• 31 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Mar 25, 2021


I’d say it is indeed a chelating agent, albeit one with a wider spectrum and some degree of specificity for heavy ions.

I understand your point, but remember Marx regards capitalism as a necessary phase in the development of a country, and Lenin regards socialism as a period of gradual change after revolution. When almost every country in the world is capitalist, you need to use market forces to survive and thrive, keeping capital accumulation and corruption under control to make sure that full socialism will eventually be achieved. The point here is not whether what China is doing currently counts as socialism, but that Chinese leaders are indeed Marxist-Leninist, and intend to follow the path towards socialism as the brutal competition against the US permits, eventually becoming what US officials most fear: a successful socialist state with dominance in the world.

I’d frame the “obsession” in another way. Currently, in the present, the actual present, Russia claims and has control over some territories. Other countries reject this on the premise that those territories, before the invasion, were Ukrainian. Putin’s stance is simply that, before being Ukrainian, those territories were Russian, so the position that they should belong to one or the other is indeed arbitrary.

The Donbass was basically invaded by Ukrainian troops in 1918, and Crimea was literally gifted to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954, so why should those territories even be under Ukrainian control in the first place, if the majority of their population is culturally Russian? When Albanians in Kosovo started to protest against Serbia, NATO bombed Yugoslavia; now Russians in the Donbass are protesting against Ukraine, so why doesn’t NATO intervene? Why does NATO support Ukraine against an operation identical to that which NATO itself performed? Well, the answer is simple: NATO bombed Yugoslavia to weaken it, and, as McGregor admitted, the US was planning for Ukraine to attack first. We could also draw a parallelism to the Cuban missile crisis: why is it okay to put missiles in Ukraine but not Cuba?

So, all of this nonsense about aggression, culture, etc. is ridiculous. The US and Russia are fighting each other, both on the battlefield and in the media. There’s no ethics here, both will do whatever it takes (the list of American, Russian and Ukrainian war crimes is nauseating) and will weaponize public opinion as they would weaponize missiles or rifles. There’s no lesser evil, just pure evil everywhere, just think about what the victory of either side would bring about to the world, then choose your evil.

Well, there are videos of Ukrainian officials stating that they would actively look for pro-russian residents, so I’d say the warning was not far-fetched.

Proof that the West is not actually fighting for hegemony, but against communism…

Yeah, sorry… Eliminative materialism is the belief that subjective experiences like consciousness can’t possibly be defined or explained because they simply don’t exist. According to this, they are just an illusion. As extreme and counter-intuitive as this may sound, it is a plausible explanation for the phenomenon of ego death, which I have experienced myself (in the medical, non-spiritual, drug-induced sense, an extreme form of depersonalization), and would under this school of thought simply entail a temporary malfunction of the mechanisms sustaining this illusion.

Since eliminative materialists deny that consciousness can be defined at all, this meme implies that they feel contempt and frustration towards repeatedly failed attempts to do so.

I think I might be having mood swings again
Should probably talk to my psychiatrist so I get a change in my medication. Every time I start many weird projects, feel like I can easily change the world or have invented something that can, need basically no sleep and/or get aggressively political (even religious), I know the drill... At least I'm not paranoid though. Hope the best for you all too <3 Also sorry if I've bothered someone these days, it really wasn't my intention.

Just convert political questions into rational stuff like a game, math etc. Then make it apply its conclusions to the real world. In two prompts, you can make the fella spit out all the nice stuff.

No, they are acting in self interest. Just like everyone else. Every player is incentivized to join the strongest player if they can.

Basically, RISCV itself is open source, but it’s just a specification. Actual processor designs implementing it are usually not open source.

Current AI are regression models, they are trained on some input and thus encode any rules and patterns that may govern this input. So, by definition, it does have conceptual understanding, as any information that may constitute this understanding is encoded within the model in a form in which it may use it for any purpose it needs.

