Starfleet is not anarchist. There are admirals. There are federation laws and judges (1st directive, in strange new worlds, laws against eugenics). Those laws and positions of power are decided on a federal level. How do you do that in an anarchist organization?
I fail to see how a federation can not be a representative government (because different worlds have different political systems, representative democracy is the only one that can make them all on an equal footing).
I certainly don’t know much about anarchism, but different planets in the federation can and do have different kinds societies.
If we consider the vulcan in brace new world for example, their society seems very much aristocratic for example, where influence gives authority and power. I doubt the klingon are anarchists either. And in lower deck, the orions have a monarchy.
The federation is the government of the collection of planets, but each planet still has its own government and culture.
It’s a federation, which means it’s a group of government who decided to get some of their rules and organzations in common. Each government in the federation can be different, although there are some implications for the federation to work: they must recognize the borders and laws of the federation, and they must participate in its function.
Exactly. In some way the software is a lock that ensure the property of the machine stays to the company that built it.
You’re all true until allocating scarce resources. These days economy is how to make scarce something that isn’t in order to profit from it. See copyrights and patents. In our society a replicator would be the property of a company and you would need to pay it to be allowed to use it.
Moor law is dead for a few years now. It’s a fact. It doesn’t mean performances stoped increasing. But they don’t follow the old law. That’s why the industry is shifting to distributed networking.
None of those are major breakthrough. They’re more computing power. It’s still the same technology.
Today llm are the prime candidate for a breakthrough. They still have to prove themselves though, to prove that they’re not just a fancy expensive useless toy like the blockchain.
Risc-v is not meant to be a breakthrough. It’s an evolution.
Internet was a breakthrough. The invention of the mouse was a breakthrough.
Increase in power or in disk space, new languages or os, none of those are breakthroughs. None of those changed how computer programs were made or used.
The smartphone is a significant thing. Wi-Fi is not really important though, because you don’t do anything more with WiFi than you can do with ethernet. The smartphone though and its network, that is a big thing.
There is a lot of fake progress. In computer technology some things were refined, but the only true technological novelty these last 20 years was the containerization. And maybe AI. Internet was the previous jump, but it’s not really a computer technology, and it affect much, much more than that.
And Moor law has already ended some years ago.
I wish your fear were justified! I’ll praise anything that can kill work.
Hallas, we’re not here yet. Current AI is a glorified search engine. The problem it will have is that most code today is unmaintainable garbage. So AI can only do this for now : unmaintainable garbage.
First the software industry needs to properly industrialise itself. Then there will be code to copy and reuse.
I quickly translated the French word. It’s how some people can hate women and believe they’re inferior or crazy or whatever.
What I’m saying in my comment is that the graphs seem much more about feminism vs the opposite than it is about conservatism vs whatever else. Now there is a link between thee two. But saying it’s conservative vs progress is abusive imo and missing the problem.
That’s not an ideology gap, that’s feminism vs machism, by the look of it.
Capitalism arrived at its limit. Now it must do these shitty things to continue to grow profits. Basically it’s now cannibalising itself. Next there will be fascism and war so that it can reboot the machine.
We need to shit down billionaires planes indeed. But we also need to remove all cars that produce co2. Their emissions are significant. It means we won’t survive if we don’t remove them.
The problem you’re touching is the one of whom will pay the price of the transition. And indeed it’d be better if rich people were paying.
In case you missed it, co2 is causing global warming, which has the ability to extinct mankind in the future. EV don’t produce any co2. Some idiots will talk about indirect emissions, but the point is moot. You don’t remove indirect emissions by removing EV, you remove them by cleaning power grid and logistic lines.
EV are a necessity on a short term basis. Developing public transports and alternative to cars are also a necessity.
À trop spécifier ce qu’est le fascisme, on d’aveugle à mon avis.
À l’inverse, le fascisme et le totalitarisme sont deux choses différentes. Alors selon toi, c’est quoi un fascisme non totalitaire ?
Je pense que fascisme décrit très bien le système vers lequel nous poussent l’extrême droite. Et que les références aux régimes de la seconde guerre mondiale devraient insister sur le totalitarisme et l’autoritarisme. Ça permettrait également de traiter correctement l’urrs de Staline qui était totalitaire bien avant d’être communiste.
Pour moi, le fascisme est une pente glissante qui mène vers le totalitarisme. Mais il y a une progression : d’abord le fascism, puis l’autoritarisme, et enfin le totalitarisme.
And this is completely beside the point.
I was talking about your assertion about statistics. It’s complete bullshit because statistics don’t differentiate between biology and culture by themselves.
Hopefully this shorter version is easier to understand.
Your comment is mostly wrong. There are differences in biology, but it comes down to Y chromosome basically. Most differences are cultural.
Cultural differences lead to huge differences in the observable statistics. That’s the mistake you make in your comment: observable statistics can’t make the difference between a cultural or biological origin for anything. Because behaviour (and this culture) will immensely affect the biology. Like doing sport or washing your hands or diet or whatever.
Teams rarely works well internally.
Oh so managers are biological LLMs! It explains everything!