Awoo

joined 4 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 2 points 11 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 2 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

I don't see why a tiktok algo couldn't effectively find what you like and what you don't like just as well as it does for video content based on how much of the video you watch, what you skip, whether you "like", etc.

Yes it'll steer people that like mass-conformity and blandness towards mass-conformity and blandness. It will steer people that don't like those things towards other stuff though.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 66 points 11 hours ago (28 children)

A chunk of recent news has been about about why younger boys are turning more conservative while younger girls are not.

Has anyone considered that this is because of the musicians having a reduction in cultural influence? In the past, musicians were the primary cultural influencers of this age group. I think this is still true for women while I think men now primarily get their cultural influences from either videogame influencers or get sucked into manosphere(incelosphere) spaces via sports. I think the pipeline of sports into manosphere (particularly combat sports) is under-discussed.

I wonder too if covid damaging live music played a role in the shift too. Thinking back, the way boys used to try to "get girls" was via music and live gigs and stuff. The music had a positive influence on them. Whereas now they're inundated with shit about dominating and taking women like they're meat by these dickbags that onboard them into incelosphere via combat sports.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 61 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I'll pay them so they can afford something better than a caravan holiday, nobody deserves that.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 14 points 13 hours ago

I use com-rad.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (2 children)

I think it's enough to remove a leg so yeah I think it could blow a hole in the hull too.

Also, a hole in the hull shouldn't cause a crash

Huh I thought it would be more likely to if an explosive depressurisation occurred but apparently not. It would be a means of taking over the plane and pacifying the passengers though, since once pressurisation has been lost the passengers will require oxygen masks in order to remain conscious as long as the plane stays at high altitude. This would force passengers to stay seated, they'd only be able to attempt to regain control of the plane once the altitude has been reduced which presumably would only occur when you're near your destination.

So yeah with like 2 of these devices I think you could take over a plane. One for cockpit entry because they lock the cockpits these days, and another for depressurising the plane and terrorising the passengers.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 28 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (4 children)

If you held the pager in your hand you'd lose the hand and burn your body.

If you had it on your waist your pelvis is getting blown out.

Small but powerful explosion. Think of it like holding a powerful firework vs that firework going off 1 meter from you. You'll be fine (but stunned and bruised) by the nearby explosion vs you will be seriously harmed if it's touching you. That's the difference. People wearing these things were put in critical condition in the hospital or outright killed, others were luckier.

On a flight you could use it to break into the cockpit. It would easily blow the lock on a door if you taped it to the door. Or you could blow the door or window of the plane and crash it. With more than one you could take over a plane, I'm not convinced that passengers these days would sit nicely for anyone doing so though after the use of planes as suicide attacks. People would choose to fight.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 13 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

How do you all find and digest information about Gaza, Lebanon, and the wider movement to oppose "Israeli" settlers and their American backers? Of course I personally ally absorb a mix of mainstream and primary sources, comparing e.g. Reuters to direct Hezbollah and PFLP statements. But how do you personally synthesize this information? Do you do it alone or as a group in your org?

It's not that dissimilar to here if I'm honest about it. People consuming a stream of information, learning to filter out the noise, discussing, and then gradually coalescing around certain thoughts. This tends to happen openly in the org spaces that cater to it and then also have an official group within the org that functions in a steering way. This might be a media section or a theory section, usually as a form of committee with people that have a degree of experience. One of the main things I've seen org members focusing on is trying to hone the ability to recognise what is bullshit and what isn't. This has varying degrees of success tbh. I can't speak for how exactly these groups synthesise the information and make decisions on steering because I've not actually been on one shocked-pikachu.

For the second question. Mostly unanswerable, but it's not illegal for money to go to Palestinians as long as people doing the donating are unaware of it going to a proscribed organisation like PFLP. The nuts and bolts of how you reach and convince an audience to donate money to [insert thing or person here] is not something I can elaborate on but anyone with a creative mind, friends in Palestine, and the willingness to bend the truth can probably come up with some ideas.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 12 points 1 day ago (8 children)

For a little while algorithms actually made it easier to find cool new music but now they've all gone back to profit profit profit.

