postcovid would also align with that timeline. i know several people chronically impaired by it.

i was very lucky that my introduction to software engineering came from a mentor who cared intensely about their work. but i dropped out of the IT industry after i never met someone like that again.

i never even went to secondary, but across several jobs i was having to teach my colleagues (compsci degrees) basic computer literacy skills. the moment they had to leave their IDE, they were lost. they had not even a basic understanding of version control systems. zero curiosity. they frequently broke their git repos and couldn’t fix it. they didn’t give a single fuck about the theory of what they were doing for 72 hours a week; what they were voluntarily choosing to do for 72 hours a week on 30 hour contracts. they hardly even cared about the practise.

LLMs completely ruined these people. they started using it for everything: responding to Slack messages, writing emails, writing code, doing code review… and when it was found out at my last company that i was the only one stubbornly refusing to use LLMs for anything, i was put on a fucking PIP and told it was company policy to use ‘labour saving technology.’ despite the fact that my code had the fewest defects, ignoring how frequently i was misled into doing something i wasn’t even supposed to do because the fucking task requirements were ALSO WRITTEN WITH AN LLM [THAT MADE SHIT UP]. but it was my fault for ‘not checking first’ (???).

i will never touch a computer for money ever fucking again.

aside: reading this while listening to clipping. was an experience

i’m not a fan of the privacy report…

https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.bashsoftware.boycott/latest/

i mean there’s basic input validation yeah, but the number of unique valid signatures isn’t known for all countries till after the collection period.

signatures aren’t immediately validated; the identification you provide is just ticking boxes. verification happens after the signing period, when the signatures are sent to their respective states to confirm and tally.

from my experience dealing with nosy wouldbe-employers and being on an immigrant watchlist:

they don’t believe for a second you don’t use social media; and if you don’t, then you did at some point, and they’ll find it; and if they don’t find it, then that’s suspicious, because obviously everyone uses social media, so you must be a criminal, using some dark web social media. and then you get credit checked forty times, only for them to find you have no debt and thus no credit score, and then they just assume you’re not a real person and call the cops.

The research team does not believe the satellite suddenly came back to life for a moment. They suggest it is far more likely that an electrostatic charge built up on the craft and reached a certain point and then discharged. Such discharges have been seen before, the team notes. Another possibility is that the craft was struck by a micrometeoroid, releasing a very small cloud of plasma.

why can liberals never criticise something without misogynistic/homophobic sexual metaphor?

for fucks sake i wish i could go one day without the triggering imagery of sexual violence being repurposed for your moralistic magical thinking exercises.

i like this. i think for now as a workaround: one could lock the topic and leave a comment asking the OP to crosspost it elsewhere, with grace for posts which have high engagement (as ladfrombrad suggested).

i don’t agree that crossposting works to ‘move’ posts. as far as i know: the OP is not notified when their topic is crossposted by someone else, and in that case they also won’t be ‘subscribed’ to comment notifications.

🎵 cathy don’t go to the supermarket today. cause there’s a very strange man at the checkout stand,

coöps are cool, but we can’t just have coöps. their liberatory potential is cancelled out by the fact that they still participate in capitalism and they still need to turn a profit.

Even if the labour of individuals might be slightly transformed by having a vote over the methods and aims of production, the very nature of co-operatives as institutions for the production of commodities renders them a revolutionary dead end. Even enterprises seized by workers during struggle and turned to cooperative production face a dead end if the broader struggle across society does not continue to move forward.

they’re referring to anarchist federalism, which scales in principle from neighbourhoods and work groups up to nations.

And if decisions are at rhe lowest possible levels then it seems like thats a hierarchy, which is more horizontal rather than not being a hierarchy.’