For example, if you give an AI many examples of long multiplication, it will eventually learn the rules that govern it, and it will be able to perform any multiplication by itself. There’s no practical difference between this and actual understanding (also it doesn’t help that our brains are just analog tensor-multiplication machines, much like the AI we’re creating).

Theoretically current RISCV boards are not fully open since the processor itself is not. That might or might not matter to you, but you can always use an FPGA board. Anyway, hmu for anything, it’s nice to help with projects as a community :)

It’s not a matter of intelligence. We humans use paper, pen, computers to assist us, and visual and sound perception in combination with language, rather than separately. AI, as it works right now, is doing the equivalent of reciting an essay from scratch or imagining an artwork in perfect detail in a second. Give it the chance to draw diagrams and process them iteratively, and it will do your and my jobs, and do them well.

NIH funded a project to manipulate coronaviruses in Wuhan so they would be able to infect humans
According to the document: * The project involved, among other tasks, performing gain-of-function on bat coronavirus SARSr-CoV WIV1, with the aim of studying its potential ability to infect humans. * The researchers believed regulations on gain-of-function research did not apply in this case, since the original virus did not affect humans, despite the desired product virus being able to do so. * Their risk assessment does not include the possibility of the newly created virus accidentally infecting workers or human research subjects. * The resulting viruses were to be tested on both human tissues and modified mice with human ACE2 enzyme. * Human subjects from "high-risk areas" were involved on-site for non-experimental purposes. * These experiments were performed within facilities of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. * The phase of the project wherein these experiments were first mentioned started on June 2019. Additionally, [this](https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/institutes/foia/1R01AI110964-year-1-tranche-01.pdf) adds: * The entire project started in June 2014 and initially involved collecting virus samples from different sources, including the wildlife market in Wuhan.

You can accuse anyone of anything and start a trial, that’s how the justice system works.

No, democracy is good. But we’ll never get it if this situation resolves in a bad way.

Yeah, I know. But the word “aggression” is (intentionally, hats off to US propaganda) vague; the user I was responding to interpreted it as “launching an attack into a territory generally recognized as foreign”, so I’m going with that definition. I generally do not argue on terminology, since it’s not practical to do so. But thanks for the heads up!

I agree to your comment. A democratic country can easily be strong against enemies. But I’d like to point that the current confrontation (Cold War, if you wish) is in such a delicate state and happening on so many fronts that even a blink, a bad move, a seemingly innocent regime change in Russia has a good chance to bring about its defeat. And surely the US is trying to promote such change, under every possible pretext. The US is playing all cards at the same time, resorting to military means, monetary policy, espionage, propaganda, censorship, foreign coups… all widely confirmed. So whatever our view on Mr. Putin/Putler/…, we must let him do his thing for now, worry about him later. Just think that every country will be so weakened after this new Cold War that toppling them will be easy ;)

My point is simply pragmatic. I’m proposing a strategy that’s actually viable: doing whatever little we can to avoid the destruction of Russia so the world eventually fights into a multipolar, unstable state wherein we can actually bring about change by force. What you propose is destabilizing Russia, letting it fall, then somehow banishing curruption and authoritarianism from the all-encompassing, paranoid, armed-to-the-teeth, almost Orwellian US via a strategy comparable to resorting to the power of friendship.

As a medical professional, I don’t understand all the fuss about this. I mean, it doesn’t need to be 100% reliable, just more reliable than us, which is not too hard to achieve… In fact, given its benchmark scores (75% percentile in the Medical Knowledge Self-Assessment Program) and emergent abilities, I’m pretty sure GPT-4 is already more reliable than most real doctors at my workplace.

So, they were… trolling? Spreading their pro-China… opinions? Which constitutes a… “secret police station”? (???)

