ReadFanon

I ain't no snitch - I've never seen either of them in my life, okay officer?(/s)

Y'know how reinforcement of learning is really important when you're studying? Like listening to a lecture, writing notes, then reviewing those notes later?

It's the same for doctors - they listen to patients and assess symptoms, they either take notes during a consultation or they take mental notes, then they write out full notes later to keep in your patient files. But that's not just some administrative busywork, at least not entirely. The process of listening, examining, writing out and revising the formal notes gives a doctor time to process and identify any gaps and to recall obscure info or to spot indications of what they should look into further.

Burn me at the stake for this but I can see positive uses for limited AI in applications for diagnosis and for troubleshooting or bouncing ideas off of. That can be very useful, although it comes with risks. But using AI to replace the work of doctors is very troublesome.

I read a story from Redd*t, I think, so 50/50 it was a real story but a person was reporting back as a medical transcriber talking about their company shifting to AI transcription and how it was making their job harder because AI would regularly hallucinate the most absurd things and it started inserting commentary from one fictitious figure that would say weird shit. The team started to talk about this figure as if it was a character in a novel and it became a running joke.

It's mindboggling because there are certain things that can make your life really hard in seeking healthcare, like being marked as having drug-seeking behavior or having BPD. It would only take AI one time to hallucinate this on your patient file and suddenly you're stuck with a label that is virtually impossible to get rid of that can drastically affect your treatment as a patient. And let's be honest here, a doctor is probably not going to remember the details from 6 or 12 months ago when they allegedly wrote that in your file, especially if they didn't actually write it which is proven to affect recall, so they're almost certainly going to defer to "their" notes and agree with them.

This shit is so concerning. I wish we weren't a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie being puppeted by silicon valley techbros. AI should get the Amish treatment - it should exist in some outhouse building, isolated from the rest of the world, and you have to intentionally go out of your way to use it purposefully and with consideration for the consequences, it shouldn't be effectively replacing things and least of all in critical institutions like medicine or education; you can fuck with a lot of things, and believe me I have a laundry list of complaints about both of these institutions, but breaking education and/or medicine risks breaking society.

Russia would be their best bet but it seems as though Russia shifted from "We'll give Maduro oreshniks if you don't back off" to "Ehhh, go right ahead" and I'd like to understand why. Some people are saying that there was horse trading going on, where there was a backroom agreement thar the US could have its Donroe Doctrine in return for leaving Ukraine to its own devices but I don't know the truth of it.

That leaves China's air defence systems, but I'm not sure that they're well tested in the field and I'm not sure if they're cutting edge, or Israel/the US.

Maybe in a different timeline Russia might have okayed transfer from Syria to Venezuela but that is not to be.

By this point things are far too late anyway. If there was some really cutting edge autonomous air defence systems that Venezuela could manufacture munitions for domestically then it would be different, but that's an absurdly tall order. Otherwise it would require building up the back end support like radar, training the military in its use, and having a steady supply coming via shipment. The US would knock out radar, any permanent installations, and they'd blockade arms shipments and the lead-in time before it would be possible to have an effective modern air defence capable of holding out against the US would take months and months, if not years.

Drones could have levelled the playing field quite a lot but that still takes a lot of training and it would be hard for Venezuela to get enough or otherwise it probably would have been down to using stingers or something more modern but honesty I think the ship sailed on this one, unless there's major changes to their situation. Also note that the best air defence is only useful if the military uses it and to seems like the Venezuelan military barely fired a single shot so...

What I lack in quality I make up for I quantity

Oh boy, you got me to sit in front of a real physical keyboard for this one!

You've described it accurately imo. I think it's important to view this from the perspective of a dialectical materialist. Not to be too on the nose about it or anything, but it does genuinely help me and I think it will for others too. I'm not the most inveterate organizer ever but I've got a reasonable amount of experience. Here's a scattershot of thoughts:

Organizing is always going to be a product of what came before it, whether as an extension of it or a reaction to it. It's also going to take on the shape of culture and of the people organizing. I've never done organizing in a very labor union-oriented space, e.g. in a sort of radical syndicalist heavy group, but my guess is that they would take a different approach to the ones that I've been a part of. That's just how it is - the org is going to be stamped with the birthmarks of what came before and it's going to be colored by your society and the type of people who make up the org.

