Cooking up charges and rigging a court case specifically to take you down is a different level of hate though.

Oh arrested? Wow, only guilty people are arrested by states led by their fascist political rivals. If he’s arrested, he must be guilty. That’s how justice works.

You could’ve said “convicted”, but that was annulled and a UN human rights committee found that:

The committee concluded that prosecutors and the lead judge in the investigation, Sergio Moro, showed bias in Lula’s case, violating his right to be presumed innocent.

I’m not a fan of politicians in general, but I’d take these charges more seriously if the people prosecuting them weren’t so flagrantly politically motivated and breaking the rules. Presumably the reason he was tried in the wrong court was because the state was shopping for a judge that wouldn’t give him a fair trial. If he’s that guilty, they’ve muddied the waters by not actually caring about his guilt, and it’s going to be way harder to get anything to stick anymore. Like they were in charge of the whole fucking country, how were they this bad at persecuting him?

What I do know is that when a fascist like Bolsonaro is that mad at you, you might actually be doing something right.

Where? Is this paradise oasis of helpfulness on the internet? Or is it offline somewhere?

Ah dang, well, thanks anyway.

Unironically I think it must happen to some extent, and that doesn’t mean every toxic person is an op. It wouldn’t take a lot of manpower to create a toxic environment. Just hassle the devs with annoying questions, suggestions and bad “contributions” until they’re sick of everyone’s shit and start to become toxic themselves. If they’re dealing with all the noise of bad actors, they get overzealous in moderating it, and it’s hard to tell the difference between a troll who’s trying to waste your time, and an honest newbie who doesn’t know what questions to ask or what information to share, so they all get blasted to some extent, and the devs lose any interest in catering to the newbies.

Edit: actually I remember asking a question on stackoverflow about PuTTY one time, it was answered and I moved on with my life. Then five fucking years later some dickhead shows up in the comments and says, “aw… putty… windows…” So I’m like, “Listen, I don’t care if you think I’m sad for using windows, I don’t use linux because it’s too much work” Then they start lecturing me about how linux is for experts and if I don’t know what I’m doing it’s not for me, and I’m like “Ok? Then leave me alone. This question is five years old, why are you here? Just to hassle a rando because they use windows?” Then a mod bumped the comments into a private chat and off the question page, then this person starts offering to “help” me learn Linux. I told them if I wanted help they’d be the last person I would ask, then blocked them, but the bad taste of that interaction has stayed with me for a long time and I think about it a lot whenever I want to put effort into switching myself over. Was that an op? Being a troll is easy, and it would’ve been maybe 20 minutes of work for whoever was doing it. Like, maybe that was just some kid who thought they were helping further the linux cause by going around windows-shaming people, but maybe not.

Wait wait wait… where do you get these? That sounds amazing lol.

I tried talking about how absolutely horrendous their behaviour was recently, pointing out how completely unhinged and self-defeating it is, and someone actually literally said that this was a good thing because Linux is hard work and they should keep away people that aren’t experts.

And first of all, if that’s right it’s an admission that linux will never succeed, and secondly I agree that’s the effect but I think that’s bad actually.

I honestly think there must be at least some amount of psyops in the community poisoning the discourse for everyone.

Okay, thank you for the information about econometrics, but the economics that goes from data to model tends to be heterodox, not orthodox. Occasionally orthodox economists will accidentally do real science and they usually don’t like what they see.

My question was about why you don’t see the data being presented when being taught about supply and demand, and you basically answered it by saying that the data isn’t there. Now, I see your point that the prices tend to be relatively stable and so the data doesn’t extend beyond these short line slopes, but then why are we told that supply & demand “sets prices” when there is no evidence of, for instance, a shock to the system upsetting prices which then follow a standard supply & demand curve to restabilise?

Well, because such a situation would not be “convex”, so economics has written an escape clause for this phenomenon whereby it can avoid ever making any real predictions about what the market will do in a situation that isn’t already “stabilised”.

And also, if it’s just short line segments, why is it fashionable to use a curve that implies more data than exists? Again, I would say that it is to ape the aesthetics of science without actually doing it.

And it’s very strange that you turn to your personal anecdotal experience to say that you’ve “seen supply & demand play out”. If that were true, then you should be able to gather the data and present it. The fact that data doesn’t exist should tell you that you are probably using confirmation bias to evaluate your personal experiences.

For instance, the housing market is something where ideally there would be very inflexible demand, because people don’t need more than one bed, typically. The reason the demand is flexible is because there are in reality two markets in the same space. The first market is the people who want housing to actually live in, and the second are landlords that hoard housing, speculate and leverage assets against loans and so on. The landlord market is responsible for both the short housing supply and high price, because they would often rather keep housing scarce and drive up rents, and speculate against one another than put their property back out on the market to go to a competitor. Selling a property you can’t rent out is a pretty bad financial decision, you’re better off waiting until the housing market flips and it becomes a seller’s market again. If a financialised housing market didn’t exist, housing would be much cheaper and homelessness would be much, much less.

