Ich übernehm das mal, geht ja schnell:
https://nitter.net/_FriedrichMerz/status/1687762994720075776
Great news! I really hope for the people of Niger that they can avoid a gruesome proxy/civil war that the western colonial powers seem keen on forcing upon them
I agree, the best thing is to not jump to conclusions neither the conclusion "Everything is 100% CIA lies" nor the conclusion "China bad" and be patient with individual topics before stepping onto the emotional roller coaster
I've listened to a podcast ("Silk and Steel") by a Chinese living in the US and he describes the media coverage of China in the West as skewed, but he describes it as narrowed onto a certain slice of Chinese reality that is there just blown out of proportion.
I don't remember his exact words and I am not an English native so I might not transfer the nuance precisely. But along those lines is what I remember. And even IIRC its just the opinion of one person, but it stuck with me. Tbf that was years ago though and narrative has certainly picked up since then
Thank you for the appreciation, I have to say I have yet to get used to the discussions on lemmy being seemingly way more good-faithed than on reddit!
Also your summary sounds like ChatGPT
Nah they have a typo ("anit-China") in their summary I think they're fine.
As long as you don't question that the enemies of US imperialism deserve it you should be mostly fine. The big geopolitical topics are more sensitive.
I was permabanned from multiple subs for sharing this telegraph article for example:
It differs from sub to sub but the bigger and more political the stronger the imperial narrative is enforced.
r/worldnews is one of the worst, and honestly suspect its astroturf and run by assets or a derivative of an imperial institution (council on foreign relation, think tanks, the likes)
There was obviously never a communist state as you have correctly depicted communism is a goal. No argument there.
I also agree that you can make the point the USSR wasn't socialist, but that was also not what I was arguing for. (Spoiler: I describe the USSR as "state socialist")
I was arguing against calling the USSR capitalist, even state capitalist, and I stand by it.
the desire to use the words by their meaning
Capitalism is defined through private (not personal) property -- There was no private property. I think that should be enough to dismiss the notion the USSR was capitalist in amy capacity. But it also lacked competitive markets, "free" price systems and a ubiquitous profit motive, finance capital and certainly more characteristics.
Regarding the ownership of the means of production: I already agreed with you that it was not owned by the workers. However, being state owned, it was public ownership. You can say that isn't totally fair to you bc the name implies a level of participation of the people in the state which wasn't there, but their collective interests still somewhat mattered where today rules the profit motive (i.e. housing). That is not to say that planning, production and distribution did not fail the people often, they certainly did.
Since we were also talking about intent to build up a socialist system: When you look at it in the early days when it started out as a soviet republic, with worker soviets sending delegates to parent soviets cascading and culminating into the supreme soviet, the idea certainly was to create a state with (if not control then) direct expression of the workers interests. In that sense state ownership would be justified much more. This is also what has led me to call the system "state socialism".
The soviet union did definitively degrade hence I concede that it is well possible that initial intent to build socialism did not exist in late stage USSR leadership, I don't know much about that, to be honest and if that is what you experienced as a child I believe you.
But that this intent drove the initial conception should be obvious or do you think the writings of Lenin/Stalin and the internationals were all a big charade to get to power?
The degradation of the USSR, the communist party specifically, is one point why I mentioned the soviet union is an example to learn from. I believe Maoists have derived from that the principle of self-revolution within the party.
In the end to rationally learn from it is the important part, as long as we can do that it isn't important how its economic system is called or even if it was "good" or "evil" or whatever. And while I have opinions they honestly aren't always strongly held, as there is a lot to learn. Its just a mechanism of online discussions and them being overwhelmingly bad-faithed that brings that out
Okay seriously guys! Who let John Bolton join lemmy?
Also take note of the arrogance of the claim to know and declare another nations complete cultural identity.
To give them a chance I have asked them to clarify but I am pretty sure they haven't lived in the DPRK
[The USSR] was state capitalism economically
That statement is not valid and I can't understand where its decisiveness comes from. The enonomy was centrally planned, nobody respectable calls the USSR "state capitalist"
Russia was never even close to starting to try to attempt communism
IMO the urge to conclude this comes from having to reconcile two believes: First that "the USSR was evil" and secondly an interest in communism.
People affected can then either decide to denounce communism or reevaluate and deepen their knowledge of the USSR.
The latter option is often incomprehensible, so a third option is contrieved: decoupling one from the other.
I applaud you that you could uphold whatever positive view you hold of communism and instead settle for the last option rather than denouncing communism.
However the USSR obviously absolutely seriously tried to develop their country towards communism. A lot went wrong, mistakes were made even crimes committed.
But you also have to see the context of the times. The statehood is repealed in a revolution and you need to rebuild it. all the while a couple of the strongest nations on earth invade you and fund a civil war in your country also your people are poor. Then the behemoth war machine of the nazis invades. After you beat them, costing you 30 million people, the biggest power in history declares you their enemy.
A lot went extremely well compared to that: No society was ever development that quickly before and only China managed to pull this of as well. For a brief moment in the 60s life expectancy in the USSR was higher than in the US.
Wherever you stand: The USSR is something to learn from, successes and mistakes. Keeping them in the "evil" corner is just falling for propaganda.
You should not be able to decrypt a password, passwords aren't encrypted but hashed, they would be insecure would they be encrypted.
Hashing differs from encryption in that it is irreversible, because two or more strings might result in the same hash if the hashing function is applied to them (hashing is not injective).
But since your password will always yield the same hash you can compare the two hashes and if they are equal you are considered authenticated. If you try to log in with a different password (or even the hash of the correct password) then it will produce a different hash resulting in a failed authentication attempt
The way crackers get a password if they have the hash is by guessing pw candidates and using the hash function on them, if its the same as the hash they have they found the/a valid password. The guessing can be quite involved and with enough time and data about a victim often 12-13 digit passwords with special characters and all can be cracked - If the victim used a somewhat mnemonic pw that is. Generated pws from a password safe are much safer (but usually also longer).
In your case I suspect MS was storing a history of hashes which is not advisable as it gives potential crackers more to work with, but its way less bad then storing plain text or encrypting passwords
I see someone was hypnotised by penguinz0
Srsly though end these hollow phrases.
Competition is not always good. Competition between wage labour drives down wages, competition between countries for capital drives down taxes for the rich. Half of all competition is a thing called "a race to the bottom"
WRT social media networks competition is first and foremost pretty dumb, there is no use for thousands of social networks with 10 users each. A single social medium that is participatory and has regulating mechanisms is way more beneficial (you're using one that tries to live up to that btw)
Whatever little good comes out of the competition between two asshole oligarchs is more than made up be them keeping dominance over peoples means of communication and their attention and selling every datapoint to
Honestly we have to reflect on the propaganda we're told in school and don't just repeat empty phrases.
Just a couple minutes ago I saw the phrase "where there is demand there will be supply" applied to pirates that crack games who are obviously not paid.
There is lots of demand without supply. Peoples starvation is not met by demand, but the demand for facelifts and botox will always be supplied. Bc supply is only created where capital is willing to pay for it
psilocybin
joined 1 year ago
Yank it