This also means that it's important to think in terms of continuity and rupture - sometimes there will be ruptures in leadership or processes or modes of communication. At the most extreme that can look like a split but it can also look like using different platforms or a change in leadership. The ruptures are often the best opportunities to drive critical change in an org because the shakeup can leave the org looking for new paths and people can be more open to changing things. (You can also get change fatigue and siege mentality which is counterproductive but some degree of rupture often produces moments where you can advance positive changes in an org.) Continuity is where people will be reluctant to change and this serves a purpose too. A good org balances a "conservative" approach with a dynamic approach - too much conservatism and nothing gets done, no new things are taken on, opportunities are lost, people get fed up trying to make change in a seemingly immovable org but likewise too much change poses the risk of burning people out, creating confusion and miscommunication, fostering frustration and a lack of coordination, and not allowing enough time to assess and learn and to develop a solid strategy for how to move forward. Move fast, break things (derogatory) as they say in the corporate world (derogatory).

DemCent is good in theory but, as with all things, how it is in practice is going to vary wildly. It's not a panacea for organizing ills, unfortunately, but it can help with developing good orgs that can lead. It can also enable toxic leadership when it's done badly/it's a bastardized parody of DemCent. I've seen the other side though and trust me when I tell you there's a good reason why I'm not going back to more horizontal forms of organizing within formal org strucures; it has it s applications but if DemCent is like herding cats then horizontal forms of organizing are either DemCent in all but name, often as crypto-DemCent, or otherwise it's like trying to dig with a sieve and at least you can make progress when you're herding cats.

A lot of the problems that arise in orgs imo come from a lack of structure. This also plays into what I was saying above with regards to balancing being dynamic with being conservative. At the risk of coming off like a Trot, too much structure turns an org into a bureaucratic mess and it stultifies an org but a lack of structure means that there's no follow through, no obvious means to contribute, no pathways for critical functions like communication and delegation and approval and so on.

There's no-one-size-fits-all solution for this stuff - it changes depending on a bunch of factors like the size of the org and the scope and the priorities. You'll know when you've got about the right balance because everyone will be content and nobody will be happy (semi-ironic there but it's truer than you might imagine.) A bigger org necessitates a higher degree of structure whereas a small org might need very little. In my experience, the best way forward is mostly to proceed until you reach a point where you either outgrow the structure or the structure is no longer capable of providing the positive support for the org and its members, at which point you need to rebuild something better or you need to extend the structure - knowing which to do takes skill and experience though.

For a larger org, it's possible to capture the dynamism of a smaller org that has less structure by creating things like working groups or tasking a small team of people to achieve x or y outcome. With decent leadership within that group, they will defer to the broader org and to the leadership when it's important and when it's not they'll just get shit done and report back when there's progress to report on.

When it comes to structure though it's worth asking - what is it there for? Does it make sense? Does it (mostly) achieve what it sets out to do and is it positive? If not, then maybe it's time to consider reworking that structure. When it comes to bringing about change within an org's structure it can be a really painstaking process of figuring out who your allies and first followers are, getting the right feedback, winning people over, iterating the design until people are generally happy with the form and function etc.

I think a good org either identifies who to talk to - whose domain is x and who to speak to for matters on y, or they will buddy you up with a more experienced veteran of the org to help you find your way through a larger org to identify who to speak to about things etc.

In terms of expressing feedback make sure that you've got a clear understanding of what you're doing with it - an org will shut itself off to criticisms if it comes off as too critical or just venting. For obvious reasons, orgs tend to shut people down when they get too carried away with how one person wants to see change as it's important to bring the rest of the org along, to not step on people's toes, and to consider broader things like organizational readiness for change and whether it's a priority etc. So I'd test the waters with something small and low stakes. Feel out the channels for communication and driving change. See how long it takes to get a response or for action to occur. You will be able to drive more change over time as you build trust through this process and you demonstrate good judgment and a commitment to seeing outcomes through and doing them well, not to mention by providing good feedback. Sometimes simply asking questions like if there's a formal sign-up process can be enough to open doors for pushing for change, especially if you ask the right person at the right time, where raising it at a meting might not get much traction so be mindful of this and remember that there are many different avenues for feedback and change - indentifying them accurately and choosing them wisely can make a world of difference.