The reality of all markets is that they are subject to boom & bust cycles which supply & demand cannot account for. Housing in particular is notorious for huge bubbles that burst spectacularly.

Here’s an example from a government consumer watchdog in Australia: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/petrol-and-fuel/petrol-price-cycles-in-major-cities

Here’s the really damning sentence:

Petrol price cycles are the result of pricing policies of petrol retailers and not from changes in the wholesale cost of fuel.

They straight up say that it is not about supply & demand.

Here’s the heterodox explanation of this phenomenon: the Supply Chain Theory of Inflation

EDIT: Actually this is a separate phenomenon, but it does emphasise how prices are set by sellers, and not by supply and demand. Wherever a seller can get away with changing their prices, like for instance in petrol sales, they will, but then it follows boom-bust, not supply-demand.

And this is where the authors of that article talk about how orthodox economics institutions will launder heterodox theories. The point of doing this would be to maintain their prestigious position as the arbiter of all economics knowledge, as a result of which any damage such information might do to existing insitutions can be dampened by orthodox economists putting their own spin on the information. If they never acknowledge where the theory comes from, they get to rewrite it however they want. That’s distinctly unscientific.

Another concise and simple answer to Denuvo and DRM is “exterminatus”.

Okay, so I think we’re largely in agreement except for a little misunderstanding. I’m glad because that means you might be a little more receptive to some of the stuff I might share. I have more links but I’m writing this novella on my phone if you can believe it. I’ll share them later.

My criticism about the professional class being paid by the owning class to justify their wealth was specifically about orthodox economics, like the Chicago School who would literally construct studies to justify whatever you wanted if you paid for it. The yardsale model - that’s a great link by the way, the graph that emerges perfectly mirrors our actual economy - is an example of heterodox economics, which largely stands in opposition to orthodox economics. The opener to that page is very well written. It’ll do a better job than me.

Now, for an example of how completely divorced from reality orthodox economics is, the market convexity concept is perfect. The exceptions you mentioned about veblen and giffen goods aren’t the main problem with convexity. The simple problem of inelastic demand is a much bigger problem. This is all couched in extremely obfuscating language, those articles are impenetrable to anyone who isn’t steeped in economics language.

I assume you know what inelasticity is, it’s something for which demand doesn’t change with price, for instance things like shelter or food. So, to demystify the language, another term for “inelastic demand” is “need”. Basically, if you read between the lines even slightly, the founding, econ 101, highschool level principle of orthodox economics has been forced to admit that it doesn’t work for anything anybody actually needs. And then they go on insisting that this principle should govern our entire society. Got to keep that yardsale going.

Market convexity is an amalgamation of post-hoc justifications for why supply & demand is so hard to find in the real world. When I mentioned the perfectly straight, bisecting, perpendicular lines graph, you admitted that was just an illustration, and I agree, it is a doodle. I know it’s now in vogue to use slightly curved lines, but that’s just because economists are aware of how ridiculous the first illustration was and they put in just the slightest amount of extra effort to hide it.

When I’m asking for the science, let me ask you this: what data constructs the graph? Where did it originate? This is the question I’ve never had answered. Just literally the graph appearing in real world data, just one time.

See, when actual sciences want to “illustrate” a concept, sometimes they idealise, but they almost always have real data and real graphs to show. Their idealised lines pass through data points with error bars. Scientists work hard for their data, and they always, always show it off. Stress-strain curves, electron microscope images, star life-cycle data, red-shifting, animal population surveys, and on and on. Real data is complex and interesting and beautiful and scientists will show you their cool slide and say “you can see such-and-such feature here and this indicates…”, it’s great.

I have looked for the supply & demand version of this and can find nothing but hand-waving excuses.

Also, the convexity article talks about the Nobel Prize in Economics, which is wrongly named. It is the Nobel Memorial Prize. It was named after Nobel, because it’s not a Nobel prize, because the Nobel prize committee rejected the economics category because it isn’t a real science. Some Swiss bank then financed the wish.com version Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.

I suspect this isn’t so hard for you to accept since you’ve already come so far in your understanding of heterodox economics. You still seem to have some respect for the orthodox schools, which is strange when you understand so much of where they have led us.

As for the Epstein thing, I don’t have any reason to believe that anything has changed. We know Epstein was part of the trafficking of minors, and absent any evidence about the state of that practice, the idea that removing two people from the network actually fundamentally altered anything seems hopelessly naive. I think the burden of proof lies on anyone who wants to claim the practice has been abolished.

