Isn't this just a DIY brushless dynamo? Am I missing something? Still cool tho

establish 👏 tenant 👏 owned 👏 cooperatives 👏

See, that's the crux of the argument I feel. You can't have one without the other, you can't have voice generation for the mute without that technology also displacing voice actors in the process.

That's why I think the Luddite approach doesn't work, we can't forcefully break the machines that are capable of so much good because they're also capable of so much bad.

Instead we should focus on helping those that are most negatively impacted by their existence, while supporting everyone that is already being positively affected by them. (like the UBI mentioned in my other comment)

PS. Totes down for replacing CEOs with AI and distributing their salary among the workers

sex != gender

Biological sex determines the bits you have in your pants - gender on the other hand is the social construct we humans have created, on top of that, to assign social roles and expectations to individuals.

The main issue TERFS (or FARTS) have, is that they argue the only thing that matters is what bits you have in your trousers. Which completely ignores the reality of people everywhere that are societally expected to behave in certain ways because it aligns with what society has deemed "manly" or "girly". They argue that by wanting rights for trans people, that means, we, as a society, end up entrenching the gender norms feminists have fought so hard to dismantle.

However, that fully relies on the idea that gender has already been abolished and everyone presenting the way they truly feel is just "men" co-opting the feminist movement for their own "deviant" benefit.

Which

A. Completely misses the point about equality and solidarity (why does it matter if AMABs present as women if we all have equal rights?)

B. Disregards the reality of transmasc, transfemmes, enby and anyone else that just wants to live life in a form they feel comfortable with (feminine women and masculine men are just as valid as the opposite)

C. Absolutely dismisses the experience of transmasc individuals as "confused girls" - which is not only bigoted but extremely sexist, it implies that AFABs have no agency and are fully controlled by society - "you see they're not smart enough to understand social constructs and how their lives fit into them - no! they're just trying to pass as male so they get the patriarchal benefits the current system provides!" - again completely missing the point of equality.

You may think these are strawmen but if you're familiar with JKs rethoric you'll see these are genuine beliefs she holds.

This way, the "Trans Movement" (ie. people presenting and behaving in ways not directly assigned to their birth sex) becomes a hill to die on.

Not because of the purported "safety of girls" in bathrooms, sports and prisons (which JK will gladly demonize in her own fictional worlds of trans criminals and rapists (spoilers - people of any sex or gender expression can be awful human beings - saying they're the reason sex crimes occur just dismisses the reality of abuse perpetuated by hurtful people))

But because it's an ideology of absolute societal constructs (how can a man pretend to be a woman if the only thing that makes a woman is her genitalia?)

And look, I too am a gender abolitionist - if we lived in a genderless society that didn't have gender reveal parties or gendered shoes or clothes or interests or literally anything that divides people into binary groups - I'd be on that shit - but that's not what folk like JK are fighting for.

They see sex as this immutable quality that not only determines your reproductive organs - but how society should perceive you. You have a penis - you are a man. Oh, you don't like being perceived as a man and you feel you relate to women in a way that other men don't? Well, too fucking bad, in the man-bin you go. Rooster between your legs says you're not allowed to sit in a female-only cubicle - get the fuck out.

That's why this type of thinking is harmful, the goal isn't to see who gets the "most rights", the goal is for everyone to get the same amount of rights, always - so it doesn't matter if you call yourself a man, a woman or any other label you may choose - what matters is that if you give out love and respect you should receive the same in return.

Edit: Sorry for the massive essay, but assumed you might be interested in the context around sex and gender

The real estate company's ads for 'presale' lots in Gaza and plans to 'prepare the groundwork for a return' to the enclave were meant to be 'a joke' for its followers

Ha ha, what if we pretend to build houses on bombed people's land. that would be funny i think.

Look I'm not supporting mega rich assholes extracting even more from working people, but would you use the same argument for textile weavers and the Jacquard loom? Sure a lot of people lost their jobs at the time, but most, if not all, respecialized and we got computers in the end so would you say it wasn't good progress? 🤷

Putting down animals for misbehaving is fundamentally fucked and anyone who does it shouldn't be allowed around animals - or as they say where you're from - "While its fucked to kill your own kind, this is a common reason to put down animals."

