The terrible truth

It’s such a shame that capitalism bastardises such useful technology and turns people against it like LLMs and these glasses.

The glasses unfortunately do have cool uses for disabled people. There’s a lot of research going on at a university near me about implementing LLMs and vision AI into them to provide the likes of real time subtitles for the hearing impaired and realtime environment description for the visually impaired. They absolutely should be regulated into the ground in their current iteration as creep glasses though.

Sounds to me USSR revolution wasn’t that “successful” afer all

Reducing the USSR to a “failure” because it collapsed is ahistorical idealism and the height of liberal nonsense. We should judge a formation by the contradictions it resolved, not by whether it achieved eternity. Tsarist Russia was a feudal wreck where peasants starved and most couldn’t read. Within decades, the Soviet project doubled life expectancy, wiped out illiteracy, and industrialized a continent-sized country, dragging millions out of poverty.

Women gained full legal equality in 1918: abortion rights, divorce, workplace access, while Western women were still fighting for the vote. Socialized childcare and mass employment pulled women into public life on a scale capitalism wouldn’t match for generations.

And let’s not forget who actually broke fascism: the Red Army fought four-fifths of the Wehrmacht, lost 27 million people, and took Berlin while the West sat on the sidelines and even continued to trade with the nazi beast for years into the war (see the history of ford factories and IBM).

Collapse doesn’t retroactively erase what was built. “Anarchists” like you who dismiss seventy years of concrete progress because the state eventually fractured aren’t radical they’re reactionary. Material gains for millions don’t vanish because the system that produced them later unraveled.

The aftermath of the collapse proved the stakes that people like you refuse to grapple with. The 1990s were catastrophic. Life expectancy cratered, millions plunged into homelessness and destitution, women and children were trafficked by the tens of thousands, and the entire country was looted by oligarchs with IMF blessing. The chaos bred Yeltsin’s drunken comprador regime, which paved the way for Putin’s rise as his right-hand man a direct product of the Soviet collapse. When you cheer the unraveling of a workers’ state even a deeply flawed one, you’re not celebrating freedom. You’re celebrating the road that led straight to oligarchs, fascists, and some of the worst reaction imaginable. But you don’t really care about anyone but yourself.

A crisis is when "the poors"^TM can afford housing.

I’m sure that definitely contributes to it. But entering a game of chicken when everybody already knows where your line is is simply a bad idea and I’m sure the CPC and Russian government realize that as well.

While true at the surface it was more to fight against groups funded by the USSR (such as in Afghanistan) to contain influence gains as far as I’m aware at least.

Which is a slight but very important distinction as it meant direct nuclear power clashes were far less likely and action even if perfunctory could be taken to avoid being seen as unreliable as it was against proxies, even if it became incredibly close at times.

For example if the US was arming Syria to invade Iran as opposed to doing it itself an Article 5 style agreement would make a lot more sense.

Neither China nor Russia are willing to end the world for Iran which is what would be required. The US obviously knows this too hence would not be dissuaded. All an article 5 like agreement would do is weaken China’s position as a growing alternate pole when the US invade and China doesn’t press the button.

An agreement to work around sanctions and help Iran guarantee development is much more beneficial for everyone.

Also article 5 wasn’t designed with the idea of ever protecting against nuclear powers, it’s purpose is to intimidate imperialisms victims out of being too uppity and fighting back too far.

Building shared skills for shared growth with BRI partners

Li Mingliang (executive director of the Belt and Road Tianjin Strategic Research Institute and professor at the School of International Business of Tianjin Foreign Studies University) on how the Belt and Road Initiative is increasingly driven by vocational education cooperation, with China exporting skills training to partner countries to support employment and industrial development, while stressing that future success depends on deeper localization, stronger integration, and adaptation to digital and green technology.

Houses are for speculation not for living —JDPON DON

You are right, the United States is still the world’s dominant military superpower overall, but that’s not really relevant to this specific point. In this specific case (the Sentinel ICBM versus comparable Chinese missiles) it is clearly behind. The reasons vary as you rightly pointed out: rigid doctrine, arms-control treaty legacies, extreme cost inflation, industrial constraints, and political limits on mobility and basing. All of that matters for why the gap exists, but it does not change the material outcome. China fields newer, more advanced, more survivable, more flexible systems designed for modern strategic conditions, while the US is spending almost unimaginable sums to preserve an increasingly vulnerable fixed-silo model and continue to enrich defense company shareholders.

So this missile is costing $150B+ to develop, wont even enter production until 2029 and will probably be $200M+ per unit and it is less advanced than the DF-41 from 2017 not to mind China’s full missile ecosystem or the new DF-61?

Beautiful gambit from the Amerikkkans.

It’s been a farce. If you want a sort of sad laugh check the NATOpedia list of designated terrorist orgs and ctrl+f Israel.

Isn’t it over 1/2 read at the level of an 11yo or lower? and slightly more than 1/5 are functionally illiterate?

As if “international law” was ever anything more than a shield for imperialism and a club to beat the global south.

True I did more of a paraphrase than translate. Overall a very cute happy story even if the implications are less so.

Materially, she cannot. Deng’s strategy was embedded in a specific conjuncture of Chinese state power, proletarian capacities, and controlled capital integration. Venezuela’s productive forces have been decimated, class structures distorted by imperialist pressures actively reshaping political power. Without socialist reconstruction of productive forces and class relations, what is being called “reform” would really be a repositioning within global capitalism. If she was to walk a Deng style path currently it would be far more apt to call her Venezuela’s Gorbachev or Yeltsin.

孩子到家啦！旅日大熊猫“晓晓”和“蕾蕾”平安抵达成都

Translated title:“The pandas “Xiao Xiao” and “Lei Lei” have arrived home safely! The pandas on loan from Japan have safely arrived in Chengdu.”

Some happy news for a change, but this also marks the first time in over 50 years that Japan has no giant pandas.

Japan first received giant pandas in 1972 when Kang Kang and Lan Lan were sent to Ueno Zoo as a gift to commemorate the normalization of diplomatic relations between Japan and China.

Could this be further marking of the move away from normalization in the wake of Takaichi, and Japan’s push for a return to militarism?

I think you are misrepresenting what I have written. I will say it again clearly. You are entrenched in an idealist framework where culture and tradition are treated as driving forces of history and development. We disagree on that at a fundamental level.

I have made arguments. You just do not accept their premises, so you treat them as if they are not arguments at all. For example, when I said bureaucracy exists across socialist and capitalist states regardless of cultural background (USSR, modern Vietnam, post-war Eastern Europe), you dismissed this by returning to civilizational continuity. When I argued that gaokao functions today due to material scarcity and labor competition, not lineage tradition, you reframed that as me denying history rather than addressing the material cause.

I have also given counter examples that were not engaged with. For instance, the Soviet Union developed deep bureaucratic contradictions without imperial examinations, Confucianism(brought up due to its deep ties to Chinese culture and tradition), or lineage culture. Patriarchy persists globally under capitalism, including in societies with little to no shared past, which shows that survival of social forms does not mean they are driven by ancient tradition.

You have clearly read many books, but reading history is not the same as applying dialectical materialism. At several points you substitute origin for causation and continuity for explanation. Where something came from is not the same as what reproduces it today.

We are arguing from different theoretical positions. That is fine. But at this point we are talking past each other because you are unwilling to let go of a cultural explanation even when material ones are presented. I think it is better to acknowledge that we simply see this differently. I would however appreciate not being bad jacketed going forward.

Thank you.

Ah ok that’s my bad I’ll avoid similar jokes so from now on.