Music needs a tiktok algorithm.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 86 points 1 day ago (10 children)
[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 36 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The incredible crime of telling someone to log off and touch-grass

 

Chinese soft power created through entertainment can and will climb if they support these industries.

133
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Awoo@hexbear.net to c/history@hexbear.net
 

I was asked for a source on this today. I couldn't find this on hexbear anywhere and other places that do have it have been slowly disappearing or becoming harder to find over time. So I thought I'd preserve it here.

EDIT: Alaskaball has also made a series of comments with excellent book quotes referencing some of these attempts: https://hexbear.net/comment/5288072


May 1924, 23-31 (Marxist Internet Archive, "The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now") ( https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1927/10/23.htm#1)

It is said that in that "will" [Lenin's Testament - ZB] Comrade Lenin suggested to the congress that in view of Stalin's "rudeness" it should consider the question of putting another comrade in Stalin's place as General Secretary. That is quite true. Yes, comrades, I am rude to those who grossly and perfidiously wreck and split the Party. I have never concealed this and do not conceal it now. Perhaps some mildness is needed in the treatment of splitters, but I am a bad hand at that. At the very first meeting of the plenum of the Central Committee after the Thirteenth Congress [Undefined date of this attempt, however, within the Thirteenth Congress and thus anywhere within the 23rd to the 31st - ZB] I asked the plenum of the Central Committee to release me from my duties as General Secretary. The congress itself discussed this question. It was discussed by each delegation separately, and all the delegations unanimously, including Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, obliged Stalin to remain at his post.

What could I do? Desert my post? That is not in my nature; I have never deserted any post, and I have no right to do so, for that would be desertion. As I have already said before, I am not a free agent, and when the Party imposes an obligation upon me, I must obey.

A year later I again put in a request to the plenum to release me, but I was again obliged to remain at my post.

What else could I do?


August 19, 1924 (Grover Furr, Khrushchev Lied, p. 244):

To the Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] RCP [Russian Communist Party]

One and a half years of working in the Politburo with comrades Zinoviev and Kamanev after the retirement and then the death of Lenin have made perfectly clear to me the impossibility of honest, sincere political work with these comrades within the framework of one small collective. In view of which, I request to be considered as having resigned from the Pol[itcal] Buro of the CC.

I request a medical leave for about two months.

At the expiration of this period I request to be sent to Turukhansk region or to the Iakutsk oblast', or to somewhere abroad in any kind of work that will attract little attention.

I would ask the Plenum to decide all these questions in my absence and without explanations from my side, because I consider it harmful for our work to give explanations aside from those remarks that I have already made in the first paragraph of this letter.

I would ask comrade Kuibyshev to distribute copies of this letter to the members of the CC.

With com[munist] greet[ings], J. Stalin.


December 27, 1926 (Grover Furr, Khrushchev Lied, p. 244):

To the Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] (to comrade Rykov). I ask that I be relieved of the post of GenSec [General Secretary] of the CC. I declare that I can work no longer in this position, I do not have the strength to work any more in this position. J. Stalin.


December 19, 1927 (Grover Furr, Khrushchev Lied, p. 245) (https://livrozilla.com/doc/796199/pelo-socialismo):

