Maybe ashes of the singularity, the engine is amazing, it had so much potential. But the story is 
, and even if you buy that, it’s bland and uninteresting.
In the end it didn’t get the attention it could have had. Yes, part of that was the insane system requirements, but it was also the dog shit packaging.
If he didn’t want to die he shouldn’t have invaded another country.
But sea fish and crustaceans are also harvested from the sea and not salty. As long as it hasn’t been too long, the salt will just be superficial and easily washed. But you are right, maybe they were floating a long time in the sea.
As for the rotting, you want them to rot completely before you use them as fertilizer.
That’s a substantial improvement then. Amazing that she can form coherent sentences now.
Fresh water fish, and even oceanic fish isn’t supposed to be salty. Squid are, but fish and crustaceans are fine.
Nha, that’s way too coherent. Does not sound like she is high at all.
I get what you mean. As other people in the tread have said, the relationship between a proletarian and production is wage labor. Mobility is indeed an important part of that, as well as being a nominally free individual. So it’s not so much what job they are doing, or their other social relationships.
But these liminal examples do rise the concern that our definitions can be too rigid.
I thought of 2 other related points between my last post and this one. The first is about tenancy. As the marginal productivity of agricultural workers falls, the become landless, and eventually end up working the land for a fee or corvee. The same conditions that correlate with tenancy also do so with proletarisation, the difference in outcomes for different regions seems to be related to mobility, and the development of nearby urban networks.
The second was about eastern European serfs, who had become tenants, tied to the land and owed the landlord a corvee. But as agricultural productivity fell with respect to labor productivity on urban areas, landlords decided it was more profitable to let the serfs work in the city and then pay them a fee. So these people belonged to 2 different contexts, on the one hand their relationship to production was that of proletarians, on the other they were also explored by the landlord who had customary rights over them.
This is another example of how definitions can become too rigid, and can’t represent Al the nuances of the real world. At the same time clear definitions help us understand the difference in this case between the material and customary relationships. In this example the landlords went to the dustbin of history because they no longer had an economic base.
I think both are the products of vastly different demographic and productive contexts. The slave is economically viable when the difference between the average productivity of labor(which is the value produced by labor) and the marginal productivity of labor(which liberal economists consider equal to the wage, they are wrong but for simplicity let’s say they are close enough) is very low. This forces the overlord to apply maximum coercion in order to extract surplus. But coercion is expensive, so as the gap between these 2 quantities grows naked coercion is relaxed. Until you get to a “free market”. But even the reserve army of labor is a form of coercion since it serves too keep wages under the mpl.
So from an economic perspective being a slave and a proletariat are at opposite ends of economic conditions.
Note that this gap is defined by the productive technology but it does not necessarily mean that the gap grows as society advances technologically.
Also note that this also applies to high value slaves like the ones in the medieval Islamic societies, that were generals, scribes and administrators.
I do agree parmesan is the king of cheese. They made a cheese that’s exactly the same but without the origin brand shenanigans in Uruguay and argentina. It’s much cheaper to buy that one.
I’d like to clarify that Korea has the correct position, as they generally do.
He probably went to a catholic school.
The Peloponnesian war was arguably much more impactful than the Persian wars. It did affect the relations of production, almost 2 thirds of Athenian citizens died, and wages for craftsmen went from 7 liters of grain equivalent wich is sort of average for a pre industrial society to 15, Wich is insanely high. This kept slavery, and the associated superstructure economically viable. So no Peloponnesian war probably means Greece transitions away from a slave society into some form of tenancy much earlier. As well as greater efforts for Greek colonisation of Ukraine and the Mediterranean.
What impact does this have in the world? Probably not much. They would break away eventually and a new war between them may have the same demographic effect.
On the other hand a Feudal society may be more amenable to Persian rule, and may cause alexander to not exist. Making the empire last longer.
On the gripping hand, even if there is no alexander the empire is not going to last much longer either. There was an agrarian crisis shortly after Alexander’s conquest, that would have happened anyway. so it’s likely that would cause it’s fall in this alt history, so at best they get 20 years more. And there would still be an Hellenistic world in the eastern Mediterranean afterwards.
Weren’t there us troops involved? I remember someone posted a video of “Ukrainians” speaking English with an American accent going around some building in Kursk.
That part of Iran is also very beautiful, it’s a rainforest, with great climate.
The true revolution consists of the emancipation of the means of production from their organic oppressors.
You should support the polisarios tho.
Not in this case, he’s right, we may not like it, but he’s right in this instance.
This is a brain on liberalism
Its much worse than you think. It’s all silicon valley ideology about how these characters modeled after venture capitalists are so smart and the next step for humanity. Not even the hogs eat that slop any more.