I would really much want to see which Marx (with Engels or not) writings advocate for mass surveillance.
I would also like to see a reference of when did he call for a bourgeoisie massacre.
Then I suggest you actually read the manifest. Oh, I should probably declare you technically correct. He does not call for a massacre, just a violent revolution. These are technically not exactly the same. They turned out the same in practice though.
Violence has been used for good ends such as deposing monarchies and ending slavery. Marx argues that capitalists are akin to the new kings. Witnessing billionaires funding the destruction of democracy, I wouldn’t say he’s wrong.
And you refer to Soviet Russia as if that’s supposed to represent socialism and communism. In fact there are many different kinds of socialists and communists, many who support democracy and oppose authoritarian governments. In fact many such people opposed the Bolsheviks and were killed by them. It’s simply not true that being socialist or communist entails supporting totalitarian government.
You know as well as I do that when Marx discussed "capitalists" he did not mean the rich. He meant what we now call the middle class. Managers. Engineers. Store owners. (Small) company owners. Factory owners. Smaller landlords. Perhaps upper middle class, but not the real rich, the families. He saw what everyone else in their time (correctly) saw: that larger land owners were mostly outside of cities, and were well on the way to inevitable bankruptcy. That the uber-rich are very different, and aren't rapidly bankrupting themselves is not something Marx foresaw.
Only the governments themselves, who are of course also very, very, rich would retain their wealth. And quite a few governments in his time were individuals or families, but he didn't see them as the enemy, kind of, but not as the "source" of the evil of capitalism. Of course, communists aren't against a very, very rich government. The Soviets initially offered to make Tsar Nicolas II the leader of international socialism. Only when he kept refusing did he become the enemy.
And then the "that wasn't true communism" argument! Thank you. I kind of agree: most other communists were MUCH worse than the Soviets, and especially lacked most of the redeeming qualities the Soviets retained from imperial Russia.
In fact, I miss that about the Soviets. The Soviets were going to conquer Europe, provide housing and jobs for everyone, and get everyone to work and back each day on rocket powered trams. Seriously. Today's socialists just seem to want to destroy everything, which will then encourage Gaia to save the world and care for everyone. The Soviets were very much going to exploit nature to make everyone rich.
Never mind that even the ancient Greeks knew better: the godess Gaia is a Titan who massacred, and then ate people. Men, women, children. Especially children. She was the embodiment of natural disasters, of the primal, absolute force of nature. She killed to save nature, true. But also just for fun, because it is her nature. Especially children. Especially lost children. She was like almost all Titans: considered completely amoral, not necessarily evil, but she needed to be fought, even destroyed, not for fun, because otherwise a LOT of people would die.
Of course they don’t. If anything someone like me will get scolded for doing a low quality comment attacking him
Have you seen how YC higher ups talk about capitalism, elitism, etc? Culture comes from top down and within Silicon Valley tech elite it is practically a monoculture.
For that specific guy. It’s weird he invoked such a short text that he definitely didn’t read or hasn’t read in a long time. So easy to respond to that. That’s why I responded.
Capitalists according to Marx are those that own the means of production, not the middle class.
> larger land owners were mostly outside of cities, and were well on the way to inevitable bankruptcy
He saw them as a declining class that would eventually merge with the industrial bourgeoisie. He didn’t predict their inevitable bankruptcy.
> quite a few governments in his time were individuals or families, but he didn't see them as the enemy, kind of, but not as the "source" of the evil of capitalism
Again, inaccurate. His view is that the state is an apparatus of the capitalist class structured to protect its property and interests. The state and the uber-rich are the primary enemies of the working class, in his view.
> Soviets initially offered to make Tsar Nicolas II the leader of international socialism. Only when he kept refusing did he become the enemy.
Citation needed. Are you just fabricating things? The Bolsheviks ideology was based on the idea that there would be a proletarian revolution that would dismantle the old capitalist and aristocratic order, which the Tsar represented.
> that wasn't true communism" argument!
There are many different varieties of socialism and communism. In fact many societies long into pre-recorded history have been peaceful, leaderless and without money - communist. Yet it would be a mistake to call those societies Stalinist for example.
> get everyone to work and back each day on rocket powered trams. Seriously.
Soviet plans were never that fantastical. Fabrication.
> the godess Gaia is a Titan who massacred, and then ate people. Men, women, children. Especially children
Gaia isn’t typically represented that way. She is not a Titan but mother of the Titans. Maybe you are thinking of Kronos.
> You know as well as I do that when Marx discussed "capitalists" he did not mean the rich.
