As a maths person, I have scored high on IQ tests for years. There are plenty of topics I am not great at, but IQ tests typically focus maths topics like pattern recognition.

I like the acknowledgement of racism in IQ tests. There is a bias in the test for western maths education. Sadly, the results could be used for eugenics. Many great mathematicians I have met are neurodivergent, LGBTIA+, cis-women or other groups the eugenics crowd want culled.

My current politicical perpspective frames this as enforcement of heirarchy, legitimized “scientifically” by the IQ test. There are plenty of high IQ people, such as those in maths, that do not fit the eugenic vision. The heirarchy becomes self-fulfilling and “natural” by culling the non-comforming people. The “top” of the heirarchy must legitimize their position, so the bottom doesn’t resist doing all the work for little personal benefit.

IQ tests measure something. Don’t use that measurement to justify heirarchy. Eugenics is bad. A better future, built from the bottom, is possible. All power to all people.

Nice to see nerdcore on Lemmy. There’s so much out there, but here’s some variety from the subgenre hackercore.

https://amplitudeproblem.bandcamp.com/track/enter-my-world-ft-ytcracker

https://bashexplode.bandcamp.com/track/lfh-ft-ohm-i-2

Thank you for the sincere response. Your knowledge of ML and anarchist thought is appreciated. You make some great points. Specifically the acknowledgment that communism is different for ML’s and anarchist. I appreciate your insight.

I will begin with the production of a smartphone. The smartphone, in its current form, is an innovation of capitalism. We can both conceive a ML or anarchist smartphone. Given I am an engineer, I will speak to the engineering process. I live under capitalism, so can provide non-idealist insight there. I will follow that with ML and then anarchist production.

Regardless of political system the engineers get an initial set of requirements from somewhere. The initial requirements inform the engineers regarding what needs to be done. Prototypes are created. Tests verify met requirements. Shortening the user feedback loop allows better iterations since the initial requirements likely do not match end product requirements.

Under capitalism, the capitalist has minions that decide what needs to be built based on the profit motive. Engineers building prototypes receive requirements from their direct manager, the capitalist and consumers. The capitalist has outsized say in the iteration process since engineers that do not bend to the whims of the capitalist no longer work as an engineer.

Under Marxist-Leninism, party leadership decides what to needs to be built based on information from their subordinates. Engineers building prototypes receive requirements from their direct manager and party leadership. Party leadership has outsized say in the iteration process since engineers that do not bend to the whims of party leadership no longer work as an engineer.

Under anarchism, the commune decides what needs to be built based on information from consensus. Engineers building prototypes receive requirements from the community. The community sways the iteration process since engineers that fail to move their community forward no longer work as engineers.

Perhaps my arguments are misconceptions. My experience with engineering has been shortening the iteration time by letting the user sway requirements, without a master with outsized power, allows products to meet the needs of the user. Current engineering practices are dominated by capitalist. The profit motive allegedly informs their decisions, but Smith’s “invisible hand” is about as magic as Engel’s “withering away of the state”. A world where ML or anarchist engineering practices, not influenced by the profit motive or capitalist, would be riveting.

Outside of engineering, we have raw materials, transportation, manufacturing and distribution. I know less about these areas since I do not work in them.

If I believe what I have read, raw materials like cobalt are being mined for dominating hierarchies like corporations by independent contractors in exploited countries.

Transportation is being done by independent contractors on behalf of dominating hierarchies. Transport of raw materials seems decentralized. I am confounded why transport differs from distribution in terms of centralization under capitalism.

Manufacturing is capital intensive and tends to be centralized for complex production since not everyone has a clean room at home. Less complex production seems to follow the independent contractor model since most people can sew. I imagine this is a difference in the cost of capital.

Distribution is mostly centralized and seems capital intensive with fleet maintenance. I know there have been attempts to decentralize distribution similar to how Uber decentralized taxi services.