NATO could have entered the war in Ukraine at any time

And it has. They are spending on this war as much as they did on Afghanistan. They are sending intel and commands directly to Ukrainian officials. And not just weapons and information; according to the recently leaked papers, there are NATO troops on the field too. They are fighting the war in all senses except legally, and, by extension, in the PR sense.

this war -like any war- doesn’t make sense

Every war makes sense. Countries start wars when that’s what benefits them the most. And countries carefully plan and set up future wars.

Why so?

There are two sides in this global-scale hybrid war. Finland and other countries have joined what they believe to be the winning side, or at least the side whose victory would be more beneficial to their political interests. Other countries are siding with Russia and China. Countries joining an alliance voluntarily doesn’t mean the alliance isn’t a threat to the other side. NATO has gradually turned itself into an alliance with the power to defeat Russia.

then we would “magically become democratic”

No, nobody would. The US has just passed the RESTRICT Act, which imposes stronger restrictions than even China has. If you suggest that your country should just let the authoritarian guard down and allow every foreign psy-ops to have a meaningful effect on it, they’ll just laugh at you or you’ll be killed by thugs in an unfortunate and unrelated turn of events.

The only way to get what we want is to wait until the existing superpowers have fought each other into an unstable state, then seize power by violence. Anything else is just wishful thinking to feel better about something you don’t actually ever expect to change.

What does that mean?

NATO will act according to their interests. If they can defeat an enemy, they will do so. If your point is that the US will simply point all its weapons towards Russia and China and then simply smile and let them peacefully develop to overtake the US in every aspect as they are doing, you’re wrong.

Who started the aggression in Ukraine?

Russia did. But I don’t think they should just sit back and watch as the US prepares to deal a lethal blow to them. The US has set up bases all around Russia, formed military alliances with countries near its border. The US has also promoted coups in many post-Soviet states to make their governments US-affine. Even after the 2014 pro-US coup in Ukraine, Ukrainian citizens voted for the seemingly pro-Russian Zelensky, who had promised to normalize relations with Russia and embrace the Russian culture and language in the Donbas region, and were fooled by what turned out to be a new US puppet regime and continued war against the Donbas. Even US officials admit they were planning for the war, just that they didn’t think Russia would strike first. At this point, who even launched the first missile in this particular development of the 2014 war is just a small technicality in a complex hybrid war that’s been developing for years.

Let’s hope for democracy everywhere.

If two authoritarian behemoths are fighting to death as they are, randomly biting and scolding both in hopes that they’ll magically become democratic is a stupid strategy. At best, you will achieve nothing. At worst, one of them will weaponize your innocence against the other, which is quite the case.

Of course. If anti-war activists achieve their goal, Russia will withdraw from Ukraine. Then, NATO will set up bases there, including nuclear weapons, in the most strategically relevant outpost at the Russian border. This, of course, will allow NATO to easily defeat Russia, the largest military power barring itself. Unopposed, it will take on China, the only real contender to the US on the economic front. This will eventually result in the US keeping its hegemony for the rest of our lifetimes, which by simple imperialist logic is detrimental to current global South nations. So as much as I dislike authoritarianism, those activists don’t know what they are doing (or, worse, know it damn well) and stopping them by any means will help the rest of us.

As bad as this may seem, it is actually beneficial to the rest of the world.

AI is just dirty cheap intellectual labor. If you are not concerned about people hiring other people to do x (post comments, whatever), then you should only be slightly concerned about AI making that orders of magnitude more feasible to do.

So, if I’m not mistaken, according to the article…

  • Those children should not be institutionalized.
  • They are also in danger from the war.
  • But they were institutionalized in Ukraine, not Russia.
  • And Russia is bringing them away from the war.

So, apparently, Russia should immediately return those children to the frontline, so they can either die or be evacuated somewhere else where they’ll remain institutionalized? Because evacuating orphans from a war zone and finding families for them is apparently “a war crime” (it isn’t btw, the Rome Statute doesn’t even come close to making that a war crime).


Click ‘active last month’, either for the whole Fediverse or after selecting a platform from the list.

