Yes, that’s the thing. I find it terribly frustrating that the same old playbook still works with all its pamphlet-like explanations, its false accusations and its pretended messiah logic: “It’s the foreigners’ fault that you can’t find job; a strong leader will stand up for you and save us all if you just follow him unconditionally” and so on and so forth. It simply boggles my mind how people can still believe that - in Germany, with its terrible Nazi past, just as much as in America, where an obviously criminal billionaire pretends to care about those left behind and dissatisfied. It’s almost as if people want to be exploited and instrumentalized against their own interests. I don’t get it.
Having hung around them before, I think it’s because what tyrants actually promise them is the right to be openly hateful without consequence. See, they believe drivel about how people different from them are the cause of their problems long before fascism shows up; they were always bigots and likely always will be. The fascists simply mirror their thoughts, speech and behaviors openly, making the followers feel safe to express shit they already believed.
It’s not the fascist leaders that are responsible, it’s the people for thinking the way that they do.
If someone is bigoted like that, the only way to solve the problem is to remove either them or the victim from the society. That would require either destroying or exiling one group or for one group to willingly put enough distance between themselves and their enemies such that conflict is impossible and the separation is maintained by default, but it’s the only way for a progressive society to enforce its values.
Of course, there are ideologues and charlatans who don’t want that to happen so they exploit the weaker and more insecure party – the progressives – by telling them it’s immoral to do anything to resolve the problem, usually under the grounds that it would require force to do it, which is not actually true, and therefore convince progressives to suffer under the thumb of a group who are basically their abusers.
It’s like an abusive relationship. The only way the abuse stops is if the abuser is killed or the victim runs away for good. Arrest and conviction of an abuser never actually stops abuse; it only exacerbates it as the abuser is much better at manipulating other people than their victims and thus turns third parties against the victims, completely subjugating them. So the victim is left with two options: either kill the abuser and face the wrath of the community, or run away and spend their lives looking over their shoulder knowing their abuser and the third parties will hurt them again at any time, stripped of participation in the community they had a right to.
And like the abuse victim, the progressives are faced with this choice: either warfare with the conservatives, or be forced to flee and start over… somewhere. Europe and South America maybe. And if the progressives run away and cede that territory, the conservatives will have unfettered control over nuclear weapons, meaning there’s nowhere to hide.
I don’t think the progressives are capable of winning a civil war once the fascists take power at the end of the year, though. That’s what bothers me. This is going to spiral downward into a bilateral genocide; it’s the logical conclusion of the chain of events that have transpired since the end of the last civil war. People are too afraid to even advocate for war because of decades of ideologues and corporations exploiting nonviolence to propagandize everyone else into submission.
So tl;dr there doesn’t seem to be any positive outcome possible. I really, REALLY don’t like the way things are turning. Progressives need to nut up and reject the brainwashing they were subjected to all their lives, and start training and preparing for a fight, as in today, but shills and trolls might make it impossible for them to do so. Running away might not work because nukes are things. Then again, warfare might not either because nukes are things. And submission will only lead to slavery and death.
🤔🤔🤔
What was that Chinese curse put on people, back in the day? “May you live in interesting times…”
Watch porn videos for free here on PornVideos69.com Find the best collection of high quality XXX movies and clips. Free porn videos and XXX movies published daily .
I don’t think any of them really even think Trump will even actually help them, let alone any idea that he cares about them.
The only thing that matters to them is that Trump has normalized open expressions of hate, racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and misogyny…and wrapped it up in a shrink wrap of jingoism, making it as simple as possible for anyone and everyone to get on board with it.
That’s bad enough, but he also bundles fascism as well as the graft that follows trump like a shadow with the package.
Basically he’s weaponized the fear of the unknown to built himself a cult. I would venture to guess that less than half of his supporters would have any clear, concrete, positive (that is, as opposed to the negative “he’d undo this” or “he won’t do that”) response when asked what, specifically, they think Trump will do that will help the country as a whole or them specifically.
And that’s because the thing they want from him they’ve already gotten, and they just want him to keep it up: telling them the most comforting message of all: it’s okay.
“It’s okay you don’t have a nice house or a good job or can’t afford healthcare or can’t put enough good food on the table. It’s okay your family is all fucked up. It’s okay that costs are going up, the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer.
And it’s okay because it’s not your fault. You’re not responsible for this. It’s bigger than you can control or even affect. So you don’t even have to try. I’m not going to make it better (and in fact I’ll do my best to make it much worse), but that’s okay too because I’m not going to ask you to shoulder any of the blame for any of this!
No, not your fault and I’m not asking you to do anything. Whose fault is it? Why it’s the Democrats and the Mexicans and the Muslims and the women and the liberals and the immigrants and the colleges and the “urban populations” (hint: you can identify them by their skin tone!) and the “woke radical left” and China and Europe and pretty much anyone else that doesn’t look, act, and sound exactly like you. That’s whose fault it is.