Stalin: Comrades! For three years [Suggesting there could be more resignation attempts unbeknownst to me - ZB] I have been asking the CC [Central Committee] to free me from the obligations of General Secretary of the CC. Each time the Plenum has refused me. I admit that until recently conditions did not exist such that the Party had need of me in this post as a person more or less severe, one who acted as a certain kind of antidote to the dangers posed by the Opposition. I admit that this necessity existed, despite comrade Lenin's well-known letter [Lenin's Testament - ZB], to keep me at the post of General Secretary. But these conditions exist no longer. They have vanished, since the Opposition is now smashed. It seems that the Opposition has never before suffered such a defeat since they have not only been smashed, but have been expelled from the Party. It follows that now no bases exist any longer that could be considered correct when the Plenum refused to honor my request and free me of the duties of General Secretary. Meanwhile you have comrade Lenin's directive which we are obliged to consider and which, in my opinion, it is necessary to put into effect. I admit that the Party was compelled to disregard this directive until recently, compelled by well-known conditions of inter-Party development. But I repeat that these conditions have now vanished and it is time, in my view, to take comrade Lenin's directive to the leadership. Therefore I request the Plenum to free me of the post of General Secretary of the Central Committee. I assure you, comrades, that the Party can only gain from doing this.

Dogadov: Vote without discussion.

Vorshilov: I propose we reject the announcement we just heard.

Rykov: We will vote without discsussion...We vote now on Stalin's proposal that he be freed from the General Secretaryship. Who is for this proposal? Who is against? Who abstains? One.

The proposal of comrade Stalin is rejected with one abstention.

Stalin: Then I introduce another proposal. Perhaps the CC [Central Committee] will consider it expedient to abolish the position of General Secretary. In our Party's history there have been times when no such post existed.

Voroshilov: We had Lenin with us then.

Stalin: We had no post of General Secretary before the 10th Congress.

Voice: Until the 11th Congress.

Stalin: Yes, it seems that until the 11th Congress we did not have this position. That was before Lenin stopped working. If Lenin concluded that it was necessary to put forward the question of founding the position of General Secretary, then I assume he was prompted by the special circumstances that appeared with us before the 10th Congress, when a more or less strong, well-organized Opposition within the Party was founded. But now we proceed to the abolition of this position. Many people associate a conception of some kind of special rights of the General Secretary with this position. I must say from my experience, and comrades will confirm this, that there ought not to be any special rights distinguishing the General Secretary from the rights of other members of the Secretariat.

Voice: And the duties?

Stalin: And there are no more duties than other members of the Secretariat have. I see it this way; There's the Politburo, the highest organ of the CC; there's the Secretariat, the executive organ consisting of five persons, and all these five members of the Secretariat are equal. That's the way the work has been carried out in practice, and the General Secretary has not had any special rights or obligations. The result, therefore, is that the position of General Secretary, in the sense of special rights, has never existed with us in practice, there has been only a collegium called the Secretariat of the CC. I do not know why we need to keep this dead position any longer. I don't even mention the fact that this position, called General Secretary, has occasioned in some places a series of distortions. At the same time that at the top no special rights or duties are associated with the position of General Secretary, in some places there have been some distortions, and in all the oblasts there is now a struggle over that position among comrades who call themselves secretaries, for example, in the national CCs. Quite a few General Secretaries have developed, and with them in the localities special rights have been associated. Why is this necessary?

Shmidt: We can dismiss them in the localities.

Stalin: I think the Party would benefit if we did away with the post of General Secretary, and that would give me the chance to be free from this post. This would be all the easier to do since according to the Party's constitution there is no post of General Secretary.

Rykov: I propose not to give comrade Stalin the possibility of being free from this position. As concerns the General Secretaries in the oblast and local organs, that should be changed, but without changing the situation in the CC. The position of General Secretary was created by the proposal of Vladimir Il'ich. In all the time since, during Vladimir Il'ich's life and since, this position has justified itself politically and completely in both the organizational and political sense. In the creation of this organ and in naming comrade Stalin to the post of General Secretary the whole Opposition also took part, all those whom we have now expelled from the Party. That is how completely without doubt it was for everyone in the Party (whether the position of General Secretary was needed and who should be the General Secretary). By which has been exhausted, in my opinion, both the question of the "testament" (for that point has been decided) and exhausted by the Opposition at the same time just as it has been decided by us as well. The whole Party knows this. What has changed now after the 15th Congress and why is it necessary to set aside the position of General Secretary.

