If you abandon it completely something else might rise up - but funding/participating only up to a point, it works to suppress it - see Ukraine aid policies aswell
I went from pro to max because I hve been hitting limits, I could tell they were reducing it because I used to go multiple hours on pro but now its like 3. Congrats Anthropic you got $100 more out of me, at the cost of irrecoverable goodwill
For what it's worth, when Cursor downgraded their Claude limits in the middle of my annual subscription term, I emailed them to ask for a pro-rated refund, and it was granted. You may be able to do something similar with Claude Code.
Changing the terms of the deal midway through a subscription to make it much less valuable is a really shady business practice, and I'm not sure it's legal.
Communism is an ideal but never a reality. What you see in reality is at best an attempt at communism which is quickly derailed by corruption and greed. I mean, it's great to have ideals, but you should also recognize when those ideals are completely impractical given the human condition.
By the way, this also applies to the "Free market" ideal...
Importantly, problems with the ideal shouldn't preclude good actions that take us in a direction.
There being problems with absolute libertarian free markets doesn't mean all policies that evoke the free market ideal must be disregarded, nor does the problems with communism mean that all communist actions must be ignored.
We can see a problem with an ideal, but still wish to replicate the good parts.
Sure. The issue for me is when people intentionally mislabel something to make it look worse.
For example, mislabelling socialism as communism. The police department, fire department, and roads are all socialist programs. Only a moron would call this communism and yet for some reason universal healthcare...
There's also this nonsense when someone says "That's the free market at work", and I'm like, if we really lived in a free market then you'd be drinking DuPont's poison right now.
Using the words "Communism" and "Free market" just show a (often intentional) misunderstanding of the nuance of how things actually work in our society.
The communism label must be the most cited straw man in all of history at this point.
There is nothing ideal about communism. I'd rather own my production tools and be as productive as I want to be. I'd rather build wealth over trading opportunities, I'd rather hire people and reinvest earnings. That is ideal.
That's not a problem anymore. I live in a 2nd world country. Every farmer has a phone, anyone who wants can get their child a laptop. Just because I don't have access to machines which build plane engines doesn't mean I have the right to complain about proletariat. People who invented, invested, earned and built the damn things own them. If that's "dictatorship" that's fine.
You are deceiving yourself. A phone and a laptop is not the means of production. It is a small part of it. You forget electricity, internet, data centers.
In a rentier economy, the plutocracy slowly take control of all these things and then increase the rent they charge to the rest of us.
This was part of Marx's analysis, as I'm sure you are aware.
Free market capitalism is great, but it has to balanced with regulation or it evolves into feudalism.
I think you're missing the point. Communism doesn't actually exist in the real world. In fact you are right now using it as a straw man (my entire point).
Who in the actual real world with any authority at all is telling you you can't be as productive as you want to be, build wealth, hire people, and reinvest your earnings?
I responded to the main points in the communist manifesto. It is clearly against putting a price on labor and declares hiring as exploitative practice. Clearly against individual capital. Clearly against individual products since capital is a "social power". That manipulative weasel. I can't even own a frickin laptop because it is a means of production and thus "state-owned".
Just because it hasn't been "successfully implemented" according to your personal opinion doesn't mean it cannot be scrutinized.
That's like if there is a sign that says "do not cross 3km/h" when someone says "that's too slow" you go "a-hah! straw man! How do you know you can't go 300kmph with that in place? nobody implemented that sign before!". Socrates would be proud.
> I responded to the main points in the communist manifesto.
OK but that's irrelevant to my post. There's lots of books and manifestos that say lots of stupid things. You're arguing as if this manifesto is a real threat, and I'm saying "show me this threat". This isn't a real person with any impact on your day to day, like say a politician. It's a fantasy opposition.
> Just because it hasn't been "successfully implemented" according to your personal opinion doesn't mean it cannot be scrutinized.
OK sure, where? Where is this real world communism that meets the manifesto you are railing against?
> That's like if there is a sign that says "do not cross 3km/h" when someone says "that's too slow" you go "a-hah! straw man! How do you know you can't go 300kmph with that in place? nobody implemented that sign before!". Socrates would be proud.
OK that's an awkward analogy. It's more like someone wrote a manifesto that said cars shouldn't go over 3km/h and you want to use this "slow manifesto" to argue that any laws that would slow you down are some sort of slippery slope in to "slowmunism".
No one with any authority in the real world is trying to implement the communist manifesto on to you. Not even the terrifying Bernie Sanders wants anything to do with communism. For the love of god, there is no communist threat. You can relax.
The communist manifesto is what basically communism is. It is a real document billions swear by.
But I get it. You are basically arguing that nothing and nobody exists or ever existed or do or does anything to anything or anyone or had any ideas and arguing ideas or what people do or could do or would do is pointless.