And since it’s not your fault and you can’t do anything about it, I give you permission to hate them for it. And I’ll do and say all the horrible, vile, shit that I want you to think and say. And because I did it first, that means it’s okay to just go ahead and say what you’ve been thinking for years. If we all say it together, it’ll become normal.”
Basically he tells them they’re victims, and that he feels sorry for them, and that they should feel sorry for themselves too, and that because they’re the victims here, they’re allowed to do and say whatever they want and it’s okay.
My father died a few months before the 2016 election, but he was a grandpa in his 80s and he practically died a socialist. He would have been one of the loudest anti-Trump voices you had ever heard had he been aware enough through his dementia to be politically active. I was able to tell him that a social democrat was running for president before the dementia got too far gone and I think he was able to take it in. I’m glad he didn’t get to find out that Bernie lost.
Unfortunately not that big of a twist. It wasn’t until wartime that the US fully turned its back on the Nazis, they had an uncomfortably huge amount of support in America.
Hey look, ageism! Remember the participants in the flower power/hippy movements would be in their 80s right about now, and I’m going to go out on a limb and say most of them probably didn’t completely flip 180⁰ on their beliefs and become gun toting MAGA voters.
In other words, not old people fit your description
The word is actually correct in this case, though. Chromium is, in every way that matters, literally (as in exactly, completely, utterly, fully, in actuality, totally) the same as Chrome.
Is “literally” an adverb? I always though that adverbs were like adjectives but used for verbs (actions). Like “quickly” or “slowly”. Where is the action in a sentence like “It’s literally the same browser”? Is it an adverb for the “is” (to be) auxiliary verb? srry english not my first language
As a 40 year old dude I don’t think I’d be setting my age range to that upper bound if I were to be divorced. More like 35 and that’s with large caveats.
I was going to say 18-34 would be more believable. With most of them full supporters of “That’s what I love about these high school girls, man. I get older, they stay the same age.”
No one actually uses the “She goes to another school” thing as a was to lie. It’s just stupid kids that accuse anyone who has a partner that isn’t conveniently at the same school lmao
Uh no, back in high school one of my acquantainces held a lie for something like 3 years that he had a girlfriend named x that went to y school. My friends and I ended up seeing the yearbooks for that school. We couldn’t find a single person at the school with his girlfriends name. He tried to say that her real name was actually w, and I kind of just stopped talking to him afterwards. Never learned how that played out with people closer to him.
Because the number of dollars is not the only factor in determining which is better. If I have the choice between a wallet that never runs out of $1 bills or one that never runs out of $100 bills, I’ll take it in units of $100 for sure. When I buy SpaceX or a Supreme Court justice or Australia or whatever, I don’t want to spend 15 years pulling bills out of my wallet.
I’m not mathmatician but I got explained once that there are “levels” of Infinity, and some can be larger than others, but this case is supposed to be the same level.
I dont really know much about this topic so take it with a grain of salt.
There is an infinite amount of possible values between 0 and 1. But factorially it means measuring a coastline will lead towards infinity the more precise you get.
And up all the values between 0 and 1 with an infinite number of decimal places and you get an infinite value.
Or there’s the famous frog jumping half the distance towards a lilly pad, then a quarter, than an eighth. The distance halfs each time so it looks like they’ll never make it. An infinitesimally decreasing distance until the frog completes an infinite number of jumps.
Then what most people understand by infinity. There are an infinite number of integers from 0 to infinity. Ultimately this infinity we tend to apply in real world application most often to mean limitless.
These are mathematically different infinities. While all infinity, some infinities have limits.
Yes! The difference between these two types of infinities (the set of non-negative integers and the set of non-negative real numbers) is countability. Basically, our real numbers contain rational numbers, which are countable, and irrational numbers, which are not. Each irrational number is its own infinity, and you can tell this because you cannot write one exactly as a number (it takes an infinite numbers of decimals to write it, otherwise you’ve written a ratio :) ). So, strictly speaking, the irrational numbers are the bigger infinity between the two.
Using L’Hôpital’s rule, we take the derivative of each to get their ratio, ie: 100/1, so the $100 bill infinity is bigger (since the value of the money grows faster as the number of bills approaches infinity, or said another way: the ratio of two infinities is the same as the ratio of their rates of change).
Infinity aside, the growth rate of number of bills vs the value of those bills has nothing to do with the original scenario though. It’s like arguing that a kilogram of feathers weighs less than a kilogram of bowling balls because the scale goes up less for every feather I put on the scale compared to every bowling ball I put on the scale.
Edit: Though if you want to talk about how weird infinity really is, here are some fun facts for you:
There are just as many even numbers as rational numbers, even though all even numbers are rational but not all rational numbers are even. This is because both sets are countably infinite.
