Reading the end of the manga Nausicaa told me everything about the actual reactionary-environmentalism of Miyazaki.

Yes, except this is of all lemmy users, not just slrpnk.net, which is just one of the instances measured.

Yes, but I find it interesting to see that despite having a theme, slrpnk.net is as spread as generic instances and less clustered as, e.g. programming instances, lgbt, anime or nsfw ones.

I also find it interesting to see which communities bridge users from several instances: /c/ubuntu is the link between the french-speaking world and programming? /c/dragonball is the most mainstream anime community. I also find it interesting that the tankies communities, despite a few bridges, look extremely isolated.

That’s really interesting! It shows which communities share users. I am part of jlai.lu, a french-speaking community that is relatively isolated by also slrpnk.net that seems very spread out!

Would it make sense to compute the standard deviation of each instance’s communities? It would give an idea of which are islands and which are more extended. Not sure if it makes sense to compute it more on 2 dimensions or on the original 21934 though.

This image woke me up. Downloading it now. I had not realized that models could handle this type of scene composition nowadays.

But what is the difference between the image description and the prompt on the ‘full generation parameters’ ?

deleted by creator

Not competent enough to give you advice, but if you are in western Europe, I can recommend you to come to Laval (France) in december, for the next gathering of intermediate vehicles.

I went last year and met hundreds of competent enthusiasts there and learned a lot: https://slrpnk.net/post/3845835

The headline and the first 4 pages that never define these notions. You have to reach B.3.1 for that.

I only read that far because I know (a bit) the various theories of property and wondered if they would define the “usage property” a bit later. Someone who does not know that private property has a different meaning in socialist literature would probably not have read that far.

Provocative headlines work, and people that only read headlines are probably not the right target audience anyways.

What is the target audience then? People who already know the anarchist definitions of private properties? These are learning nothing from that read. Here is the flow for the people who may have been interested but are going to get lost by that article:

1. Provocative headline -> “What the fuck is that crap, are they saying what I understand, that I can’t possess anything?”
2. Skims the first few pages -> “Yep, it is as stupid as it sounds”
3. Closes and gets a wrong idea of anarchism and socialism in general.

And this definition is not some niche one only anarchists have. Basically any political theory has a variation of it

And call it differently.

Saying “we are against private property” is understood as “we are coming for your house, for your car, for your kids’ toys, for your tools”. Proudhon is voluntarily provocative in his maxim but I really think it is counter productive.

Be careful in making grand statements like that, using definitions that only a narrow range of people use. Anarchists are not against what most people think about when they think about private property:

To summarise, anarchists are in favour of the kind of property which “cannot be used to exploit another — those kinds of personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which become part of our lives.” We are opposed to the kind of property “which can be used only to exploit people — land and buildings, instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and manufactured articles, money and capital.”

And I find it disingenuous to make peremptory statements about “all anarchists” and “no anarchist”. We are a pretty diverse crowd when it comes to the political theory.

If you have a craft capable of launch and re-entry, do you even try?

It is basically having to choose between two inhospitable nuclear barren lands. But one has oxygen on it. Hell yes I try.

Straight from Avalon.

We need both.

There is more to life than basic services, but these should definitely be provided for in a non-profit way.

Pirated many things when I was student. When I started earning a living I realized that the amount they ask for is really not excessive so started paying for several media, but they keep insisting on making sure that what you pay has less usage value than what you pirate. Stopped buying CD when one was designed to not play on my computer. Stopped paying for movies since they decide to tell you where and when you are supposed to watch them.

I gladly pay for books (which half of the time I then pirate to read on my eReader) and video games but the other digital media are trying to establish a toxic relationship and I’ll have none of it.

I really think there is a strong potential in these things. Don’t get fooled by the simplification of seeing opinions in a 2D graph. It helps to explain, but the reality of what these things can (potentially, not sure about this particular implementation) do is to really find across the thousands of dimensions of the debate space, statements that may help you bridge groups.

Imagine person A, strong humanist, no-border, intransigent on human rights. Imagine person B, authoritarian, xenophobic and traditionalist. They are unlikely to agree on statements like “ethnicity X are subhumans” (strong reject by A) and even a middle ground in the form “citizen of ethnicity X should have slightly less rights” is going to be (understandably) rejected by A. The idea is not to find a middle ground on strong disagreements but to find nuggets of agreements in their views from which conversations can started. Statements like “Police should obey the law of the country” is maybe not going to be enthusiastically endorsed by A and B but is a possible ground for agreement.

One of the most positive effect is that both groups can be genuinely surprised by some of the other group opinions. B may not realize that A actually agrees on some anti-smuggling measures and A may not realize that B actually strongly approves of preserving native American rights. Reasons may diverge, implementations diverge, but fishing for agreements is a precious tool in order to mend societies.

This comes from g0v, a very cool (and IMO pretty solarpunk) group. It started as a militant group doing “shadow version” of government agencies in Taiwan, making them better and less “political”. They made a ton of interesting things, one of the core founder is an interesting character

Here is the source: https://github.com/pluralitybook/plurality

Can we encircle the earth in a love heart?

Some assholes are rich.

Psychopathy is a thing and touches a sizeable part of the population. It is unwise to dismiss their existence.

One of the most enlightening moments for me recently has been when a sociology researcher attempted an experiment on youtube to prove that we can organize without hierarchy. His main point was not what was interesting to me.

His experiment was actually flawed in a major way: he proposed a task to a group of 100 that was doable even by a single person. In such a case, organization is easy. But what I found interesting is that even in such a setting hierarchies emerged: people took some organizational power and others followed. Even if that was clearly unnecessary. And the crowd following his channel are probably less authoritarian than average.

It was a revelation to me: to have flat structures, you not only need to make it possible to organize without hierarchy, but you also need a process to constantly weed out emerging hierarchies. Another theory is that you should rather explicit some lesser-evil hierarchies to prevent the emergence of others, in the same way you may let one weed grow to prevent the emergence of other less desirable ones.

I still don’t have a theory or a praxis that goes with it, but that has been good food for thought.

fair enough