Unfortunately there's always going to be a degree of dysfuction and counterproductivity in an org. That's just the way of things. There are internal contradictions within all orgs that hold them back and it's only through a process of identifying them and working through them that they can be resolved and the org can function better. This can be a very arduous process, although an extremely important one too. (To be like water, as they say, can be extremely useful for bringing about change in an org.) And the worst part about it is that new contradictions are produced when the current ones are resolved, but that's part of a vital org that is growing and making progress. I can't tell you how much dysfunction is tolerable for you nor how much dysfunction makes an org a lost cause but it's something that you can only really figure out yourself experientially. I can understand how frustrating it is as a newcomer to see all of these problems and so many different areas of need as well as the potential that the org could have yet seeing little progress or movement. My advice to you would be to use the experience of bringing fresh eyes to the org and to write down all of the things that would improve the org. Keep that document but keep it private. Try to take a long view of this and study the problems in the organization to develop your skills as an organizer - the mode of communication might not suit people's preferences, there might be one single big group chat or email chain that makes communication impenetrable and messy or there might be a thousand different channels that divide things up unnecessarily, or it might be that people are burned out or that you don't get a response because nobody in the org knows who is responsible for it. There are a thousand different reasons why communication in the org, for example, is really not great. When it comes to figuring out why that is, try to approach it from an objective angle - don't assign blame, don't get too invested in it emotionally (that only leads to frustration and other unhelpful feelings), but instead approach it like a technician or a consultant or an engineer would - it's not working optimally but there are ways to improve its function and the first task is figuring out what it's supposed to be doing and then to start coming up with ways to modify it so it will work better. Then it's about figuring out what the consequences of tinkering with it will be and if there will be any downstream consequences from these proposed changes. Then if you think you've got the right solution, one that is effective and elegant, you might start driving change in the org from that point.

This has been very rambly and kinda preachy. Idk if it will be of any use to you but take anything that's good in there and leave the rest. I'll think about this and come back to it if I have any other thoughts.

Latin American War
Venezuelan flag

Damn.

Oooh, how did I not put "NATO exodus - at least one country pulls out of NATO" in one of these squares?? What's wrong with me?

You should do a bingo card, doing one was more fun than I thought it would be and it wasn't as easy as I expected. Steal from mine if you're stuck, I'm not bothered, but you should use FALGSConaut's template because it's the superior one (needs a free square tho)

Oh thanks for finding this. Their template is superior.

I found the comment from @FALGSConaut. Thanks for letting me know. Great minds, I guess?

Okay, here's mine:

I'm really out of the loop so let me know if I have a square that has already happened that I was unaware of.

Reminder that these labels, like those awful TV screens on grocery store freezers are expensive and delicate.

I love to see LGBTQ representation: Lesbian, Greek, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer

I have zero proof of this but the timing of the corruption scandal and the way it took some of Zelensky's biggest allies off the board, ones who he worked closely with and who were high up in his administration, right when Trump was putting pressure on Ukraine to sign a peace deal as US support was really drying up feels very coincidental in its timing.

I have no evidence to support this but I'd be flabbergasted if Ukrainian intelligence wasn't working hand in glove with the US intelligence apparatus, same for the corruption watchdog.

It feels likely that they have plenty of dirt on Zelensky and they're positioning to get him out of the picture by isolating him from his powerful allies and now installing their own into the upper echelons of his administration.

I think Budanov has been tapped to become the next president, one who will work in lockstep with the US, who will assume the role if Zelensky isn't compliant enough with US demands or if there's a popular uprising due to war weariness.