Technically, not precisely “the rich”, but the people whose main interaction with rhe economy is through ownership of capital to which rented labor of others is applied (specifically, this is the haut bourgeoisie in Marxist theory.)
There is also the middle class (the petite bourgeoisie), those who have a (in broad terms) balance between ownership of capital and application of their own labor, most particulatly applying their own labor to their own capital as independent business operators as a kind of capitalists, but it was the haut bourgeoisie that Marx portrays as the problematic, exploitive, ruling class. The main issue with the petit bourgeoisie is their disinterest in improving the condition of the working class being exploited by the haut bourgeoisie; because they are already out of the state of alienation that comes from separation of labor and control of capital, and at risk of losing that status if they sufficiently rock the boat.
> He meant what we now call the middle class. Managers. Engineers. Store owners. (Small) company owners. Factory owners. Smaller landlords.
Nah, what we now call “the middle class” is mostly the middle income segment of the working class (Marx didn't really have a special term for them, for Lenin a lot of them would be in the proletarian intelligentsia.) But the group you name is a mix of them, the petit bourgeois, and in the case of factory owners the haut bourgeois (kind of weird that you think “factory owners” fits any modern definition of “middle class" that also includes line managers.)
fluoride with no kind of antibacterial is fine (careful with thymol etc). Check your toothpaste for anti bacterial as well. you want to remove food and plaque, not good bacteria.
> 35x less system calls = others wait less for the kernel to handle their system calls
That isn't how it works. There isn't a fixed syscall budget distributed among running programs. Internally, the kernel is taking many of the same locks and resources to satisfy io_uring requests as ordinary syscall requests.
More system calls mean more overall OS overhead eg. more context switches, or as you say more contention on internal locks etc.
Also, more fs-related system calls mean less available kernel threads to process these system calls. eg. XFS can paralellize mutations only up to its number of allocation groups (agcount)
> More system calls mean more overall OS overhead [than the equivalent operations performed with io_uring]
Again, this just isn't true. The same "stat" operations are being performed one way or another.
> Also, more fs-related system calls mean less available kernel threads to process these system calls.
Generally speaking sync system calls are processed in the context of the calling (user) thread. They don't consume kernel threads generally. In fact the opposite is true here -- io_uring requests are serviced by an internal kernel thread pool, so to the extent this matters, io_uring requests consume more kernel threads.
syscalls are expensive and their relative latency compared with the rest of code only grow especially in view of mitigations against cache-related and other other hardware bugs.
It is a question of failure mode. If your hard drive motor dies, if the heads fail, if the electronics fail, if the sealing fail (in some cases it can be repaired by specialists but that's not easy and much more expensive than a tape reader)... lots of things can go wrong that are not related with the media itself. The advantage of tape is that the device that reads it is separate from the mechanically simple tape. It comes at a cost but that's for hedging against a different risk.
It's still a fairly controlled environment with splash guards, liquid based dusts suppression and or dust collection, even then my friend has a factory and the CNC is a reliable machine but things screw up.
If the dust collection was disabled, the workshop and the machine would be caked in debris.
It doesn't move, it doesn't fall over or have anything falling on top of it either (like a robot could).
To maybe get a little carried away with the sci-fi for a minute, why does the Actuator need to cost anything?
When the tree of costs that make up a product are traced, surely all the leaf nodes are human labour? As in, to make the actuator, I had to pay someone to assemble it and I had to buy the parts. Each part had a materials cost and a labour cost. So it goes for the factory that made the fasteners, the foundry that made the steel, the mine that extracted the ore.
Shudder to think of how to regulate resource extraction in a future where AI humanoid robots are strip mining and logging for free.
> When the tree of costs that make up a product are traced, surely all the leaf nodes are human labour?
What about energy, real estate and taxes?
Even at the extreme end of automation, if you want iron ore, you need to buy a mine from somebody, pay taxes on it, and power the machines to extract the minerals and transport them elsewhere for processing.
The same logic applies to energy I think. We don't have to pay money to a wind turbine, or to a coal mine. We only pay money to humans to build the power plants and the grid.
If I were writing a sci-fi novel about this I don't know how I'd handle something real estate (or mineral rights or water rights). You already need permission from the government to extract resources.
As for taxes, why does the government even want the money? What are they going to do with it?
Energy, ultimately, requires real estate --and thus property taxes-- even at the logical extreme of automation.
> As for taxes, why does the government even want the money? What are they going to do with it?
There are websites that break down how e.g. different national/federal budgets are divvied up in the real world. Alternatively, I suggest a good book on macroeconomics; I am partial to Steve Keen's "Debunking Economics", but there are many others.