In closing, I would like to see engineering that benefits communities. I would like to see sharing of ideas and collaboration between communes. The assumption is that humans are social and helpful. When we assume humans are selfish and not social, then individual autonomy should be squashed by hierarchical authority.

I think there was a misconception. The QA worker can say things are bad. The other workers would then build consensus on next steps. The QA worker still needs to build consensus with relevant people, but can act if immediate action is required. Immediate mitigating action like stopping someone from walking into a busy street is a required imposition of hierarchy.

Wow, that was long. I probably have many misconceptions of ML ideas.

How do you feel about the name State Capitalism? I implied it in the replacement of capitalist with party leadership.

How do ensure those with “power over” subordinates do not abuse their subordinates “power to” do something? Under anarchism, the QA worker may be unreliable and the community can build consensus to not listen to concerns.

How is ML different from other domination heirarchies like feudalism, oligarchy and monarchy? My understanding is Stalin was God-King due to the heirarchy he commanded as General Secretary. Benevolent, omnipotent kings are a great form of government until you get a Nero.

How can we prevent Great Leap Forward’s fulfillment of the Peter Principle, where individuals in heirarchies rise to the level of their incompetence? This is not unique to ML. Heirarchies can’t promote productive workers. Nothing would get done.

I will have to re-read Lenin’s “State and Revolution”. I ended up engaging with Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon and Goldman more than Lenin or Mao. My readings may have been cursory.

I appreciate your points. I know we are of conflicting persuasions and finding ML’s that engage outside their echo chambers is difficult. Driving our convictions is the common goal of communism: a stateless, moneyless, classless society,

For complex production any necessary hierarchies should be managed by the workers and not a vertical power structure like a party. Assuming horizontal power structures are incapable of managing complex production seems unjustified. Workers produce, masters exploit. Socialism should be ordered from the bottom up to prevent exploitation by masters. Any necessary hierarchy to ensure communication happens between autonomous workers should be accountable from the bottom. A QA worker can let others know there are issues without a boss.

Engel’s argues tools have authority over workers, thereby authority is unavoidable. The author of the linked essay would thereby push that to, “I need to breathe; Engel’s says authority” which may be hyperbole. If I constrain someone’s airway, they no longer have “power to” breathe and I have “power over” their ability to breathe. Authority thereby cannot be defined as natural like breathing or tool use. Authority instead is a constraint on “power to” imparted by another with “power over”. I do not need a boss to tell me when to breathe.

Marxist-Leninist’s (ML) like to cite “On Authority”. Here’s an anarchist view: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/punkerslut-on-authority-a-response-to-friedrich-engels

New feature with terrible syntax. There are features of every language I choose not to use. As a C++ developer, I would choose not to use this syntax, so that my team can write better designed code. However, I am an oddball on my team for loving trailing return types. In peer review, the schlong operator i.e. ---> would only be used where it makes sense which should be nowhere.

Peer reviewing this seriously would require knowing more context. Instinct tells me MyClass**** is probably allocated from the heap. A possible reason for so many levels of indirection are jagged arrays. Maybe the function only gets the first element of each level of the arrays. The function name doesn’t make that clear. This is poorly designed. Please re-design/re-write. I will happily review those changes. I expect unit tests to show example use cases.

I would suggest using a stack allocated array with sentinels for missing values to improve cache coherency. Without context, I assume looping over the jagged structure will be common. Loading more into cache should improve efficiency in loops, but benchmarks are required.

Wait… I should join the crowd. So I say, “down with C++” and up with some safe alternative. Maybe rust: https://github.com/Speykious/cve-rs.

Lenin consolidated hierarchical power. Lenin’s Testament may have been an apology.

If it’s out of the bag, then it’s out of the bag Now that is a powerful cat

• Mindful Solutionism by Aesop Rock

Politics is group decision making. Religion is humanities relation to the supernatural. Drama, in context, seems to be a flaring of emotions.

