That is a horribly designed butt plug.

I would like to know some specifics. For one, where is this charter you mentioned? Another, is there some kind of technology that you’re attempting to pitch to activist groups or are you just describing organizational strategies using computer science jargon? If there is actually something tangible that you’re presenting here then your communication skills need some serious work.

If this is meant to be a call to action it contains way too much technical jargon and not enough straightforward instruction. What is it you expect people to do after reading this? You can’t recruit people to prefigure a new society by just describing how you expect it to work, you need to give clear instructions and concrete steps that can be taken. You’ve asked people to examine your charter but you haven’t told us where that can be found.

The way you’ve written this sounds more like a pitch for a crypto scam than a political project.

The idea is that it’ll make people more cautious drivers around you. It doesn’t work because people generally transform into sociopaths the moment they enter a vehicle.

Now go further back. Where does the latin word nucula come from?

Topology is one of those sciences that is hyper-niche to the point that it seems like it would have very limited scope, but when you take a closer look it’s actually studying something fundamental.

I think the biggest predictor of whether people will vibe with Outer Wilds is how much natural curiosity they have and how self-motivated they are. Outer Wilds doesn’t push players towards any particular objective, it instead tries to give players questions so they go looking for answers. Of course a game that relies so heavily on intrinsic motivation isn’t going to be for everyone, but the thing that makes the game so difficult for some people to get into is the same thing that makes those who do get into it love it so much.

Some non-spoilery advice if you decide to give it another shot:

Use the ship log every loop and read what’s new. Look at the biggest cards in rumor mode and try to find them. There are several “secret” locations in the game that many of the hints point towards which contain information that puts the game’s mystery into perspective and gives players a sense of direction and purpose. In the playthroughs I’ve seen where they didn’t finish it was almost always because they played for a long time without finding any of the “big” secret locations.

Dictators don’t just pop into existence with total authoritarian control, it takes the support of already powerful people to erode the checks on their power bit by bit, which Donald Trump has been doing with the support of his billionaire donors. Fascism emerges out of capitalist republics and has to overcome various obstacles to achieve total authority for the leader. Trump does not yet have total dictatorial power because there are still checks on the presidency that he and his movement have not yet succeeded in eroding.

It’s to help them feel smug and superior.

While I agree that a global revolutionary movement is needed, I think it’s important to focus on what’s actionable for you. Think global but act local. Organizing with people in your community helps to build a foundation on which a global revolutionary movement could one day launch from, and in the meantime it will improve your life and your community. Anything helps, so to decide on a direction you should consider what your community needs and what you are capable of. You could run for office, form a union, engage in direct action, or participate in mutual aid. It all counts for something.

I’ll preface this explanation by acknowledging my biases: I consider myself something between a democratic socialist and an anarchist.

Communism is worker ownership of the means of production. That means that rather than individuals owning companies and having total authority over them, the workers would own their companies collectively. That’s the entire idea, but it’s vague and there are many ways it can be interpreted and many different ways people have proposed to implement it, which is why you’ll see so many different versions of communism and a lot of arguing and infighting between communists/socialists.

The version of communism that people who grew up in the US are familiar with is a twisted and distorted view of a very authoritarian and centralized version of communism established by the Bolsheviks after the Russian revolution. It’s important for people to understand that not only is this not the only version of communism, it’s an extremely controversial one that fractured the movement and created many of the different factions that exist in leftist spaces today.

Now a note and some definitions:

The common understanding today is that communism and socialism are just more and less extreme versions of the same thing, but the terms were coined for a different reason. Communism was originally stated to be the ideal end-goal to be strived towards, a classless, stateless society in which resources are distributed by need and labor is distributed according to ability, while socialism was stated to be a transitional state between capitalism and communism.

AES - Actually existing (or once existed) socialist states such as the USSR or China. It is heavily debated which states actually qualify as AES.

Private property - Best understood as “absentee ownership,” or claiming ownership of tools and resources that you hire others to use/develop/maintain in order to make a profit. Things like factories and office buildings that are owned by an individual rather than collectively by the workers count as private property, things like your house or your toothbrush do not.

Pluralism - The existence of competing parties with opposing views being represented in the same government.

Liberal democracy - A form of representative democracy that includes separation of powers, different branches of government acting as checks and balances to one another, and an emphasis on individual liberties (including private property, which anti-capitalists argue is not a right and is actually corrosive to the liberty of working people).

Hierarchy - An organized system in which people are subordinated to one another, meaning certain people - chosen or otherwise - can exercise authority over others.

This is already getting too long, so I’ll try to simplify it down and generalize it into just 3 different schools of thought, but note that they all share the belief that private property should be abolished, that workers are entitled to what they produce, and should collectively organize the distribution of those resources according to need, usually by creating social services and infrastructure. What they disagree on is how this is accomplished.

