Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T
Posts
0
Comments
6
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • (catches your foot as you try to float away and lifts the finger annoyingly)

    I wonder if the comparison serves the argument.

    Newtons writings about gravity are indeed "not super accurate in the here and now".

    What I am referring to is ofc Einsteins findings about gravity (general-relativity) which do render Newton's findings inaccurate. In fact all of Newton's findings regarding physics (not mathematics) are in the strictest sense false, all of classical physics is. They are an approximation that in most circumstances provide an accurate-enough depiction of things, yet these approximations don't hold in all circumstances and hence are not the "real" laws that nature adheres to. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are able to describe all phenomena Newton described (by arriving at the very same formula's) and cover the circumstances where classical physics breaks down. They describe the "real" physics of nature, or at least they do to the degree we know today. Their combination remains the last hurdle of the "standard model" of physics, which eventually will provide the accurate model of the universe and all things in it, should it ever be discovered.

    That being said: Newtonian (classical) physics is used everywhere where Quantum-effects and relativity are irrelevant, which covers a lot of everyday life. In those circumstances they yield the same results as Quantum-mechanics and Einsteins formulas yet are infinitely more practical. So one could phrase Newtonian physics as "correct under the right circumstances", which is a phrasing that also applies to Lenin's analysis.

    In the end all we ever have are models that break down at some point, science has simply been able to map out the constraints under which Newton's (classical) models hold truth. For Lenin's theory the same applies although the constraints are different.

    Newton's models hold truth at low speeds and large (but not too large) scales. Lenin's models hold truth under the assumption that (monopoly) capitalism is the dominant force of production. Some of his concrete findings are obviously more constrained in time than Newtons (as human history changes faster than the laws of physics which hopefully are constant) and some of Newton's concepts were inherently flawed compared to Lenin's: Time and space simply work differently, but for concepts like capital and states no similarly transformative descriptions have emerged (Although some supplementation to account for the coordinating effects of a US-centered transatlantic ruling class, as the tricontinental research institute has attempted with hyper-imperialism is necessary).

    To conclude: We have to be weary of the limits of both models, yet most of the circumstances both authors assumed are present in today's world. Both theory's have something relevant to teach and both models have predictive accuracy within the realm where their assumptions are valid. So all in all I would deem the comparison apt.

    (let's go of your foot and let's you float away in peace)

  • I think you're absolute right. It's so crazy how deeply capitalism is poisoning us as humans.

    Other modes of production ofc also imposed a superstructure on the individual, but nothing twists our minds like capitalism does. Because nothing required it to that extend. And most of the stuff is generational. The alienation of the worker that intrudes into every aspect of interpersonal life, the sense of self-worth that is commodified, individualism fooling you into viewing the cure to your issues as the problem, the list goes on and on.

    And all of this is generational, parents and teachers ingraining systemic anxiety into children, families atomizing to the point of being non-existent, workers enslaving themselves in their own mental prisons unable to get out even if they see it, because it has reached the roots of their self-worth and has crippled their facilities for communal relationships.

    We really do need loving, communal support by each other to trace back to our humanity and to be able to fight this together. And then heal that multi-generational capitalist trauma we all suffer from.

  • An aside that's probably neither here nor there. ...but is anyone else annoyed by today's obsession with looks?

    Creator has shit politics, but some talent too. Yet their profile is their attempt at the best jawline they can muster (and obv the song is about looks).

    I (subjectively) remember a time when it was frowned upon to openly be all about looks. Now it seems cute to obsess over it? Thanks instagram?!

    For a brief period this may felt kind of fresh, as if allowing for honesty where people would have been anxious to be branded superficial.

    Now it feels like people are ...well, just superficial. ...and I really don't find it cute amymore.

  • says the US supporter

    ...tune in tomorrow for the latest from "every accusation is a confession"

  • Deleted

    #Vim #Meme

    Jump
  • Emacs keybinds are fine, used them for some years. But once I tried modal bindings I never wanted to go back, "key-chords" just add strain.

    Fortunately emacs has many options for modal keybindings, I prefer meow over vim personally

  • Damn. Their last "stance" was like them eagerly byting on a cyanide capsule after somebody asked them for the time.

    Geopolitics [...] is obviously reactionary to everyone who understands Marxism

    TIL Lenin didn't understand Marxism and was reactionary