Capitalism is the economic model where the wealth created by the workers is owned by the people o whom the tools and resources required to created said wealth and not the workers who put in the work to create it.

Here is a comic that might help you understand:

Modern day Russia ≠ USSR.

Modern day Russia is Capitalist. That isn't the counter argument you think it is.

I think this post is just pointing out that the people of the USSR weren't under a constant threat of starvation like many believe.

Reminder that neutrality and compromise isn't always a good thing.

I don't think you understand exactly how theses machines work. The machine does not "learn", it does not extract meaning from the tokens it receives. Here is one way to look at it

Suppose you have a sequence of symbols: ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ And then were given a fragment of a sequence and asked to guess what you be the most likely symbol to follow it: ¹§ Think you could do it? I'm sure you would have no trouble solving this example. But could you make a machine that could reliably accomplish this task, regardless of the sequence of symbols and regardless of the fragment given? Let's imagine you did manage to create such a marvellous machine.

If given a large sequence of symbols spanning multiple books of length would you say this pattern recognition machine is able to create anything original? No... Because it is simply trying to copy it's original sequence as closely as possible.

Another question: Would this machine ever derive meaning from this symbols? No... How could it?

But what if I told you that these symbols weren't just symbols: Unbeknownst to the machine each one of this symbols actually represents a word. Behold: ChatGPT.

This is basically the general idea behind generative AI as far as I'm aware. Please correct me if I'm wrong. This is obviously oversimplified.

It's funny because I'm pretty sure you haven't lived in a communist country either. So you're arguing that lack of personal experience invalidates all arguments in favour of communism, but your lack of personal experience living in a communist country somehow doesn't invalidate your arguments against communism. Yup, perfectly consistent.

I'm far from an expert, but Vanguard is a kernel-level program. If a kernel-level program crashed, the whole system crashes. So yes, any kernel-level program could do the same thing CrowdStrike did, intentionally or not.

Kernel-level programs can do whatever the hell they want.

Democracy bad? OK, then I guess you won't mind if Great Britain comes back to their former colonies and enslave everyone.

Have we all developed selective amnesia to the dictatorships that happen in Europe around the time of the second world war? Do you really want to live in those places? Or go back to monarchy?

I'm assuming you are an American... America as pretty much always been a democracy since it's independence. You don't know how life is like outside a democracy. You've never heard of horror stories of those who lived under fascist dictatorships during WWII. My country was one of those... for 41 long, long years... The International and State Defence Police (Policia Internacional de Defesa do Estado, or PIDE for short) had eyes everywhere... Even the most banal things, like owning a lighter, was outlawed - unless you had a license (if you read the article about that lighter license, you will notice that it doesn't just say "lighter", it is worded in such a matter that outlaws anything that could possibly be used to start a fire... You can start a fire with two sticks...). No one was safe. Gatherings where outlawed. Saying anything even remotely against the state would lead to to be captured and tortured for months on end, making death look like an unreachable dream. Worst of all... the PIPE's torture methods were notorious for not leaving any markings on the victims bodies.

This GOP stuff reminds me a LOT of The New State, as it was called. Salazar, the Dictator, was also a conservative determined to bring Portugal back into it's former glory. He hated democracy and felt like the new more progressive ideas were destroying our country, and, of course, he demonized the immigrants...

"Portugal is not a small country"

He had strong (and fake) Christian values, which where present in State propaganda.

"Salazar's Lesson"

"God, Homeland, Family: The Trilogy of National Education"

In the picture above, you can see Salazar's ideal family: The husband comes home from work, the wife an kids all stop what they are doing to greet him back home. The wife was to be an overzealous mother, a devoted wife, a true fairy of the home. A life of endless submission. They were trained to be like that from birth. First submit to their father and brothers, then their husband. The only future she could hope to have was a stable marriage.

I could go on and on on the horrors the the New State. I don't know what kind of world you what to live in but I can assure you that, if you advocate for an end to democracy, you will not be the one in power.

This is capitalism. A system made to benefit those who have more capital by giving them even more capital.

No... Capitalism is when a handful of individuals own the means of production and have full authority on how they are used.

Communism is more akin to when the workers decide what to do with the means of production they operate.

You got this literally backwards.

So you are trying to argue that slavery is a RIGHT? This looks like and argument of guilt by association. Authoritarian is seen as bad, by giving the abolishment of slavery the label of "authoritarian" gives of the idea that you want to associate it with being bad.

If having a law that restricts one’s ability to do something is “authoritarian” then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn’t allowed within a society. On that note, morality determines legality, not the other way around.

Slavery means that, if you're rich enough, you should be allowed to revoke the rights of others. This is refutable at so many levels. If someone were to "willingly" agree to give up their rights, then just you're just taking advantage of someone who was born in an unfavourable position and have no other choice other than to accept (and maybe not starve) or starve.

I was about the comment a similar thing.

If having a law that restricts one's ability to do something is "authoritarian" then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn't allowed within a society.