I’ll give the author some benefit of the doubt, they couldn’t have assumed the control the Russian cartel has over their own banking. That is now apparent with all the sanctions the west as thrown at Russia, which would absolutely destroy the banking sector of any normal country. But Russia for the most parts seems unfazed by those sanctions. This can happen only if there’s a cartel running the entire thing, as they have enough power over the market that the influence of external actors can be negated.
No I’m not convinced that point 2 does not apply to Russia.
- the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance
This is the only point of contention. The article writer approaches this from 2 angles. First is that idea that an imperialistic country would export high technology goods as opposed to raw materials, and the countries that export raw material fit the pattern of “semi-developed third world state”. And if you don’t look too deep that seems to be true, most third world countries do export raw materials and import the high technology goods created from those materials. However there’s a very clear exception that the writer brings out but refuses to acknowledge, energy (which includes gas and oil). Imperial powers absolutely would (and do) export energy, even in its raw form, because not only is it the perfect commodity (because it’s always in demand) it’s also extremely profitable if you can control its pricing. I would say the complete opposite to the writer, Russia is an imperialistic power because they have gas and oil to export.
The other aspect of this point is the export of financial capital. The writer once again goes for the “small peepee” argument and claims that because other imperialistic countries can export financial capital more than Russia then it means Russia can’t be imperialistic. But then the writer also acknowledges that Russia does in fact export financial capital. And here’s the contentious point, does the amount of financial capital exported from Russia gain exceptional importance or not? I would say it does but if you want to claim it doesn’t then I’m not going to argue over one point. Whether they do or not does change the outcome because the other 4 points still indicate imperialism.
If Russia is not an imperialistic power then how do you explain the war in Ukraine? If you subscribe to the idea of imperialistic capitalistic powers then Ukraine is a territorial dispute between two imperialistic powers. You’ve established that one side is “the west”, what is the other side? By the power of deduction it can only be Russia.
Ah yes, the fabled “You just don’t understand imperialism” argument. How informative. Well enlighten me how or why Russia and their actions towards Ukraine do not fall under the concept of imperialism Lenin described in “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”.
Have you read the rules of Lemmygrad? Literally the first rule of the instance.
No capitalist apologia / anti-communism.
Having a different viewpoint is literally against the rules of Lemmygrad. You’re allowed to suck the toes of Putin and say “DEATH TO NATO” but the moment you say anything remotely bad about USSR are you’re already on the watchlist of getting banned. How about you be critical about the very instance you’re from before you go crying about others considering defederating from you.
Really. Think about how fucking vague that rule is. I guarantee people (probably you included considering the community you moderate) in Lemmygrad believe NATO to be a apparatus created by the capitalist US to spread their “capitalist” imperialism which means talking about anything in favor of NATO is capitalist apologia. But when we turn it around and have capitalist Russia spread “capitalist” imperialism, not only is that NOT capitalist apologia but people in Lemmygrad actually support the imperialism of capitalist Russia, like it doesn’t contradict their beliefs AT ALL. Literally the only difference, from the anti-capitalist anti-imperialist point of view, between Russia and the US is that the US does their imperialism under the NATO umbrella while Russia doesn’t even try to hide their imperialism. Yet defending one is probably a bannable offense while defending the other is not just fine but actively promoted.
Maybe in some very broad strokes, but in very broad strokes legs and cars are also the same because they move you from point A to point B.