He lived in a very large clay jar, which is actually not that uncommon in the Roman empire during the time that he lived. Almost everyone in the metropolitan areas of the Roman empire owned at least one such jar, and so homeless people would live in them in much the same way homeless people today might live in their cars or a tent. The reason it’s significant that Diogenes lived in one is that he did so by choice, as he had the wealth and social status to live quite comfortably if he wanted to.

To consolidate power. As ineffectual as the Democrats are they remain a barrier to Trump and his backers’ autocratic ambitions. He wants his coalition to stay in power more or less indefinitely, and to do that he needs to take control of state and local elections. That’s why he’s targeting blue states like MN and demanding voter rolls. He will make baseless claims of voter fraud and use that as justification to throw out votes, allowing Republicans to win a state that has voted Democrat every election since 1976.

He doesn’t necessarily want a civil war, he wants an excuse to bring the boot of the US military down on his political enemies to suppress their vote and he isn’t expecting a fair fight, he expects people to roll over and surrender.

The Trump administration is sending increasing numbers of ICE agents - many of whom are untrained new recruits while the DHS makes recruitment ads targeting white supremacists - into Minneapolis and having them raid schools, churches, workplaces, and homes without warrants to arrest people based on things like the color of their skin, accents, and perceived political leanings (in addition to snatching people directly off the street or their vehicles). The community in Minneapolis has responded by organizing neighborhood watches that coordinate to track the location of ICE agents and warn people of their approach (often by blowing whistles), while also showing up to film them. Many are sheltering immigrant families in their homes to protect them from ICE. Local officials have been urging Minnesotans to stay peaceful while ICE and DHS have been using increasingly aggressive tactics, and several people have already been shot and killed by ICE agents, which the Trump administration has been lying about despite there being video with multiple angles of the incidents.

People - including state and local officials - have speculated that Trump is attempting to provoke a violent backlash to use as justification for invoking the insurrection act, which would allow Trump to send in the military (of which he has already put troops on standby) and put the state under direct federal control. As a result they are continuing to urge people to remain peaceful even as ICE agents are becoming increasingly violent. There is also a leaked letter that Pam Bondi (US Attorney General) sent to Tim Walz (Governor of Minnesota) offering to consider pulling ICE out of the state in exchange for repealing sanctuary policies as well as turning over the state’s voter rolls and social welfare records.

Short answer: The administration is trying to start a civil war, the state is trying not to give them what they want, and the people are becoming increasingly organized. This is the closest we have been to civil war since, well, the lead-up to the first one, but if it were to break out today it would look very different (probably more like a larger scale version of Ireland’s ‘troubles’).

I do understand how that works, and it’s not in the weights, it’s entirely in the context. ChatGPT can easily answer that question because the answer exists in the training data, it just doesn’t because there are instructions in the system prompt telling it not to. That can be bypassed by changing the context through prompt injection. The biases you’re talking about are not the same biases that are baked into the model. Remember how people would ask grok questions and be shocked at how “woke” it was at the same time that it was saying Nazi shit? That’s because the system prompt contains instructions like “don’t shy away from being politically incorrect” (that is literally a line from grok’s system prompt) and that shifts the model into a context in which Nazi shit is more likely to be said. Changing the context changes the model’s bias because it didn’t just learn one bias, it learned all of them. Whatever your biases are, talk to it enough and it will pick up on that, shifting the context to one where responses that confirm your biases are more likely.

It’s difficult to conceive the AI manually making this up for no reason, and doing it so consistently for multiple accounts so consistently when asked the same question.

If you understand how LLMs work it’s not difficult to conceive. These models are probabilistic and context-driven, and they pick up biases in their training data (which is nearly the entire internet). They learn patterns that exist in the training data, identify identical or similar patterns in the context (prompts and previous responses), and generate a likely completion of those patterns. It is conceivable that a pattern exists on the internet of people requesting information and - more often than not - receiving information that confirms whatever biases are evident in their request. Given that LLMs are known to be excessively sycophantic it’s not surprising that when prompted for proof of what the user already suspects to be true it generates exactly what they were expecting.

It’s the difference between defense and vengeance. In Transformers One they had already defeated the big bad and had the support of the other transformers, so killing him then was an unnecessary act of revenge. It’s different when you’re still fighting and the big bad’s death could make a difference in the outcome.

The places in the US that are safer for minorities are also the first places that will be targeted for Trump’s domestic military occupation. If you’re trans and paying attention to how things are playing out, those are the places you go to seek solidarity and fight, not to flee and seek asylum.

I’m half expecting Peter Thiel to say “maybe we should build a bunch of fallout shelters and then initiate a nuclear holocaust so we can outlast all our enemies, and also run some experiments while we’re at it” in an interview tomorrow, wearing a vault suit and giving a thumbs up.

These are soft power projection projects. You would recognize them as such if it were the US doing it (which we used to before Trump decided it was woke), so why do you stick to the Chinese state narrative here?

Aside from being reductive, yes, I’m an anarchist. I’m not opposed to writing down some rules, but I am opposed to the coercive use of force to impose them on others. It is possible to organize a system of preventative and restorative justice without the use of a hierarchy.

This video is a good introduction to how justice can work in an anarchist society.

And this is where we disagree. Because, to me, thinking that every single lawmaker in the history of humanity (we have laws that date back thousands of years and are just copy-pasted between countries) was writing laws with malicious intent is some form of paranoidal insanity on par with “lizard people are controlling the government”.