I bet you Zelensky will flee to Israel, or at least he will attempt to, under a second wave of the corruption scandal right when there are protests or there's a peak in discontent for whatever reason, (e.g. when the government has left Kiev without electricity for over two weeks and the people have had enough of it.)

I really hope this is how it plays out.

I think you did the right thing even if it turns out to be nothing important. Better to get these things checked out (although your bank balance will beg to differ) because if you have a systemic infection then you're at risk of serious organ damage and shit like that. If it was 24 hours after and you had a mild fever then it's probably not a big concern but days after with serious fever is a different matter.

I'd get blood tests just in case. The timeframe is not a match for seroconversion but if you play rough or on the riskier side then it could be an STI of some type (though I'm not sure what else you've been up to or when.) It's probably something like mononucleosis but it's better not to blow it off if it's been persisting the way you've described.

as a rule, I don’t talk about my offline actions/organizing online.

This is the best policy imo, especially when you're dealing with someone hostile who is demanding that you "prove" you actually walk the talk because:

Doxing yourself is bad but at least you have to live with the consequences of you choosing to comprise your pseudo-anonymity whereas compromising an org is really really bad and everyone has to live with the consequences of your poor choices.
If they are demanding proof then that's sketchy and gives fed vibes.
It sets an expectation that we should be openly talking about our organizing efforts (beyond general "I went to an antiwar demonstration in solidarity with Venezuela" type organizing).
Hostile people will either accuse you of bragging or making things up, so it's a catch-22 situation.
Libs especially have no idea what organizing actually looks like.

To elaborate on the last point I went through a whole guac is extra routine with someone on social media quite a while ago. They kept demanding that I tell them on a public social media platform of all the organizing I've done to "prove" that I actually care about causes and that I'm "allowed" to criticize Kamala Harris legitimately in their eyes (might have been a Russian bot come to disturb the peaceful waters of Yankee politics or something) and I explained that there's no point because they won't have a clue about the orgs I'm referring to and that they don't have websites with hotlines you can call and signup pages like some DNC fundraiser or recuperative "grassroots" "activist" group. They kept pushing and I eventually relented and I said that I've been involved in AFA organizing for a number of years. I was intentionally being opaque and I chose that type of organizing for a reason which soon became apparent.

They immediately run to Google and the first hit they get is to a Wikipedia entry for a cold war AFA group from the Netherlands that went defunct in the 90s or something (revealing a lot about their own search bubble that they exist within - not good for opsec btw) and they started grilling me on my nationality and age so I messed with them for a little bit before I called them out on it, saying that I told them that they don't understand what AFA actually means and that I'm not going to reveal my location and that, like I said earlier, even if you had enough info search this up you wouldn't find anything to verify the org, let alone the actions that have been carried out, let alone that I have participated in organizing in that group because there's no website and there's no meeting minutes that get published online or anything like that. From memory, they seemed to be uncertain about AFA referring to antifascist activism in the first place and they also seemed very skeptical that there was any need for this work (in post-war western Europe btw - deeply unserious.)

I think I eventually got through to them but I knew exactly where it was going to end up from the outset. These are the types of people that consider themselves the resistance btw and they don't even understand that orgs can be underground or semi-underground. Imagine if they found themselves in Chile the day after the coup and they were trying to do some actual organizing for resistance then ask yourself if there's one single thing to be gained by seeking the approval of a political naïf like that.

Anyway if your organizing efforts are done for bragging rights or to "prove" the legitimacy of your politics then this is an extremely lib, individualistic mindset that you have and it makes you a hazard.

Wake me up when he passes legislation that permits nationalizing slumlord rentals if the landlords fail to adhere to the contracts and laws that they are bound to

I had a feeling but I didn't want to make assumptions.

Vegan kimchi queso dip sounds so good. Report back if you remember, I'm interested to hear how it turns out.

The fever really concerns me as that's a solid indication of an infection. And we're talking something internal so that worries me more because you can't really see what's going on and it's going to be close to lots of blood vessels... I'm voting strongly in favor of seeking medical attention. It's been days. If you actually can't walk still then that's not a good sign either.