Stalin: The Opposition has been smashed.

(A long discussion followed, after which:)

Voices: Correct! Vote!

Rykov: There is a proposal to vote.

Voices: Yes, yes!

Rykov: We are voting. Who is for comrade Stalin's proposal to abolish the post of General Secretary? Who is opposed? Who abstains? Noone.


October 16, 1952 (http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1954-2/succession-to-stalin/succession-to-stalin-texts/stalin-on-enlarging-the-central-committee/):

This article was taken from the Russian newspaper Glasnost devoted to the 120th Anniversary of Stalin’s birth, was the last speech at the CC [Central Committee] CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] before Stalin died. The text was being published for the very first time in the Soviet Union...

...MOLOTOV – [Glasnost -] coming to the speaker’s tribune completely admits his mistakes before the CC, but he stated that he is and will always be a faithful disciple of Stalin.

STALIN – (interrupting Molotov) This is nonsense. I have no students at all. We are all students of the great Lenin.

[Glasnost -] Stalin suggested that they continue the agenda point by point and elect comrades into different committees of state.

With no Politburo, there is now elected a Presidium of the CC CPSU in the enlarged CC and in the Secretariat of the CC CPSU altogether 36 members.

In the new list of those elected are all members of the old Politbiuro – except that of comrade A. A. Andreev who, as everyone knows now is unfortunately completely deaf and thus can not function.

VOICE FROM THE FLOOR – We need to elect comrade Stalin as the General Secretary of the CC CPSU and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR.

STALIN – No! I am asking that you relieve me of the two posts!

MALENKOV – coming to the tribune: Comrades! We should all unanimously ask comrade Stalin, our leader and our teacher, to be again the General Secretary of the CC CPSU.


Same attempt (A. I. Mgeladze, Stalin. Kakim ia ego znal. Strannitsy nedavnogo poshlogo. p. 118):

At the first Plenum of the CC [Central Committee] of the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] called after the XIX Congress of the Party (I had been elected member of the CC and took part in the work of this Plenum), Stalin really did present the question of General Secretary of the CC CPSU, or of the post of Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. He referred to his age, overwork, said that other cadres had cropped up and there were people to replace him, for example, N.I. Bulganin could be appointed as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, but the CC members did not grant his request, all insisted that comrade Stalin remain at both positions.

 

I've heard this but can't really search for verification. Supposedly this law forces all Chinese videogames to be set in fantasy settings. Nothing in the real world.

If this law exists I argue it should be removed. It's holding their industry back from making any culturally relevant content because nothing can be set in our world, about real lives, people or places. You'll never get a Death Stranding or Metal Gear out of China while it exists. They should untether their industry so it can produce more of cultural relevance.

Can anyone verify?

 

These have been posted on the site before but the search feature on Lemmy at the moment is dogshit. Searching for ira returns everything for "piracy" and "iraq" and so on.

I would be able to find it if the search feature worked as it should but alas.

I'm specifically looking for stuff detailing organisation, practices, and overall function. But everything is fair game please.

83
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Awoo@hexbear.net to c/games@hexbear.net
 

It's a shooter-moba. I have access and can invite. If anyone wants access, I will need to friend you on steam.

You can post friendcode in comment or PM it, I don't mind. I will add people then send invite, they're not instant they get sent in waves.

I have very mixed opinions on it.

Edit: I need your friend code. NOT SteamID. Easy mistake to make.

Editedit: If I missed you, poke me. Sometimes notifications are weird here.

Editeditedit: Looks like some of these have started to go through!

 
 

Title. Cheers. Their channel appears to be gone or I can't find it.

EDIT: If it helps I think this is the dead link to the edit I'm looking for: https://youtu.be/6EzcBNeoWh0

54
King of the Hill (files.catbox.moe)
 
 

view more: ‹ prev next ›