First are the Marxist-Leninists, who typically critically support AES states such as the USSR, China, Cuba, and sometimes even North Korea in the extreme cases. They argue that a centralized authority such as the state is necessary to defend socialism against capitalists so that communism can eventually be achieved, and that since the state is a public institution then if the state owns all industry it counts as collective ownership. They also oppose pluralism and liberal democracy, favoring a one-party government with a structured internal hierarchy in which only party members vote and the existing members approve new membership. They are criticized by the other factions for being authoritarian, are often called tankies, and tend to prefer revolution through armed struggle over reform.

Second are the Democratic Socialists, who are less likely to support AES states on the grounds that they are too authoritarian and do not adequately represent the workers enough to be considered true communism, Though they tend to have more nuanced opinions on some of the AES states. They argue for more egalitarian, decentralized, and democratic means of organizing production and distribution of resources, and support political pluralism. In practice this is typically envisioned as similar to a liberal democracy but where the state owns all industry (no private property), can be either representative or directly democratic, and prefer a flatter hierarchy with greater accountability. They are criticized by MLs as being naive or capitalist collaborators, called liberals as an insult (and they often do take it as one), and are criticized by anarchists also as being naive or statists. They tend to prefer reform through union organizing and collective bargaining over revolution.

Finally there are the Anarchists, who oppose hierarchy entirely. They make a distinction between a state and a government, arguing that states are inherently hierarchical and authoritarian, and that government can be done without the subordination of people to any other. Some argue that even direct democracy creates a “tyranny of the majority,” preferring some form of consensus-based decision making. Anarchists typically believe governments should look like loose, voluntary confederations of worker collectives - with no internal or external hierarchies - organizing production and distribution of resources collectively through direct democratic or consensus-based governance. They favor a library or gift economy in which people’s needs are provided for by collectively organized social services and infrastructure. They are criticized as being too idealistic. They tend to prefer revolution through rank-and-file union organizing, direct action, and mutual aid over reform.

Do you have a source I could look into about this? What I’ve seen so far suggests the call came from inside the house, since the people doing the coup are the same ones who installed Andry Rajoelina in the first place after a previous coup.

We need to be learning from this what happens when you topple a regime without a plan for what comes next. People who do have a plan are going to step in and take advantage, and the people who did all the work will have wasted their efforts making way for another tyrannical regime. It may have worked out (so far) for Nepal, but it’s not common for military leadership to relinquish power after they have it like they did there.

I assumed it meant capitalism where everyone is a stakeholder of the company they work for or something like that.

I would assume the Liver cancer they mentioned is the terminal disease they’re referring to. It sounds like the guy has multiple chronic health conditions, which isn’t all that uncommon.

Could be a Yellow American Blusher (Amanita Flavorubins), would need a close-up of the gills and a region to be sure.

Possibly Sunshine Amanita (Amanita Aprica) if this is in the PNW.

I wish I could do this in reverse. My palms always be sweatin’.

forgiving student loan debt is by definition regressive. You cannot have poorer people’s money going to richer people and say it’s not regressive.

By this logic all public services are regressive, since everyone pays into them and there will always be someone poorer who pays in and someone wealthier who benefits. That’s why progressive tax rates exist, so that the amount of tax people pay is proportional to how much they are able to contribute. Our progressive tax system only breaks down at the upper levels with the obscenely wealthy. Despite this - on average - the poor benefit the most from student loan forgiveness and the (relatively) rich contribute the most. This is because even though the rich and poor alike would have their student debt forgiven, the rich would be paying more tax to make up for it. It’s really a very simple concept, and should not be so difficult for you to understand.

Now, as an extra note, if we corrected our progressive tax system to tax the obscenely wealthy at the highest possible rate (as a progressive tax system is supposed to - and used to - do), there would be absolutely no question as to where the wealth is being distributed, because the wealthiest people who currently pay little to no tax hold more wealth than the rest of us combined.

It’s only regressive if the tax that funds the student loan forgiveness is regressive. If we have a progressive tax system - which we do, for the most part (excepting the ultra rich who are able to dodge taxes without consequence) - then it is not a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, but at worst a horizontal wealth redistribution and at best a wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. Whoever gave you this idea lied to you and/or was lied to.

I’m making this comment with a OnePlus 6T I got 8 years ago when it was new and it has never needed repairs, so I wouldn’t exactly call it dogshit. Even the battery still lasts a couple days of heavy use before needing a charge, though that may have more to do with my efforts in reducing software overhead over the years. (Also making sure almost everything I ever view on it has an AMOLED dark background)