Well, have fun with that. Sorry all this thread space was a waste.
> But I get it. You are basically arguing that nothing and nobody exists or ever existed or do or does anything to anything or anyone or had any ideas and arguing ideas or what people do or could do or would do is pointless.
And so now you are just putting words in my mouth I assume because you have no argument. I can’t even parse this.
You started an argument with a stance I never took by railing against a bogeyman I never advanced. And now you’re doing it again.
If communism was anything more than an impractical ideal then you should have been able to point out where it actually exists. But of course it doesn’t exist. It’s just a fantasy. Maybe you want it to exist so you can point a finger and say “see what happens when you don’t do what I want?”?
Productivity multiplies x2
You keep your job x0.5
Your salary x0.8 (because the guy we just fired will gladly do your job for less)
Your work hours x1.4 (because now we expect you to do the work of 2 people, but didn’t account for all the overhead that comes with it)
Equity is a lottery ticket. Is sacrificing my happiness or life balance in the near term worth the gamble that A) my company will be successful, and B) that my equity won’t have been diluted to worthlessness by the time that happens? At higher levels of seniority/importamce/influence this might make sense, but for most people I seriously doubt it does, especially early in their careers.
As a non-founder / not a VC you max get a few percentage points, and its mostly paper toilet money until there's an exit or IPO, and the founders will always try to squeeze you if they can, not because they're bad people, but because the system incentivises it. (you'll keep getting diluted in future rounds)
tbh, if im gonna bust my ass I'd rather own the thing.
Capitalism is exactly about amassing capital to make others reliant on capitalist providing capital for the tools necessary to do the work, then extracting rent from the value produced.
In true capitalist market you end up with oligarchy.
This is the kind of purity test OP is talking about. Theres no chance (in your mind) they might have a point or valid feelings, theyre just evil for being against the group mentality. Exactly the kind of politics that plays out everywhere across academia, its not to everyones taste and has several inefficiencies - otherwise successful startups would be run by committees
People don’t like “government run health care”. But will fight tooth and nail for Medicare, Medicaid etc. These are the same people who didn’t like “ObamaCare” but want subsidies for their ACA coverage
People like “science” and “research”, but then fight tooth and nail for removing evidenced backed pedagogy like tracking and gifted programs or phonics; or forcing bad economic ideas like rent control.
Good thing all these absolutely terrible ideas only exist in one party.
I was in a gifted program. But it ends up often being segregation by another name where the well connected can get there kids into them even if they aren’t “gifted” to keep their kids away from “those kids” and you end up giving funding and the best teachers to those kids.
Something similar happen to me. I was smart enough to be in gifted programs in high school. But I got into magnet school in middle school (which was supposed to be to be based on a waiting list) because my mom tutored the child of the admission officer years before.
It’s just like people being against affirmative action for college admission but never say a word about legacy admissions.
And it’s not liberals who oppose research based education, common core, etc. Trump just basically dismantled the department of education and conservative states are mostly concerned with getting rid of books that teach American history including the bad parts and forcing the 10 commandments to be posted and teach that the election was stolen in 2020.
Are you really trying to argue that conservatives want fact based education and not Christianity, Creationism, “The Lost Cause of the Confederacy and it wasn’t about slavery”.
> But it ends up often being segregation by another name
This is an outrageous claim, and you haven’t justified it at all, only suggested that you personally benefitted from nepotism; despite the fact that gifted programs have a history of greatly elevating minorities in this country.
And again, you’re ignoring evidence based pedagogy so you can feel better about yourself and chase a false equality
> Are you really trying to argue that conservatives…
Please call me when you’ve met a conservative more recently than 1990
Again let’s take two examples. I had the highest SAT score in my high school and the second highest in my county the year I graduated. Yes I was kind of smart. But I also had a parent who was not only a high school math teacher who never pushed me to study advanced math and do SAT prep in middle school. But as a person who proctored SAT tests, volunteered to do SAT training and had dozens of books about it before the Internet was a thing, don’t you think I had an advantage?
The second example is my stepson who raised his ACT scores enough to get into the college of his choice after we spent $100 per session for 10 sessions to be tutored one on one by an ex school teacher with a masters.
As far as modern conservatism, today there are states that forcing teachers to display the 10 commandments in school, the Florida education commission (where I live) wanted to teach that slavery was good for Black people.
But you can also look statewide - which states have worse education outcomes - Republican leaning states or Democratic leaning states?
I gave you a citation of one state that is pushing to teach that the election was stolen in 2020.
But again today the Republican administration has department of health and human services run by people with no medical background and are anti-vax.
I am looking at the evidence that you are ignoring.
And in your first reply you mentioned “rent control”. How is that any different from the president imposing tariffs and then telling companies like Walmart and car manufacturers to not raise their prices? That is a form of price control.
