It’s amazing how similar your response is to another response I got. I’m not gonna continue another thread. Go read my comment history if you want a response.

You are aware, that “European liberals” are something entirely different compared to what the US perceives as “liberal”?

Yes, I’m using the word in the same way you are referring to. But you’re referring to the economic part of it. I’m referring to “liberal democracy” and the focus on process over outcome. You can’t understand “liberalism” outside of a class based understanding of its role in bourgeoise democracy.

Europe isn’t a country. And Greenland isn’t even an official member of the EU, it’s a territory of Denmark, under Danish jurisdiction.

Yes, which is why I referred to it as such. Did you miss the part where I referred to it as a territory? I’m not sure what point you’re arguing here. I definitely refer to “Europe and the EU” interchangeably sometimes. That’s my mistake if that wasn’t clear. But when talking about foreign policy that is how these relationships happen.

You are, however, doing exactly what I am critizing. Pointing to “tied hands” in the face of a nation that is violating the sovereignty of a people and their land. THAT is my criticism. It’s literally with the systems of liberal democracy that are useless in fighting the creep of fascism.

You’re pointing to the “rules” that European nations are limited by l that prevent them from working to an outcome in order to preserve their process.

I’m talking of understanding how fascism exploits this. It’s why one may feel “safe” in the systems of liberal democracy. They are still functioning. But I would hope you’re able to realize that those systems are the very things that allow Fascism to creep and take control. It’s why it’s hard to notice “the line” in which liberal democracy becomes “Fascism”. Fascist exploit the very reasons you gave for not taking action. With a false hope that a future act of the system will stop it. (You’re reference to 2027 policy that will stop it)

It won’t. It will at best delay to make you believe the system is working to defend you. It defends the interest of class hierarchy. It doesn’t defend the misconception of democracy that “liberals” believe in.

The reports on land seizure are not inaccurate. They are preparing a normalization. The technicality of “delay” or “process” are the very way that they become reality.

I can’t say it better than this explanation that I constantly keep in mind. It’s worth a listen for 10 minutes even if you disagree with what I’ve said.

https://youtu.be/0YFdwfNh5vs

It’s less about Greenland having a spine and it’s Allie’s in Europe not having a spine. If European nations would stand beside Greenland and offer support and troops America would likely back off. But Greenland should be expected to fight this on their own? I don’t think so.

Europe not making a massive deal over this will allow the creep of American empire to control and occupy Europe more than it already does. This is a massive L for Europe and not just Greenland.

Finally. We finally get to hear the “we can’t do anything” reasons from the European liberals that those of us on the left have been critizing internally in America with American liberals. It’s amazing how similar these arguments for inaction are. “Follow the rules while they violate them” is not going to stop American fascism.

It’s funny because the European liberals really loved to grandstand on their superior democracy against America and the failures of American liberalism in the face of fascism. But, really, the European liberals have significantly more in common with American liberals than they’d like to admit. They will roll over and ask for “just one more Injunction” and ultimately do nothing to stop it either.

When a foreign actor is violating the territory of a member of the European Union and your response is essentially “not our problem”. You’re opening the door for the same creeping fascism that the American liberals have allowed.

Focus on what you CAN do. If you are just listing of reasons for why nothing can be done you are no different than the useless American democrat party.

You have to stop this at the first step. And Greenland isn’t the one blocking Europe from doing something. America is doing something illegal. Europe either organizes to stop this “small” expansion now. Or you wait and wait until it becomes too big to ignore and too big to actually do anything against.

I think the UK has the right to pull a Trump Venezuela style operation.

Laundry definitely gets moldy when you forget to put it in the dryer.

Try to remember to open the lid after the cleaning is done. The mold will be in your clothes; but it will also grow in the outer drum of your washer. Which after years of use will start showing up in your “clean” clothes as these little dark flakes of mold and soap mildew gunk. Ask me how I know. If it gets to that point you likely need to take the washer apart to remove it. Or spend a week running “cleaning” cycles until they go away.

Don’t overfill the detergent. Leave the lid open after a wash is done. And use the “tub clean” feature once a month with no clothes in it.

You can add DISHWASHER powder detergent (yes dish detergent) directly in the tub when you use the cleaning cycle. If no cleaning cycle exist just use the “heavy duty” or “bedding” cycle with the hotest water.

They sell “cleaning tablets” for washers but they are basically just dishwasher detergent. And powder detergent is superior anyway for dishes so you can just use that (bull I’ll leave the liquid vs. powder rant alone this comment is already long).

Also a good habit to hit the “extra rinse” option sometimes. Will purge the detergent more and reduce a chance of mold building up.

TLDR: clean your washer

Dishes get worse than laundry when you get older. At least if you’re like a lot of ADHD people and have awful back pain from that ADHD “sitting” posture. Which for me is has basically been sitting on my left leg in a painful way enough to keep my legs from moving.

Anyway, grabbing dishes hurts my back. Lots of bending down and going back up. Fucking hate it.

For laundry, I can at least sit down and watch a video while I fold. It’s kinda peaceful in comparison.

Sure. That’s fine. But I think you still misunderstand exactly what is being solved in most of those cases. It’s not about quantity. If it was then all mathematicians would be spending time on filling “gaps”. Mathematicians aren’t focused on filling in gaps as a lot of the time that type of brute force work is not meaningful to the field of mathematics. They are focused on proving (or disproving) axioms that are foundational to the field. AI has not proven or disproven any mathematical axiom.

The biggest proof it’s ever provided was for “Erdos Problem”. Which is essentially just a fun “dot placement optimization problem” that Erdos came up with, was never taken too seriously, and was difficult enough that spending time on it in academics would likely get you laughed at.

It’s formal proof yields almost nothing to the field.

On top of that, it was “solved” by an AI math startup with closed source software. There is literally no confirmation that it was AI solving it organically or if the mathematicians themselves solved it during developing the AI and saw a means of getting headlines and more capital investment.

Please, be more skeptical. I double majored in Math and CS and have worked in the field for over a decade. There are applications for AI that are helpful. But, right now, people are falling for a lot of the hype and lies that are being pushed around to attract capital investment. You’re not an investor, you can be smarter and more skeptical than that.

In a decade we’re going to have a lot of reflection on this time and the lies being told about the usefulness of AI.

We live in a world where one of the most valued companies in the world pretends it’s AI robots are real and not just being remote operated by a human. You think AI startups aren’t giving credit to AI for the work of humans? They all are. Because it gets them investment.

A mostly fun and non helpful math problem gets solved by a human. The math community enjoys it. Laughs a little at the guy who spent too much of his life solving it. And no one outside the community hears about it.

But if you say “AI did it”. You get millions of dollars in investment.

I don’t have evidence a human solved it. But they also don’t have evidence AI solved it either. And all financial incentives right now are in saying “AI did it”. That is why you should be extremely skeptical of all these things you hear about the capability of AI.

No one advocated for violence, the comment you responded to is pointing to the hypocrisy of talking about population reduction when 100 billionares do more damage to the environment and world than millions of people combined.

No one advocated for violence as the solution; or said it should be used as a first step. You still have not addressed my first comments criticism.

You aren’t having a conversation or trying to “make me think”. You’re injecting opinions into comments that were never expressed. Maybe reread this conversation. You’re putting a lot of effort into replies that aren’t responding to what is being said.

Yeah, that’s not true. The math proofs it has solved are not “more difficult than any solved by a living person”. Many of the proofs AI has solved are corner case conditions that are not being actively worked on by mathematicians. In a trivial example. Image a problem like:

x = n + 25

AI says, hey, let’s assume n=3.

AI solved the proof that 3 + 25 = 28.

Then we get an article posted about how AI solved the impossible problem of n + 25

Now, it can be helpful to have these less general proofs solved. It can help mathematicians in creating a more general proof (what they are usually focused on).

But, as far as I’m aware, these are most of the contributions of AI so far in the field of mathematics. You’re falling for the hype around it. It’s mostly filling in gaps for corner cases that are not actively being worked on.

Which makes sense. Because it’s just a text generation algorithm that predicts the most likely characters. It’s using training data for the n = 3 case that it learned from another already solved problem and then injecting it into the unsolved problem. Sometimes is spits out something that makes sense, a human being has to verify it, and then a corner case for mathematical proof is “solved”.

It’s not capable of thinking or rationalizing to anything new. It is filling in gaps in a field of research that is not primarily focused on “gap filling”.

It’s why it’s “having success” in Math but not Physics. Mathematicians focus on general proofs that apply under all conditions. So, the field inevitably has a lot of problems that could be solved by a lot of brute force for specific conditions.

In Physics, scientist are constantly trying to “fill gaps”. They work with real world measurements and observations. Any new “gap” is constantly being tested. AI has no gaps to fill with its brute force way of “thinking”. And it’s completely incapable of coming up with theories or hypothesis on a level a human does.

This is why it’s not solving ground breaking mathematics proofs and why it is mostly useless in replacing humans in the scientific process. Because it isn’t actually thinking.

Sorry, rant. But this is something that bothers me and you hit a nerve.