There are more irrational numbers than rational numbers. This is because even though both sets are infinite, the set of irrational numbers is uncountably infinite.
It’s like arguing that a kilogram of feathers weighs less than a kilogram of bowling balls because the scale goes up less for every feather I put on the scale compared to every bowling ball I put on the scale.
I’m arguing that infinity bowling balls weighs more than infinity feathers, though
Try thinking of it like this: If I have an infinite amount of feathers, I can balance a scale that has any number of bowling balls on it. Even if there was an infinite number of bowling balls on the other side, I could still balance it because I also have infinite feathers that I can keep adding until it balances. I don’t need MORE than infinite feathers just because there’s infinite bowling balls. In the same way if my scale had every rational number on one side I could add enough even numbers to the other side to make it balance, but if I had all the irrational numbers on one side of the scale then I would never have enough rational numbers to make it balance out even though they are also infinite.
Edit: I suppose the easiest explaination is that it’s already paradoxical to even talk about having an infinite number of objects in reality just like it would be paradoxical to talk about having a negative number of objects. Which weighs more, -5 feathers that weigh 1 gram each or -5 bowling balls that weigh 7000 grams each? Math tells us in this case that the feathers now weigh more than the bowling balls even though we have the same amount of each and each bowling ball weighs more than each feather. In reality we can’t have less than zero of either.
The conventional view on infinity would say they’re actually the same size of infinity assuming the 1 and the 100 belong to the same set.
You’re right that one function grows faster but infinity itself is no different regardless of what you multiply them by. The infinities both have same set size and would encompass the same concept of infinity regardless of what they’re multiplied by. The set size of infinity is denoted by the order of aleph (ℵ) it belongs to. If both 1 and 100 are natural numbers then they belong to the set of countable infinity, which is called aleph-zero (ℵ₀). If both 1 and 100 are reals, then the size of their infinities are uncountably infinite, which means they belong to aleph-one (ℵ₁).
That said, you can definitely have different definitions of infinity that are unconventional as long as they fit whatever axioms you come up with. But since most math is grounded in set theory, that’s where this particular convention stems from.
Anyways, given your example it would really depend on whether time was a factor. If the question was “would you rather have 1 • x or 100 • x dollars where x approaches infinity every second?” well the answer is obvious, because we’re describing something that has a growth rate. If the question was “You have infinity dollars. Do you prefer 1 • ∞ or 100 • ∞?” it really wouldn’t matter because you have infinity dollars. They’re the same infinity. In other words you could withdraw as much money as you wanted and always have infinity. They are equally as limitless.
Now I can foresee a counter-argument where maybe you meant 1 • ∞ vs 100 • ∞ to mean that you can only withdraw in ones or hundred dollar bills, but that’s a synthetic constraint you’ve put on it from a banking perspective. You’ve created a new notation and have defined it separately from the conventional meaning of infinity in mathematics. And in reality that is maybe more of a physics question about the amount of dollar bills that can physically exist that is practical, and a philosophical question about the convenience of 1 vs 100 dollar bills, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the size of infinity mathematically. Without an artificial constraint you could just as easily take out your infinite money in denominations of 20, 50, 1000, a million, and still have the same infinite amount of dollars left over.
Certain infinities can grow faster than others, though. That’s why L’Hôpital’s rule works.
For example, the area of a square of infinite size will be a “bigger” infinity than the perimeter of an infinite square (which will in turn be a bigger infinity than the infinity that is the side length). “Bigger” in the sense that as the side length of the square approaches infinity, the perimeter scales like 4*x but the area scales like x^2 (which gets larger faster as x approaches infinity).
It might give use different growth rate but Infinity is infinite, it’s like the elementary school playground argument saying “infinity + 1” there is no “infinity + 1”, it’s just infinity. Infinity is the range of all the numbers ever, you can’t increase that set of numbers that is already infinite.
but in this case we are comparing the growth rate of two functions
oh, you mean like taking the ratio of the derivatives of two functions?
it’s like the elementary school playground argument saying “infinity + 1” there is no “infinity + 1”, it’s just infinity
but that’s not the scenario. The question is whether $100x is more valuable than $1x as x goes to infinity. The number of bills is infinite (and you are correct that adding one more bill is still infinity bills), but the value of the money is a larger $infinity if you have $100 bills instead of $1 bills.
Edit: just for clarity, the original comment i replied to said
Lhopital’s rule doesn’t fucking apply when it comes to infinity. Why are so many people in this thread using lhopital’s rule. Yes, it gives us the limit as x approaches infinity but in this case we are comparing the growth rate of two functions that are trying to make infinity go faster, this is not possible. Infinity is infinite, it’s like the elementary school playground argument saying “infinity + 1” there is no “infinity + 1”, it’s just infinity. Infinity is the range of all the numbers ever, you can’t increase that set of numbers that is already infinite.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.