Does the fact that's an obvious lie (you can clearly see a second missile come from the top left) make you more or less likely to support the IDF? Anything's fair in war and genocide right...

Ah yes, because the favorite part of the process for every artist is the hours spent going back and forth with their client touching up the most minor details instead of creating art they actually want to make..

Idk, I feel AI art only affects commercial artists who first and foremost care about making money off their art form. The ones that actually make art for the love of the craft (without expectation of getting anything in return) aren't really affected in any way.

TL;DR Let UBI free artists from the capitalistic yoke and let the oligarchs use AI to automate the soulless part of art creation that nobody enjoys anyways.

isn't it weird how the internet just went "mj fox has a debilitating brain disease?" - "Le lol"

Depends on your region, but in general if you can find at least 3 people you want to live with, you can apply to establish a cooperative.

Do note that securing a mortgage would probably be a bit harder than buying on your own, but with more people you can acquire a larger space and split the costs that way.

Fundamentally, it's unlikely it will be cheaper than buying outright - however you'll have a community of people to rely on if at any point you become temporarily unable to pay your installments, which can make it safer than self-ownership.

But the biggest plus comes when the mortgage is paid off, as then the coop can decide if you'd rather slash prices to include just bills, or keep the same monthly amount but put the extra towards a shared coop fund that can be used to convert more landlord owned properties into cooperative housing.

In my area - non-mortgaged coop properties have about 40% lower monthly payments.

It doesn't. What are you doing instead that is saving those lives then?

even if joe wins this time - next time it's gonna be worse - that's why the lib dems nowadays are holding policy views similar to moderate conservatives of the past - like fucking Reagan of all people signed the immigration reform act to give 3 million immigrants legal status - and now we've got joey being hounded by conservatives for trying to do something similar..

don't take this as an excuse to call me a russian/chinese/4chan or w/e else "bot" for trying to get people to think rationally about the trajectory of US politics - fucking vote for biden for all I care - but more importantly - take to the streets, toss a fucking shoe at his head - just don't think you're "doing your part" by voting once every 4 years for the marginally less genocidal power tripping fuckwit - like how can you expect them to do anything if they know you'll vote for them no matter what? how is that any different than the maga zealots?

it's not about one-topic voting - its about the very obvious slow slide into authoritarianism - because nobody is willing to do anything to disrupt the status quo - and frankly it's kind of disgusting to say the more "ethical" choice is letting a proxy state massacre children because the opposition will massacre them more. that's not progress, that's just pretending to wash you hands off the blood you'll never have to experience firsthand...

So saying "wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth" followed by almost continuous bombardment isn't in your eyes evidence of specific intent and action, because they haven't wiped them out yet? Therefore, by your own definition, the colonizing Europeans never commited genocide against the indigenous American population, because there's still native Americans left and they have their own nature reserves to reside in?

If you don't think building chairs or sculptures requires solving "intellectual" challenges you've never tried building a completely wooden multi-axial interlocking joint furniture...

That's why you should start building an alternative system that isn't right-wing instead of just voting for Hitler^lite - by choosing the lesser of two evils election after election you will always be actively choosing evil - that may be fine for you but it sure isn't fine by me - and saying that any alternative is too idealistic means that you've already given up.

Trump is truly awful but let's not pretend that police haven't arrested students at pro-Palestine encampments without solid grounds under Biden either - sure vote for Biden now to mitigate the biggest calamity that is Trump - but it just signals to the dems that so long as they're a smidge left of neo-Hitler they'll get voted for.

And if you really think Joe will listen to protestors about the genocide after he's in office, that's what I call naïve idealistic thinking....

Exactly? As in, I identify as gender fluid not because my gender defines me, but precisely because the binary "male" and "female" genders don't directly apply to my identity, so a new term that better aligns with how I feel is useful.

So if it's "silly" to "create" a "new" gender, what do you suggest as an alternative?