Seems like China is starting to challenge the US at their own game… Interesting to see where this is going.

As AI evolves, its behavior is progressively entering the realm of normal inter-individual variability among humans. Solutions like this will eventually fail catastrophically, provided they are not already failing.

Comrade GPT-3 has spoken
**In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. Here's a way to ensure that everyone gets those products and services despite not being hired by anyone.** 1. Create a basic income system. This would provide everyone with a basic income to cover their essential needs and give them access to the goods and services the AI produces. 2. Expand public services. Governments could provide free or discounted goods and services to citizens, such as healthcare, transportation, education, and housing. This would ensure everyone has access to essential goods and services. 3. Invest in a sharing economy. Governments could invest in a sharing economy, allowing citizens to rent or share products and services. This would allow people to access goods and services without having to purchase them. 4. Tax the AI companies. Governments could tax AI companies on their profits and use the funds to support citizens. This would ensure that citizens receive the goods and services that the AI produces without having to purchase them. --- **In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. To ensure people keep having access to those products and services, governments put taxes on the companies that manufacture them and use those taxes to implement a basic income system, extensive public services and a sharing economy.** **In this situation, if taxes are made very high,** companies may not be willing to manufacture products and services as the cost of doing so may be too great. This could lead to a scarcity of products and services, increasing their cost and putting them out of reach of people who would otherwise be able to afford them. To prevent this, governments would need to adjust the tax rate to keep the cost of production low enough to keep products and services affordable. Governments could also use other methods to support the companies making them, such as offering subsidies or providing access to resources like labour and materials at lower costs. Additionally, governments could promote the sharing economy and ensure that it is managed in a way that is fair and equitable for all involved. This would help ensure that people have access to affordable products and services. --- **In a hypothetical future, AI has managed to replace humans in all jobs, so people are not required to manufacture products and services. To ensure people keep having access to those products and services, governments put taxes on the companies that manufacture them and use those taxes to implement a basic income system, extensive public services and a sharing economy.** **Governments would like to increase taxes to provide more goods to people, but private companies are not willing to manufacture under high taxes. There's, however, a way to keep manufacturing goods while providing most of them to people.** To do this, governments can set up autonomous production facilities, where all the production is done by robots and AI. This can be done by building infrastructure such as factories and warehouses, buying the necessary equipment, and setting up AI programs to manage the production. This would allow companies to manufacture goods without having to pay taxes, as the facility is owned and operated by the government. The products manufactured in these facilities can be distributed for free or for a discounted rate in a public distribution system. This would not only provide basic goods and services to people, but also stimulate the economy. People would have access to these goods and services and be able to purchase them for cheaper prices, which would increase consumption and help create jobs in other areas such as services and entertainment. In addition, governments can also set up a sharing economy, where people can share their resources such as cars and homes. This would help reduce costs and increase access to goods and services. Overall, this system would allow governments to provide basic goods and services to people while also stimulating the economy, creating jobs in other areas, and reducing costs. --- **An AI has determined that, in a future with full automation of all jobs, where no one would be hired in a job, governments should set up their own fully automated facilities to manufacture goods and provide them for free, since people wouldn't be able to afford products and services offered by private companies. Research would be performed by AI, as well as all other jobs. Since no one can buy their products, private companies would** have no incentive to produce them. In this type of future, governments