Which dictator do you mean? The democracy movement and the June struggle was in 1987, 10 years before the general strike.

Also, neoliberal capitalism is very, very happy with right wing dictators because they love oppressing workers and lowering wages. Just look at Pinochet in Chile.

And again the June struggle was won by popular struggle, not market forces. The idea that the unions supported the dictator is a weird one too. Like, where are you getting that, and is there any evidence they weren’t just yellow unions approved by the dictator?

Even then I don’t know why you brought those things up. You just added a bunch of details and I guess assumed those details - some of which were very wrong - were somehow in support of some point, but you didn’t say what that point is.

And I don’t know why you think I’m talking about industrialisation when I talk about workers improving their lives. That is not at all what I’m talking about. And industrialisation isn’t a capitalist thing, they just happen to coincide in human history. We don’t have alternative Earths to test the idea, so crediting the gains of industrialisation to the market and capitalism is weird. You just put that out there completely unsupported.

That’s another thing neoliberal economists love to do, just blame all the problems of capitalism on unions and regulations, and credit every good thing that happens on the glorious invisible hand.

And since you understand a good amount of economics, perhaps you can tell me what is the scientific basis of supply & demand for instance? I’ve looked for this information and had people try to show me, but they’ve never actually shown it. It’s a fundamental part of economics so I’m told. What is the science behind it? The perfectly straight, perpendicular bisecting lines on an unscaled graph do not suggest any scientific basis to me, they suggest the aesthetics of science devoid of its substance. If you could disabuse me of this notion then perhaps I could move on from my current woeful ignorance on the matter.

And finally, you don’t think there’s any conspiracy around Epstein, fine. I bet it’s easy to maintain that idea when you just ignore all the evidence I gave you.

Honestly it sounds like someone was paid to do something about adblocking and just like… did something. Like if you were tasked with reducing adblocking, and your first and most obvious idea of “reduce the obnoxious ads” was disallowed because enshittification is mandated, you could say no, which most workers won’t do, or you could just do whatever random bullshit feels like it might work because it’s punitive. Or at least it’s a gesture that shows your boss you’re trying.

Authoritarian systems like capitalist corporations are inherently low-information for exactly this reason. People on the low rungs doing the real work who understand what needs to be done will typically not report problems to their superiors. And when they do, those superiors tend not to listen, because the idea that lower workers know something they don’t threatens their leadership status.

Also our society’s legal system trains us to believe punitive measures must do something even though they don’t.

Also I guess another reason they might wind up at this strategy is that straight up telling users that the problem is their adblock is the fastest way to get adblockers to block your countermeasure, so they think they have to be sneaky.

I guess that’s possible, and a very creepy thought, but more likely they saw the level of general attention on the issue and backed off globally.

I definitely got really awful, unplayably spotty playback that seemed linked to adblock usage. Then I saw an article about it and confirmed I wasn’t going crazy, and that day it stopped happening, so it felt like I was going crazy all over again. It’s like the moment they realised it was going to become a problem and they weren’t as sneaky as they thought, they turned it off. I haven’t had an issue since then.

They don’t have to choose, they have the power to make Aussie politicians bend the knee, and everyone knows it. That’s what they’re afraid of.

Land acknowledgements devoid of teeth are common, where someone flaccidly admits that Indigenous people exist and have some unspecified connection to the land, not where someone actually states out loud the crimes that put their opera house on that land.

This was a good acknowledgement that actually implicates the current ruling class. That’s why they cancelled him.

Edit: he actually went on to say more, but I stand by the fact that this wasnt just a standard acknowledgement.

I think our first family PC had 40MB of storage, and we loaded optical discs into a caddy before inserting them. That was in the late 80s.

It’s fascinating to me that your example was South Korea. That’s literally the place I had in mind when I talked about the working class organising to better their lives. They have deeply militant unions.

You know they had an honest to goodness general strike in 1997, right? And that they were specifically striking over laws that would legalise strikebreaking? That’s going to have a tectonic effect on the quality of life of workers in general. They fought hard for their pay increases and got them. That’s not attributable to market forces. Striking is literally a breakdown in market behaviour, where the bosses have squeezed so hard and so unfairly that the workers have to withdraw their labour in order to get what they need.

And every single worker’s benefit we enjoy today was a function of labour activism. 8 hour days, the weekend, child labour laws, OSHA, I could go on. And all of those benefits are actively fought against by the ruling class because they erode their power over us and raise our wages.

Also, orthodox economics is basically the managerial class being funded by the owning class to come up with post-hoc justifications for why they should keep their wealth. It’s not scientific in the slightest. The Economist is basically neoliberal propaganda.

Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent goes into this in some detail, about the forces that act to ensure that the dominant media narrative caters to the ruling class on all levels, and he has talked extensively on how this process works in academia as well. I forget if the academic discussion is a large part of the documentary, but it’s well worth watching anyway. It’s free on youtube: https://youtu.be/BQXsPU25B60

Also… if you really think the Epstein network was just two or three people… I mean wow. You know authorities seized a bunch of blackmail from his island, video of rich people with kids, and it has never surfaced since? Those same authorities ruled his death a suicide, because they’re doing their best, honest, but they just can’t seem to find that missing collective brain cell that would let them figure out the blindingly obvious. Was that the one guy arranging that too?

I’m not saying the ultra wealthy run the network themselves, that’s what I’ve literally been saying they don’t do. The difference is if they got caught actually doing the deed, if would be a very different matter, because you physically cannot do that via proxy. That’s how the blackmail can exist, and why it was covered up.

Oh and to answer your question about who their drug dealers are, they have middlemen for that as well. Personal assistants who are on call for anything the client needs, who will readily break the law rather than disappoint a client, and whose instructions are generally vague enough that any legal risk falls on the assistant. Again: diffusion of responsibllity.

Don’t kid yourself, the society of the wealthy and powerful is rotten to the core, just as it was in the days of monarchy. They just have better cover for it nowadays. It’s no longer the divine right of kings, but the invisible hand of the market.

Honestly most of that gets eaten up just airlifting my mansion. I’m sick of doing it, but I’m glad I invested early in the airliftable frame kit when I had the place built. The foundations wouldn’t have held up more than one or two moves otherwise, and there’s no way I’m commuting more than 15 mins.

I think our disagreement here is pretty narrow, about how covert the coverup really is. But when you say you “have a pretty good picture of how it works,” I have to ask if you know anything about who is currently supplying children for the ultra-wealthy’s sexual entertainment. If you don’t know, if it’s not generally known, then I think that means there is a covert network that does its best to stay hidden.

If you think that’s somehow no longer happening any more, then I think you really don’t understand how the world works. People like that do not give up their indulgences easily.

You may simply think I’m ascribing more planning and coordination than I really am, and that would just be a miscommunication. However, I do think there are definitely some small number of people who put a lot of thought into how to get away with this, and they’ve largely succeeded for decades.

A journalist could get to the bottom of the coltan mining trade and expose one chain there, but how do you think they’d fare exposing the latest Epstein-style network? Do you think they’d live through it?

Honestly even that’s ambitious.

Yeah, that’s true, but my point was even in the worst-case scenario that consequences really did happen to someone, it would be a middleman, and that’s by design. Epstein was no different in that respect.

Sure, it scares them, but do they really viscerally believe it’s not just a thing on TV?

There was a guy on some news network around 2020 when people were panicking about Bernie Sanders and his nefarious communist plot to destroy America, and one guy was talking about how there was a time when he was really scared the communists would come in and kill all the rich people and he might’ve been one of those people strung up in Times Square. He certainly sounded terrified to me. Like I’m sure it was partly crocodile tears, but also you don’t pull that story from nowhere. That’s obviously something he thinks about.

I mean, I wouldn’t say I’m always actively terrified of being hit by a train, but I take steps to avoid it. That’s what I mean - they know it’s a threat.

If you want poor countries to get on the development path, this is the deal basically, and slavery and other awful things tend to slip in along with that.

This is tangential, but it’s my biggest issue with what you’ve said. Poor countries all over the globe are made and kept poor by colonialism which rolled into modern capitalist imperialism. Africa in particular has been particularly brutally invaded, pillaged and oppressed for centuries. The most recent mechanisms by which this is done have been the World Bank and the IMF sucking them into predatory loans with structural adjustment policies that are calculated to keep them poor and strip them of vital infrastructure.

The cheap labour isn’t some natural transitional state between “undeveloped” and “developed”. It is an imposed condition, and the only time such countries “develop” and improve their station is when the working class organises and forces change to happen. It is never handed down from above or a natural outworking of wealth flowing in from the market. The market is structured to ensure that any wealth that flows in from the exploitation of cheap labour is kept in the hands of a few and siphoned back out as quickly as possible.

This is very similar to the way that the working class is kept in a state of poverty by capitalists within their own countries, and oppressed by the state and the legal system. This is the situation that allows wealthy people to prey upon the children of poorer people with relative immunity. The girls are often plied with money, and if they do go to the police, what do they say? “Trump raped me on Epstein’s private jet?” The cops won’t touch that, and the wealthy know they won’t touch it. We know it because that testimony exists and it hasn’t gone anywhere. Even if a detective took the case, he’d wind up at the bottom of a river before too long.

I’m not saying this is a “conspiracy” in the sense that this entire situation is engineered just to get young girls, it’s evolved over centuries to maintain power, and the powerful will take advantage of it every way they can.