The human emotion of spite is an attitude, not a permanent trait we call "evil". I've felt spite. You've felt spite.
I've never killed a national institution out of spite like these people are trying to do with academia. But I yearn to someday eliminate the Forbes 500 list. Does that make me evil? That's a judgement call. How much do you need the Forbes 500 list? How essential is it to your future well-being that those people keep on existing at their current level of wealth? Compare with academia.
I've never ever had any symptoms of schizophrenia but the idea of trying to consciously encourage myself hearing voices is terrifying, Im sure I could send myself truly insane with probably not much effort.
> the idea of trying to consciously encourage myself hearing voices is terrifying,
This is not unreasonable.
It could be less awful if the voices were positive and not harsh and negative. Schizophrenics outside the US were found to have a more benign relationship with their voices.
The striking difference was that while many of the African
and Indian subjects registered predominantly positive experiences
with their voices, not one American did. Rather, the U.S. subjects
were more likely to report experiences as violent and hateful – and
evidence of a sick condition.
I once accidentally came up with another conscious voice in my head & we decided to govern through the 12 traditions of Codependents Anonymous. She also had specific qualities I'd chosen 3 weeks prior as qualities I chose to believe I could come to embody, so that was an interesting pointer to what's possible.
And as others have pointed out, it really depends what kind of programming you're carrying around. Feeling terrified of something isn't the issue...it's how you've trained to respond to terror that matters. If you lash out or avoid, yeah....don't cultivate multiple voices. If, instead, you're choosing to purge the addiction to violence & domination fairly rooted in American imperial colonial indoctrination, it's really quite something. I'm now working on bringing in 16 others as a way to better connect with different parts of the population and spread this and other blackness-embracing ways.
Hearing/seeing things that aren't there has historically for the majority of humanity's time on Earth not been an issue. We can get back to living in such ways, especially since doing so can be extremely helpful.
as did Eugen Bleuler. I have a friend who is schizophrenic whose speech hardly makes sense and she is always calling people on the phone and carrying on nonsensical conversations. Somehow the general public is hung up on ‘hearing voices’ but I have never once heard a voice but under stress I (schizotypal) did once spend about six months under the influence of a ‘system of delusions’ yet stayed mostly functional, kept working, and managed to avoid getting in serious trouble.
I think it is quite ordinary also for people to have a dialogue with an ‘invisible friend’ or believe that they ‘talk to God’ when they pray, the auditory hallucinations of schizophrenia seem to be something like you have a thought that you don’t think is your thought but somebody else talking, notably schizophrenics often believe that somebody is putting thoughts into them or taking thoughts out of them, see
It's like gang-stalking--its not that there's something being introduced, but rather that the subject sees relations that are not objective relations (like, for instance, the relation between temperature, pressure, and state change). Typically, however (and I can't imagine a case where this didn't happen), the relations are social in character--and since social relations are subjective to the extent that all the social world is not expressly a fact, it can be difficult to differentiate between an illusion and a reality: people imagine their partners are cheating on them, whether or not its true. And there are many things we do not know about the social world around us; but, statistically speaking, nobody has ever actually been gang-stalked.
Yes their moat is the brand, drunk women will get in an Uber and feel safe because corporate is ultimately putting their name on the line every ride. Nobody will feel safe dealing directly with random strangers.
This. Also, Waymo, if they keep scaling, is going to eat their lunch in this market. No human in the drivers seat is ultimately the solution to this problem.
Waymo costs more in areas where it operates right now yet I've heard people swear by it and state that they don't care how much more it costs, they'll always use a Waymo over an Uber or Lyft.
Which is a surprising viewpoint for those of us who don't have the safety concerns others may have but when you think about it, it makes complete sense.
Some searching suggests it’s not that far from 50:50 in terms of actual rides. Uber drivers average well under 20 hours per week. Taxi have significantly fewer drivers working much longer hours, but they dominate very short trips.
Makes sense to me. There is a lot of existing infrastructure anticipating cab companies. Airports, stadiums, hotels, resorts, etc. all with dedicated cab lines that can get you seated in a vehicle in seconds.
The ride apps solve the biggest concerns. They have driver ratings so you can see verification from many other riders that the driver is good and they have upfront pricing. Taxi's have started to use apps but at this point the trust is pretty much broken to anyone that's experienced the old "My meters not working but I'll give you a special rate" type of shit.
Essentially Taxi drivers are the random strangers over the apps with ratings and reviews from other riders showing clearly.
Given the quality of drivers and cars I have experienced, the ratings mean nothing.
Instead, I do get comfort in knowing that there is a database timestamped entry linking myself with an Uber driver identifier. Should something happen, I could theoretically complain/give a lead so investigators can locate my murdered body. Random cab is more anonymous and feels more dangerous in unfamiliar territory.
reply