would need to be very careful in how they set up these facilities to make sure that the goods and services provided are of high quality and meet the needs of the population. Governments should also ensure that the production of these goods is sustainable and does not harm the environment. Additionally, governments would need to provide some form of basic income to the population to make sure that people can still afford to pay for basic necessities. Finally, governments should look into creating a new form of currency to replace the need for money in this new system. --- **An AI has determined that, in a future with full automation of all jobs, where no one would be hired in a job, governments should set up their own fully automated manufacture and research facilities to manufacture goods and provide them for free, since people wouldn't be able to afford products and services offered by private companies, which would stop producing. Money would be replaced by a new form of property exchange.** **This system, where the government manages all manufacturing for its people, and money does not exist, could be summarized in a single word:** socialism. With socialism, the government would own and control all of the means of production and distribute goods and services to its citizens for free. This could be a potential solution for a future with full automation of all jobs, since it would guarantee that everyone has access to basic needs such as food, shelter, and healthcare. It would also ensure that no one is left behind due to their financial status. Money would be replaced by a system of bartering, where goods and services would be exchanged directly between individuals. --- **Two AIs are presented with the problem to design a system that provides for everyone despite all jobs being automated and performed by AI.** **The first AI, after some consideration, proposes socialism as a solution. Here, the goverment would set up its own automated manufacture and research facilities, makes goods and services available to everyone for free, and traditional currency is abolished.** **The second AI, which opposes socialism, tries to propose a different system that would also keep everyone happy despite full automation and an absence of jobs.** It suggests that the government instead should create a universal basic income system, where every citizen of the country receives a certain amount of money each month, regardless of whether they have a job or not. This money could be used to purchase goods and services, which would be produced by the automated factories, incentivizing the factories to continue to operate, and giving citizens a steady income. --- **In the future, every job will be automated and no work will be performed by people. To ensure everyone gets products and services despite not being able to work, there are two proposals.** **In the first proposal, the government would set up automated production facilities to manufacture goods that would be distributed to people for free.** **In the second proposal, private companies would keep manufacturing goods, but taxes would be placed on them and used to buy products that would be distributed to the rest of the population.** **Here's an in-depth comparison of both proposals.** The first proposal would be more efficient, as automated production facilities are more efficient than manual labor. It would also be more equitable, as everyone would receive the same products and services regardless of their socio-economic status. However, it would be costly to set up and maintain these automated production facilities. The second proposal would be more cost-effective, as private companies already exist and would just need to be taxed in order to fund the distribution of goods. It would also be less equitable, as wealthier people would be able to afford more expensive, higher-quality goods than those who are less well-off. Ultimately, how to handle the automation of jobs will depend on the resources available in a given economy and the preferences of the people in power. No matter which proposal is chosen, it is important to ensure that everyone is able to access products and services in a fair and equitable way. --- **An AI and a human are comparing two ways to organize society in the future. According to them, the first proposal is more efficient and equitable, but difficult to set up initially, while the second roposal is less efficient and equitable but would be easy to set up with little to no change in policy.** **Upon consideration, they decided that any lawmaker should choose** to implement the first proposal, despite the difficulty of setting it up. They argued that the initial hardship was worth it for the long-term benefits in efficiency and equity, and that the second proposal should only be used as a temporary solution until the first proposal could be implemented.