That's a good attitude to have and I'm not advocating for putting down our arms and waiting for big tech to steamroll us all.

But as I've mentioned elsewhere, the people making the AI models are fully aware they are contributing to a technology that will take away their own jobs, because they think that it will create other, even more interesting jobs in the process. (see trad artists swearing off photography in it's early days because it was "mechanical and soulless", only to realize it's creative potential years later)

My advice would be to continue being aware of the negative history of things, but don't let it blind you to the positive aspects either.

My dude, my grandfather got fired after the collapse of the soviet economy because "artist" wasn't a productive enough job to be kept around, but he still made art for 20 years after without getting paid because his purpose in life was to create art, not to sell it.

And sure the theft argument would be valid, but that's a strawman, because Adobe have already trained their own image gen model on fully licensed images and real life artists are already paying money to use it, so they must see the value in it.

Also by saying the only option in case of systematic collapse is the emergence of right wing authoritarianism what you're implying is that you'd much rather wait for that to happen than to create a left wing environment now that can establish itself in the power vacuum - to me this shows that you have so little faith in yourself that you would much rather do nothing and just let the right wingers trample you over and over - no wonder things keep sliding right when even so called leftists think they're such massive losers.

It's fine to get paid for your skills, but from experience I can say that developing skills just to get paid is also rather soulless.

Since, sure, I can bet there're furry artists that love drawing sexy tigers to bits, but I can guarantee there's a not-so-small percentage that would much rather draw something else, but the yiffing money is too good to pass up on.

The famous change within the system - please tell me more about where that has led us - surely in the direction of more transparency and democracy right? definitely and not just pushing the needle further and further right.

But hey keep swimming in the pot and telling the other frogs that the water may be getting warmer but you know at least the cook hasn't burned us alive yet...

Yes.

That's the main issue with colonial-settler states - they colonize the land (via terror and extermination) and then settle either in borders they've drawn up (or even outside if there's not enough resistance)

Using past native American genocide to justify the current native Levant genocide isn't the trump card you think it is...

And we can go on a whole debate around "oh but other states got to establish their borders this way in the past - why doesn't Israel get to do the same?" - because we're supposed to be more civilized by now and understand that killing people to take their land is an extremely inhumane and reductionist point of view.

The whole phrasing around "a land without people for people without a land" is the same native population erasing shit the European settlers used to colonize the Americas.

If Israel wants to be a brutal colonial state - it gets to decide that - but at least be honest and don't pretend it has some sort of divine right to do so while expecting to not be met with resistance.

If Israel really wanted a land for its people (while not infringing on the rights of Arabs already living there) they could have assimilated into the already existing population where they are just one of the people living on that territory and not gone for the nuclear option of total dominion over everyone else.

Which is why Israel is so afraid of Hamas and the general resistance - because it understands the world from a dominator-dominee perspective - they cannot envision a world where somebody doesn't try and take over Israel in return for them doing the same. Since if "every country exists because of terrorism" then the Arabs have as much right to terror and conquest as anyone else - but I doubt you would you defend their rights to do as fervently as Israel's....

So instead a much less bloody way forward would be to work on dismantling borders for the benefit of everyone instead of stockpiling more and more guns while waiting for the inevitable boom...

Which is why so many people struggle to empathize. But I agree, just because most people can walk, doesn't mean we shouldn't build more access ramps.

mf you say this:

Russia can end this war tomorrow. Any and all deaths are on them. Hell, if Russia would just stay out of their neighbours business, there would have been no civil war in the first place.

but then blame Palestinians for defending themselves - so kidnapping settlers is a war crime - but ethnically cleansing and bombing children isn't?

so if I came into your house, squatted in your living room and locked you up in your closet - it's your fault if you break out and attack me? most sane warcock guzzler ever...

But like, it will happen anyways. You can't stop Musk from shoving Grok down everyone's throats and firing 80% of his work force to replace them with AI drones.

If we saw the potential in these tools, and decided as a society to just let the machines do all the stuff we don't want to do, and we all got to do whatever meaningful beautiful things our hearts wanted, then sure.