Not at all. AI is primarily a tool for domestic surveillance and war. AI cannot produce surplus value to be extracted for profit. They aren’t trying to replace workers with AI. At least not in the long term.

I think you are assuming the destructive effects of “wealth” are constant. This is not at all reasonable. 1 million people being able to afford shelter, healthcare, and food is not comparable to the unnecessary destruction we see today brought about by datacenters, private jets, super yachts, wars for the capitalist military industrial complex, etc, etc. Those absurdities do not exist without a concentration of wealth.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying? But, “wealth” does not have the linear relationship with the negative outcomes that you are implying. It is very much the concentration of wealth and power that results in these outcomes. The destructive power wealth has grows exponentially with its concentration in fewer and fewer hands. Simply because as it concentrates the wealthy are able to both cause the destruction AND avoid their consequences at the same time.

Nothing you said here was in response to the point of my comment. You instead tried to change the conversation about my personal experiences. I guess I have to provide a a resume in order for you to address my direct criticism of your comment.

I’ll remind you what is was. I was criticizing the part where you ignored historical class struggle and instead suggested people were advocating for violence as a first step.

Also, the “we” I was using was referring to the working class and specifically those with class consciousness. It’s pretty obvious in the context of the conversation.

Do you want respond to my criticism or do I have to provide a resume first?

Communism is, by definition, “a classless, moneyless, stateless society”.

When people say “no communist countries have existed” this is what they mean. Because that’s not ever been achieved.

There are countries that are run by communist parties (China). But these are not countries that have “obtained Communism”. You are confused because you never looked up the definition of a communist society.

For example, China is a country run by the Chinese Communist Party under a state structure of Socialism (with Chinese characteristics).

Since you don’t understand basic definitions I doubt that you’re criticisms of “communist countries” were very insightful.

No one suggested it first. We’ve been working for decades through peaceful measures. Hell, we’re still doing it now and they are responding with marking our organizations as “domestic terrorist” with both parties spending every ounce of AIPAC funds to stop us.

Those that make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. We are right on that edge right now. We don’t make the choice to use violence. They do.

It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine a world without capitalism.

We don’t give their heirs wealth my dude. It’s a revolution. You round up the ruling class and seize their wealth and give it back to the masses that produced it.

I know “that’ll never happen”. Said every person throughout history just before a revolution.

Absolutely! Famously non capitalist countries have no capability of funding studies. Nope. Hell, we’d never have gotten the first satellite or first person into space without capitalism! Everything good comes from capitalism! And everything bad, yeah, it’s socialism. And if it’s REALLY bad, it’s communism.

Cool. You can “say that”. But that doesn’t happen. People have kids.

Come up with one idea or policy that actually results in people having less children? Because that’s what the comment you replied to is saying. They are talking about the inevitable policies that come from the “just have less” ideas.

The idea is pointless if it just lives in your head. Would be great if everyone that read this comment gave me $1. But no one’s gonna do that unless I actually had a reason for them to. The reasons to place on people to have less children either don’t work or are human rights violations.

You sound like the dumb “smart guy” that says “we could have world peace if everyone just smoked weed everyday”.

You don’t solve something by coming up with a solution with no means of reaching it. Hell, it’s not really a solution, it’s just a conclusion. It’s why the “population problem” is so good for propaganda. It redirects the problem and distracts stupid people that haven’t actually thought through how that would work.

Not with capitalism. Look at countries that do not take in many immigrants. South Korea and Japan are the results of what you’re talking about.

It’s not just about industrialization. The exploitation of labor under capitalism still requires bodies to build its alter. The contradictions of capitalism are the primary problem. Value comes from labor. The profits of capital come from labor. They don’t want “less people”. They just want you to hate other workers and see them as “the problem”.

I think our fundamental disagreement is that you believe that liberal democracy, specifically the flavor of it in America, actually results in the will of the people being enacted.

That’s not how it works in America. The candidates on the ballot (especially the president) are pre approved choices from our ruling class. The only “democracy” that exists here is that of the class with wealth and power.

You are witnessing a democracy of the ruling class, that spends it’s money for their preferred candidate for their preferred capitalist interest. Once the ballot is in the hands of the average American they are only choosing between the interest of one member of the ruling class over another member.

There was no choice for “don’t bomb Gaza” on the ballot. You can be frustrated with the lack of direct action from Americans. I am as well. But, then you’d also have to be frustrated with that same lack of direct action from Europeans. Which is really what I’m trying to push. The importance of direct action and the hopelessness you will feel when the uselessness of your liberal democracy is exposed and your state turns to facism.