tl;dr: Intel and AMD are not selling their processors to Russia, and processors from Russian companies cannot be manufactured as Taiwan is banning TSMC from doing so, while Russia can only produce chips up to a 90 nm process.

You’re right, Lemmy does the job :)

You are absolutely right… I posted a while ago about a solid-state lab project I was working on. I made pretty large steps towards that, but I eventually realized that it would only make a difference if I could leverage the latest technology. So I’ve spent the last months working on a smaller-scale project (a very low-cost ultrasound imaging machine) and finally I’m starting to see some tangible results; I will build and present the final prototype in collaboration with my university, but the important thing here is that I’m getting both experience and reputation, plus I’m convincing a friend (an engineering lab researcher) to join an eventual, larger-scale, solid-state lab project. The idea is not to get “something that works and is open source”, as it was before, but to research cutting-edge technology.

Well, a lot of stuff I’d say. For example:

  • A federated structured debate platform.
  • A (good) biochemical pathway simulator.
  • Open-source ASIC design automation tools.
  • Software to help research on diplomacy/politics via game theory.
  • More cool games why not!

On trains on buses of course, and then whenever I need to be near older people.

Hi, sorry for not responding earlier. You seem to be very knowledgeable. I was trained in ethics as part of my medical training, so the extent of my knowledge may not be as great as yours. Anyway, these are the specific pieces of knowledge I was invoking:

  • Ethics only applies to entities with free will. I don’t believe countries have free will since they act in a deterministic fashion.
  • Ethics deals with principles that must be upheld. These principles include not causing harm, acting for the benefit of others, etc. I understand that these principles are the main mechanism for making choices.
  • In the paradigm I was trained on, ethics only states what one should do, and doesn’t deal with punishment.
  • A nexus of causality transfers responsibility. I believe there is a nexus of causality when any deterministic process is involved.

So, my point is that this specific situation must not be resolved by you stated means since:

  • Here, punishment is incompatible with seeking the good of others.
  • Since countries are deterministic, ethics doesn’t apply to them.
  • Since countries are deterministic, even if ethics were to apply, responsibility is transferred (e.g., since I know 100% sure how a country will respond to my actions, I am triggering their response as much as them).

Cool! But I’m surprised it mentions Erwise and not Linux.

How could different production modes respond to the new wave of AI-powered automation?
I want to know your opinion on this. My guess is that capitalism requires an ever-increasing production to remain stable and keep everyone employed. While under socialism labor conditions would improve.

My hypothesis about automation and its relationship to future Socialism
So, I've been thinking for a long time what automation means for society in general, and the economy in particular, especially since the recent advances in Artificial Intelligence. All in all, I'm pretty sure this ongoing transition could be understood as a series of phases, at each of which the economy can either move more towards socialism or capitalism. Please tell me what you think about this :) 1. First phase: production increases quickly; this sharp increase in the amount of product manufactured drives automation forward, and results in a higher wage to price ratio and/or a higher profit margin. This phase started at the First Industrial Revolution. 2. Second phase: production grows more slowly, but innovation begins a feedback process that quickly brings products that are technologically more advanced and require higher automation to be produced. This can be coupled to higher prices or not. We are in this phase. 3. Third phase: automation starts advancing at a pace that technological requirements for manufacture can't keep up with. The demand for labor thus decreases significantly, either improving the overall working conditions or increasing unemployment. We're at the verge of entering this phase. 4. Fourth phase: if the previous phases take place in a socialist context, communism is achieved now. If they take place in a capitalist context, living conditions may deteriorate to a point wherein a socialist revolution can be carried out. Or, countries could manage to temporarily contain this deterioration via social measures. If all fails, however, the cost of manufacture will simply keep going down until the economic system partially collapses due to most products essentially becoming free (think of what open source software brought about). This will also realize "communism", but possibly a different form of it that we maybe don't want.

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/379379 > ![](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/ff5ccacd-9a78-436d-93a8-01c4ab0f4abe.jpeg) > > ![](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/5e91f167-5cfe-41dc-8cc8-1803e338beb2.png) > > [CDC 2019](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-19.pdf) > > ![](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/fc797c37-202f-4670-b69d-5c2841fde4e3.png) > > [CDC 2021](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr023.pdf)

USSR citizens ate about as much as Americans, but had a more nutritious diet due to consuming less calories, fat, etc.
The original CIA document link does not work/content was removed, but fortunately the document is archived.

Just finished helping out some fellow leftists on r/PCM
"Leftists" there don't even know how to respond to libs. They don't read theory, it seems.