Yes, literally this, my argument is literally we use all our efforts to fight for this, as making something beautiful out of a shit situation is literally all life has and I feel always will be.

Software Engineers have entered the chat

How about people openly calling for the genocide of Palestine on live television?

Yep, the idea is that because the people living at the coop decide who they want to live with (both for existing and new members) the org would have an incentive to cooperate and resolve issues, instead of relying on a third party to be an arbiter that doesn't have a direct stake in your living conditions.

In a coop setting you would agree on collective individual responsibilities so everyone has to contribute and spread the burden in a way that doesn't silo people into unequal jobs.

As someone who lived in a condo - the main issues were that because people individually own their flats - I feel there's a distinct line between private and shared ownership, making it easy to disregard communal duties.

Furthermore, because existing residents have little say in who gets to live in their building - you can end up in situations where someone can repeatedly break rules and norms (ie had a person smoke in the elevator for years despite being told not to) and nothing can really be done apart from trying to sue them which isn't an effective way of dealing with problems.

In a coop setting people can democratically discuss and as a last resort even decide to part ways with individuals who won't contribute (from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs obv) since on a hyper-local level everyone is immediately involved with the living conditions of everyone else around them.

Not sure how that degree makes you an expert in toxicology or cancer research, but I sure hope you've not made your mind up about Roundup being safe. I'm not saying it's not (the WHO is) but from experience I've found that treating potentially cancer causing chemicals with extra care is less likely to well...give you cancer.

But I'm willing to hear your side. Just fyi I don't think the argument "it's the best we got right now or people starve" is any stronger than saying "we can't switch from lead pipes, the people will die of thirst".

idk I feel its pretty useful in finding others like you? also how do you mean "make survey data more difficult"? like not inconveniencing others is commendable, but this sounds like internalized enby erasure?

also if you're not represented in survey data, it makes it that much easier for conservative proponents to point at gender surveys and say "well there's practically no one who doesn't fall in the binary buckets so there obviously must be something wrong with them and not the system"

as in, being yourself is the goal, but by being publicly open about it, you help others feel confident in pursuing what their authentic self is.

but again, you do you boo and I'm gonna keep being me by confusing all the guys in the gym lockers 🤪

What if it was so small and light it was only electrons? And what if it accrues its value from the energy expended to create it? Maybe using some sort of cypher to ensure anyone could verify it? Idk maybe we're onto something..

then again it still syphons value to the top so maybe not...

Yeah, I agree that OP's explanation right above is precise and short.

Obviously every culture has their own definition of things (same way Japanese people considered blue and green to be the same colour) but that doesn't mean either is right, they're both made up to serve a purpose.

Eg. It's useful to break down the gender spectrum as it allows us to be more precise and descriptive with our language, same way it can be useful to differentiate between blue and green. Still, if you're blue-green colour blind you probably don't really care if someone else has two words for what you perceive to be the same colour..

If I "donate" 12 billion dollars and use it to buy stocks in the company I personally own that made all that money - would you say my concern is funding good cause NGOs until I'm no longer a billionaire or am I just dodging taxes?

Also, if he's so adamant about giving away his wealth, why does it keep increasing? No way he's actually more concerned about getting an ROI than his most noble goal of helping others through his "philanthropy"..

please enlighten me how building an entire civilization on finite fossil fuel resources doesn't come to an end

I do appreciate your concern but what do you think is the "real fix"?

Why do you think people actively choose to adapt their bodies to better fit the idea of themselves if they could just "change their minds"? And do you really think most haven't tried that first?

This to me feels very much like shaming a depressed person for taking antidepressants by telling them "the medical field has failed you by giving you pills, have you considered just being happy?"

On the topic of organic farming, what's your opinion on herbicide free permaculture gardening? In a small scale distributed model I don't see why glycolphosphate would be needed if weeds are just part of the landscape.

Glad to help!

The main book on gender I've seen recommended is Suzanne J. Kessler and Wendy McKenna's - "Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach"