• 0 Posts
  • 89 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle





  • Capitalism isn’t unique in perpetuating injustice, but it certainly excels at it, with passive exponentiality and unprecedented scalability.

    Regarding comparison to planned economies, I was solely referring to resource distribution. Planned economies (including the planned aspects of mixed economies) typically have significantly more equitable distribution of resources than capitalism. Certainly there is still massive inequality, but it is far less than capitalism. E.g. the Gini index for USSR/Russia basically doubled when capitalism replaced communism.


  • Amplifying that last point:

    • Capitalism amplifies and perpetuates injustice. E.g. descendants of both enslaving and enslaved are receiving exponentially multiplied effects of actions 100+ years ago.
    • Because wealth is power, concentrated wealth often receives far better than average returns by rigging systems in its favor.

    Even ignoring these perversions, capitalism is terrible at answering the economic question, “for whom to produce.” This isn’t much of a change relative to previous systems, but it compares unfavorably in this regard to planned economies.


  • RustyEarthfire@lemmy.worldtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldGrowing a personality
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    bought in exchange for political capital

    That’s a very uncharitable assumption of his motivations.

    Dropping out of an (FPTP) primary is like awkward manual runoff voting. Once you clearly aren’t winning, you drop out so those votes can flow to the next preferred candidate.

    People voting for Buttigieg switched to Biden because he was the most similar candidate. Of course Buttigieg would support the candidate that best matches his policy preferences – and the preferences of voters.











  • Thanks for the link and breakdown.

    It sounds like a better description of the estimated thinking speed would be 5-50 bits per second. And when summarizing capacity/capability, one generally uses a number near the top end. It makes far more sense to say we are capable of 50 bps but often use less, than to say we are only capable of 10 but sometimes do more than we are capable of doing. And the paper leans hard into 10 bps being a internally imposed limit rather than conditional, going as far as saying a neural-computer interface would be limited to this rate.

    “Thinking speed” is also a poor description for input/output measurement, akin to calling a monitor’s bitrate the computer’s FLOPS.

    Visual processing is multi-faceted. I definitely don’t think all of vision can be reduced to 50bps, but maybe the serial part after the parallel bits have done stuff like detecting lines, arcs, textures, areas of contrast, etc.