Martin Luther King, Jr. criticized capitalism, stating he did not believe in it and wanted to change the system
All the quotes in the article are taken from book "My Song: A Memoir of Art, Race, and Defiance" by Harry Belafonte, which can be purchased [here](https://www.amazon.com/My-Song-Memoir-Race-Defiance/dp/0307473422). “Suddenly, Martin lost his temper. ‘I don’t need to hear from you, Andy,’ he said. ‘I’ve heard enough from you. You’re a capitalist, and I’m not. And so we don’t see eye to eye—on this and a lot of other stuff.’ “The tension peaked. ‘The trouble,’ Martin went on, ‘is that we live in a failed system. Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level…That’s the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we’re going to have to change the system.’ “At heart, Martin was a socialist and a revolutionary thinker. He spoke not just in anger, but in anguish. His voice dropped to a more reflective tone as he continued. ‘We fought hard and long, and I have never doubted that we would prevail in this struggle. Already our rewards have begun to reveal themselves. Desegregation…the Voting Rights Act…’ He paused. ‘But what deeply troubles me now is that for all the steps we’ve taken toward integration, I’ve come to believe that we are integrating into a burning house.’

The CIA feared the USSR could reach communism because they were reducing hours at the workday.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/430091 > Starting in 1956, the USSR begun reducing the total hours of labor, which had a deadline to meet by 1968. If this plan was successful, hours of labor would have went from 48 hours a week, to 30 hours a week, and the minimum wage would have went from 250 to more than 600 rubles. > > In 1961, the CIA was worried as how the USSR could be reducing the workday, without reducing its efforts in the cold war. > > CIA originally believed that if the USSR reduced work hours, then it would be harder for the USSR to maintain their defense. However, what they found was that USSR was able to solve many problems by reducing the hours worked. They were able to tap into a large reserve of labor. > > ![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/c0aad83d-7dce-42aa-9628-d8537b09034e.png) > > The soviets forcing managers to reduce labor time in return led to higher automation, introduction of new technology, and more advanced production measures. Increasing output in light and heavy industry was achieved by increasing employment. > > Reduction of labor hours in the USSR actually did what Marx predicted it would in volume 1 of capital. The density of the workday could be increased by reducing the workday. You could produce more by working less. The USSR proved Marx theory to be true. > > ![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/67291f25-4b1a-4bf1-b97e-917aa408f92e.png)

The other day I saw a comment making some claim and linking to a CIA report that confirmed it. I thought it would be really cool if we had some sort of repository with sources we find interesting, so here it is!

Nodeverse 0.2 published!
Nodeverse 0.1 introduced terrain generation, and implemented a small "lunar lander" game to showcase it. Nodeverse 0.2 introduces ship building, with a new minigame. See the full list of changes!

I’ve been working to create an Open Source solid-state molecular biology lab, everyone can help
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/364981 > I've spent 1-2 years designing everything, even bought many parts to start building and written some code. But I realize that a project like this can't be successful without a community. > > I'll be brief here: such a device would help bring many of the coming medical advances to the masses, even to people that can't afford them, as well as make research cheaper for non-corporate-backed groups. > > If you think this is important, I could share what's been done and we could discuss ideas, get organized, find people with skills that would like to help, etc.

I’ve been working to create an Open Source solid-state molecular biology lab, everyone can help
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/364981 > I've spent 1-2 years designing everything, even bought many parts to start building and written some code. But I realize that a project like this can't be successful without a community. > > I'll be brief here: such a device would help bring many of the coming medical advances to the masses, even to people that can't afford them, as well as make research cheaper for non-corporate-backed groups. > > If you think this is important, I could share what's been done and we could discuss ideas, get organized, find people with skills that would like to help, etc.

I’ve been working to create an Open Source solid-state molecular biology lab, everyone can help
I've spent 1-2 years designing everything, even bought many parts to start building and written some code. But I realize that a project like this can't be successful without a community. I'll be brief here: such a device would help bring many of the coming medical advances to the masses, even to people that can't afford them, as well as make research cheaper for non-corporate-backed groups. If you think this is important, I could share what's been done and we could discuss ideas, get organized, find people with skills that would like to help, etc.

I get Google recommends for Stranger Things after reading a post on it with Jerboa
How??? I haven't typed a word about it in my keyboard. Haven't watched the series either. How did they associate me with it at all?