Reading the Sharks president’s arguments felt like my brain was turning to slurry.

It’s expected nowadays for mirrorless pro cameras to recognize eyes and autofocus on them.

Does it though? Where does the “need” in your sentence come from?

How come the supply chain has no slack to allow for (inevitable) hiccups and accidents? The answer is two part. It used to have them but they were optimized away. It still has them, but you are led to believe they aren’t there because putting this pressure on you allows your bosses to extract more work out of you.

And how come the supply chain is so stressed? Is everything that goes through it so essential that a single late ship is a catastrophe? The answer is obviously not, we are shipping gigatons of drivel across the world that gets immediately forgotten in a drawer or tossed in the bin once it reaches its final destination.

If you are shipping essential goods then there is a safety net of supplies at the destination to absorb any issues in shipping (if there isn’t, clearly these goods were not essential). If you aren’t shipping essential goods, then it’s already factored in global insurance markets, and late shipping is merely someone’s bank account getting bigger at a lesser rate.

Donald Love from III and Vice City is supposedly inspired by Trump.

Voilà qui lui fera la leçon. Qui pensait rester impuni subit un amer retour àla réalité. La République agit de manière ferme et décisive.

How does one get the emulsion started without egg or mustard ?

I love metal but it is famously full of neo-nazis lol. In thrash, Hetfield (Metallica) Mustaine (Megadeth) and King+Araya (Slayer) have all said some heinous stuff. Get into punk if you want an antifa crowd.

I should have been clearer sorry. Wearing a helmet is obviously better in a crash; but, both personally and societally, not wearing one decreases the chances of getting in a crash in the first place.

Helmets are bad for safety because (1) car drivers act more dangerous around cyclists wearing helmets and (2) they discourage people from riding bikes whereas the primary safety factor of cycling, by far, is the number of people cycling.

The idea is the land belongs to everyone, and each is entitled to make use of their fair share of it by simple virtue of being human. You wouldn’t “own” your home in such a society, merely be the current inhabitant of it. If you are familiar with these legal concepts, think of the entirety of humanity having naked ownership of the entire planet, and people having usufruct of what they can actually use.

An example that might help clarify: imagine a trucker working for a logistics company that lends her a truck for long hauls. This trucker might tell people “yeah, it’s my truck” in that she drives it and maintains it and sleeps in it and uses it all the time. Yet legally speaking, the truck belong to the company, which itself belongs to its shareholders — people who might not even have ever seen the truck in question, and only care for the profits it might bring through the work performed with it. One is ownership through usage and the other the current legal concept of propriety; they are in fact quite different.

People coming to your home and changing stuff without your agreement wouldn’t be OK since the freedom of one person stops where that of another begins. How that would be enforced is a an open question — left-anarchism advocates organization without hierarchy, which means it would be possible to form citizen courts and militias, which might belong to a federation for nation-wide or world-wide coordination without a state body. But we should remember the main point of all this however is to remove the main reasons theft is a thing in the first place (along with rectifying the greatest theft of all time), so it can be questioned how much enforcement would be necessary. Certainly not to the current extent where society must bear the weight of the state maintaining a land registry, escrow officers, dedicated justice system, police force, and army to defend it all.

These concepts of “fair share” and deserving of material wealth by mere existence are very weak or absent in our current system, which is built on the core idea that only immaterial things (rights) are granted by default to everyone, and material wealth is only acquired through contracts (work, inheritance, purchase — all these from people who do have all the material wealth one seeks).

You are correct in pointing out that, without a critical mass of adherents, left-anarchism cannot function. However this simply means that rather than being an ideology imposed from above by politicians, it is one that must be adopted by actual people. For this reason left-anarchists usually believe in contributing to local free associations (not necessarily political), promoting horizontal organization there through example, and therefore building a “revolution” from the bottom up rather than from the top down as advocated by some leftist groups.

Yes, this is a long established left-anarchist position. A foundational text is Proudhon’s 1840 What is Property? if you’re curious.

Current property regimes were established illegitimately by violence: manifest destiny in the US, the Norman conquest in Britain, the Frankish conquest in France, etc. Even back then they were to the detriment of the many and the benefit of a few, and since property tends to accumulate (through inheritance and moral persons) this only amplified over time. Today this regime is backed by the state’s monopoly on violence. So effectively most of us are born in a world where violent gangs stole all the land for themselves hundred of years ago and any attempt to overturn this is met by violence from their legal descendants.

Note this doesn’t apply to personal property (legitimized by usage: your home, clothing, toothbrush, etc), but only to the state-backed legal regime of property such as owning land or companies.

Being tired is normal and I can only understand the feeling, but if there’s one hope it is through collective action, not individualism. Any individual or family will inevitably lose against the overwhelming power of corporations or the state.

Step 1: make some kind of surveillance & control system that is voluntary

Step 2: make life for those who dont want it less convenient (you are here)

Step 3: make non-participation in the system be in itself suspicious and a cause for further investigation

Weber did mean to legitimize the state but his reasoning can easily be turned from prescriptive to descriptive: we define the state as merely the entity with monopoly on violence over an area. Who decides what is “legitimate” violence? Why, the state, of course: by definition, it has the means to impose its views.

The Weberian idea is there are legitimate non-violent politics that the state offers itself to, which therefore allow the state to use violence against unlegitimate politics that don’t “play by the rules”. However since the state itself decides what is legitimate or not, and since any illegitimate political group will turn illegal else disappear when faced with the violence of the state, we just land back where we started: the state has a monopoly on violence and that is what decides what is “legitimate” politics, and therefore what is legitimate violence. The state calls its own violence “law”, but that of others “crime”.

The current labelling of political opponents as terrorists by the US government is illustrative of that. Some Weberians have you believe that is all legitimate since after all there indeed was an election

I agree people (Americans?) are idealizing the french in this regard. But you’re yourself misinformed.

Napoleon did shoot royalists with cannons in 1795, when he wasn’t yet in power. It didn’t stop the 1830 or 1848 revolutions happening, nor the 1871 commune. More recently the 1968 protests were accompanied by a general strike which did scare the hell of many people.

What we need is a pragmatic and informed assessments of events so that we can decide what might work and what won’t. National stereotypes and prejudices should be discarded.

Airplane fuel is basically untaxed worldwide due to the Chicago convention. But also infrastructure costs for HSR are very high and scale with distance whereas the opposite is true for planes.

The state calls its violence law, and that of others crime. (to paraphrase Stirner)

In China it was the Communists who walked the death march.

I was unaware communists were an ethnic group. But I guess if their predecessors had a hard time in a civil war 80 years ago it means they can’t be racists now.

In North America, unlike South America and Tibet or Xinjiang, the people don’t look native. It’s not very similar.

Ah yes, let’s set state policy based on what people look like.

That’s how everyone makes money. They produce a good or service and get paid accordingly.

That is quite a load-bearing use of “accordingly”. You’re allowed your opinions, but don’t make it seem the relationship between work and money is straightforward and neutral. You’re allowed to believe that a streetsweeper or farmer should make less money than Taylor Swift but that is very much not an obvious thing that everyone agrees on.

The blue track is voting democrat, the red republican, the green third party.

The meme is saying whatever way one votes, the us government will still support Israel in spite of what the ICJ calls a “plausible” ongoing genocide of the Palestinians, especially in the Gaza strip. And calls for destroying the system.