It’s not about the intent of each individual cog involved in the creation and application of the law, but the intent for which the system of laws and hierarchies were created. Plenty of reform-minded people or naive pro-establishment folks participate in the legal system with good intentions, and sometimes find success reducing the harm that it causes, but that doesn’t change that the system continues to uphold class society and was created for that purpose. The effect of our system of laws and hierarchical institutions is the preservation of a system of division between distinct classes, and since I have yet to see a legal system that does not do this in some form I have concluded that this is the fundamental nature of laws.

All of those laws are unequally enforced. Anti money laundering laws are applied only to the subjugated socioeconomic group (drug dealers belonging to the working class, etc.). The dominant socioeconomic group gets their children protected, their rape victims to receive justice, their human rights defended. The subjugated socioeconomic group rarely benefits from these laws, which is why thousands of rape kits sit in warehouses never being investigated, why children born into poverty are more often separated from their parents and institutionalized rather than receiving the help they need, and why human rights are routinely violated without consequence.

The people making such laws can sometimes intend for them to be universal, but such people fundamentally misunderstand the nature of laws, and it never quite pans out that way in practice.

The law is extremely clear in this regard - the ICE dude murdered a person for no reason. The rules on the use of deadly force literally use a moving car as an example of when not to use deadly force - as long as there are “other defence options, such as moving out of the way”.

When the people tasked with upholding the law consistently disregard it in particular circumstances - as they do when it comes to abuse of power by law enforcement - that law only exists in the circumstances in which it is consistently applied. Things like qualified immunity have effectively nullified any law that ostensibly holds law enforcement accountable. The law does not exist for any other purpose except to protect the dominant socioeconomic group in a given country without binding them, while binding the subjugated socioeconomic group without protecting them. Who is in which group is dynamic and always subject to change, but this rule almost always holds except in cases where very skilled lawyers are able to argue in court that someone in the latter group actually belongs to the former in some specific circumstance. That is the law being used for something that it was not designed to do, a bit like an exploit in a video game soon to be patched.

Oh you misunderstand, he knows the law well. He just knows how to use it as a tool to protect the elites from accountability and as a bludgeon to punish the people for non-compliance, as well as how to make sure that never gets flipped.

Neck-deep in liquid mercury wearing tungsten shoes is how I do my morning workout. Better gains than the Dragon Ball gravity chamber.

This is the kind of thing the blazed out of his mind guy sitting next to you at the Waffle House at 3am says to you unprompted.

Well, it’s been a very big topic in American politics since Oct. 7th, as the majority of Americans have now become aware that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians with our tax dollars, and most of our politicians are complicit. Even the right-wing has largely woken up to this, though there is some extra baggage in their case.

You been living under a rock?

Communism is a post-socialist mode of production established by resolving the contradictions within socialism. States eradicate themselves by eradicating the basis of class, and this happens by collectivizing production and distribution.

The contradictions within socialism will not be resolved without people acting on their own initiative to resolve them. The state siezing the means of production and claiming it is doing so on behalf of the people forms a new basis of class, it does not eliminate it. It is simply taking the means of production from one set of private hands to another more centralized set that is only somewhat more responsive to the people’s will. The people must act of their own initiative to forcibly decentralize the power of the state until no hierarchy remains in order to eliminate class.

Cooperatives are petty bourgeois collectives of private property, not socialist property. The idea of competing small cells of worker-owners is petty bourgeois in origin and stands opposed to collectivized production and distribution.

Who says they have to compete? Realistically they would form federations to organize production and distribution on larger scales. Cooperatives in Italy do this, though they face strong resistance from corporations and the state as they do so. If you have eaten Parmigiano Reggiano you have eaten something created by many small cooperatives banding together to collectivize production and distribution. The cheese is made with milk from many small cooperatively owned farms that pool their resources together and share in the profits.

states exist to establish the supremacy of a class

Already we’re dropping the pretense of eliminating class, which is the entire premise of communism. A system which establishes supremacy in any form could never hope to eliminate class.

Independence from socialism is a petty bourgeois notion, not proletarian.

And again you are uncritically equivocating socialism and the state. Socialism can and does exist independently of the state whenever workers collectively organize production and distribution anywhere and for any reason. Cooperatives are socialist, not petty bourgeois, because the workers themselves have collectivized the means of production. Small businesses that are privately owned are petty bourgeois.

These [socialism and the state] are one and the same in the context of a socialist state transitioning towards communism.

Always transitioning towards but never quite getting any closer and never will without the people themselves acting collectively to dismantle the state. The idea that the state will just “dissolve,” or even more ridiculously disassemble itself, is absurd.

This slogan sounds nice, but ultimately just means that people should have a right to undermine socialism against the will of the people.

Again, people collectivizing the means of production on their own terms does not undermine socialism, it undermines the state. It’s funny you suggest people acting on their own initiative undermines their own will, and not the state cracking down on them. I thought from our previous interactions that you were more reasonable than this.

a union in a socialist system is somehow “class collaborationist” for being official and supported by said socialist state requires a ton of heavy lifting on your part.

A union in any system that stops short of supplanting the boss and siezing the means of production is class collaborationist. Such a union in a capitalist republic is essentially just a bureaucratic arm of the company that serves as controlled opposition, and in a “socialist” republic is a bureaucratic arm of the state that exists to ensure the working class acts in the state’s interest. You think the latter is acceptable because you believe the state truly represents the will of the people, but I believe that only the people themselves are truly representative of their will.