Politics is unavoidable. Working with others requires decision making. She is telling you how she goes about making decisions i.e. deferring to authority.

Religion is also unavoidable since it informs politics. Many people believe God-King Jesus will come fix all the world’s problems. Thereby they are primed for deferring to authority.

Drama is a result of the multiplayer game of conversation. You can control your inputs and responses. You can control your internal state. There is no shame leaving a game instead of grinding to “git gud”. Not every game is for everyone. I enjoy the grind.

Wanting an end to needless slaughter, healthcare and working equipment sounds reasonable. I am glad there are reasonable voices on Lemmy.

I am probably missing a lot of information on Israel, but continued learning is important. I recently learned about the USS Liberty incident in 1967. I am not sure how Israeli’s could mess up that bad. There are still individuals maintaining the incident was deliberate. Who knows? Troubling history abounds.

People have different reasons for being on Lemmy. Examples are looking to feel validated or to pick a fight. I think these folk also existed in ye olde times. Maybe the attention economy is amplifying specific behaviors that would not have been amplified in the olde times.

Being fair, I usually come to Lemmy to argue. I am probably part of the problem.

The vote is worthless outside of swing states. May as well vote your conscience when fptp and Electoral College enshrine disenfranchisement.

Informative. Well written. Seems like the short version of my Intro to American Politics class at Uni. I classified myself as a social democrat back then. I was told I would get more conservative when I was older. Now I classify myself as an anarchist. Not sure what went wrong.

I am grateful local debates are posted online. Instead of listening to music at work I listened to the debates. Living in a one party state is unfortunate. The opposition tends to have similar political convictions to the incumbent.

Agreed. Voting shouldn’t be the only activism we are involved in. My comment was about solidarity against the oligarchs that can decide to make life harder for people they deem icky.

Republicans and Democrats were unable to stop legislation from the Judiciary with Roe v. Wade and later Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Super PAC’s donate multiple lifetimes of dollars to Presidential candidates in a quid pro quo system protected by the first amendment under Citizens United v. FEC. Americans outside the oligarchy will never exhibit their influence.

If oligarchs find your existence icky, they have the power to remove your “right” to exist. You lack the power to prevent it. Instead of thanking anyone, I suggest we take the power back. Punch up.

The function wcstol appears to be missing. Cross platform C is difficult.

I find Nozick’s minimal state interesting. He seems to want to entrust violence to a state. How would such a system prevent the minimal state from forming monopolies or cartels by which the ruled give up economic and political freedom?

Audible Anarchist is great. Anarchist Library is another great resource depending on what you can hyperfocus on.

Becoming familiar with other ideas is beneficial. There is nothing wrong with being a Democrat, Social Democrat or Libertarian. Real people hold these political ideas. My transition over years was Democrat since I opposed hawkish Republican imperialism, but I rejected corporate power, so Social Democrat, but I rejected hierarchical power, so Anarchist. Through reading I know Pacifism meshes with any of these ideas. I have never been a Pacifist, but I applaud anyone that takes the time to explore politics even if we do not agree.

Being able to have conversations with people around you is important. Reading theory from other politics helps. Most people around me consider themselves conservative. They say talking points like “I’m for small government”. Having read Libertarian texts like Nozick’s “Anarchy, State and Utopia”, I can discuss the minimal state as a Libertarian idea. I can then transition to “Nozick’s minimal state is not small enough”. In my area this approach opens conversation more than banging a drum about being a Democrat, Leftist, Communist or Anarchist.

Learning to explain math to a computer has been a major blessing.

I agree. Legal and ethical are not the same. Legal does not imply just.

I assumed you are familiar with American history. You assumed I want mass killing. I will simplify my question. When is it necessary to kill another human?

For education, John Brown was an American Abolitionist. That means he did not think anyone should be enslaved. To keep it simple, he attempted to spur a slave rebellion. He killed slave owners.