And i dont know what you meam by “the position” or “temporal” or “at the start” and that it “changes everything”.

horizontalism does not create a hierarchy, because a hierarchy (from Greek, for ‘rule of priests’) is a structure which creates superiors and subordinates.

say there’s a community — a geographical neighbourhood, a nongeographical group with shared interests, a workgroup… — that holds meetings on their own self-management and needs. when their needs concern more than themselves, then they delegate someone to communicate their concern to a larger (‘higher’) group — a city, a region, an industry — on a mandate: that they are temporary (till the concern is resolved, till the end of a project, or for an arbitrary time decided by the group); that they represent the group consensus; and that they can be recalled for any reason, more specifically in the event that they aren’t fulfilling their obligations to the group they represent.

proposals go up a chain, and revisions/changes are sent back down the chain. this cycle continues until the smallest (‘lowest’) groups are in agreement, with that agreement communicated by the delegates up to the largest relevant group. with a population like the US, these rounds of consensing can be done in the span of a month: https://participatoryeconomy.org/project/computer-simulations-of-participatory-planning/.

this structure can take infinite forms, but those structures remain fundamentally similar and therefore compatible.

there are examples like anarchist Spain, the Zapatistas, and — aspirationally — Rojava, mostly in in the Rojavan restorative justice system. to be fair to Rojava: they have been under siege for a decade.

for some thought experiments: Can This Book Save Us From Dystopia? (43m), The Future of Socialism (15m).

when the GP says ‘this changes everything’, they mean that the temporary and recallable nature of holding a special role in society flips the current paradigm: where politicians can promise whatever they want and then fail to deliver, because other (economically-)viable candidates are few and they already have their position. there’s nothing in the current system that gives constituents the ability to immediately remove a representative who isn’t representing the people who elected them, or who uses their position to further personal agenda.

a system where the people directly involved in their work and their lives are also participants in their own work and their own life creates people who are invested in the world around them.

good post. since i’m here, i want to expand on a few things:

But effectively, it boils down to the difference between authority as in power over people, and authority as in knowledge.

i recommend using expertise to refer to authority as in knowledge — like you did later in your comment, as Andrewism does — to avoid confusion.

They don’t have the unilateral ability to fire someone (nor does any individual)

no criticism, just expanding:

i think it’s important that someone who is given by a role or responsibility should have a mandate: the role should be specific, and it should be temporary (for an arbitrary amount of time, or till the end of a project) or recallable by a vote.

Graeber notes in something i’ll link below: ‘If something has to be done, then it’s okay to say all right, for the next three hours she’s in charge. There’s nothing wrong with that if everybody agrees to it. Or you improvise.’

Crowdsourced decision making is meant to be for the bigger aspects, stuff like what the end goal of a project should be. Smaller, extremely specialized aspects should get handled by those best equipped for it, that’s not a hierarchy.

in Kurdistan, this is the difference between technical decisions and the political (‘moral’) decisions[1]. it’s the difference between ‘when should we have our next meeting?’ and ‘should we be nonviolent?’.

• technical decisions are low-impact; operational or logistical.
• political decisions are high-impact, with broad social implications.

the political decisions are consensus decisions, of at least 1/3 of the group. these are vetoäble by anyone affected who wasn’t present for the vote.

the technical decisions are 2/3 or 3/4 majority votes, of the minimum affected people.

tho, as Graeber notes:

And then of course, obviously the question is who gets to decide what’s a moral question and what’s the technical one? So somebody might say, “Well, the question of [when to meet] bears on disabled people, and that’s a moral question.” So that becomes a little bit of a political football. There’s always things to debate and points of tension.

only partially related, but this discusssion reminded me of an essay on the myth that management == efficiency: David Harvey, anarchism, and tightly-coupled systems

you are probably fine without learning Swedish in a meaningful manner, but if you are planning to become a citizen it is not unreasonable a requirement.

i had a rant all prepared for this comment, along the lines of ‘yeah but they’re not doing anything to make learning the language or integrating any easier; they’re just adding further alientation and precarity into their lives’… but i realise all those words would be wasted because that’s the point.

the rightwing government doesn’t want people to integrate. they want to give every migrant such an acute case of Ulysses syndrome that they burn out and fail.

i have heard from people there that they just completely broke down after receiving their citizenship. they spent the years on a residency permit in unfurnished apartments with no lasting or heavy investments in society. they didn’t get medical or psychological treatment when they needed it, and they didn’t participate politically and stayed in their lane, living in effective peonage to their employers and trying to be model migrants and manage their energy levels so as not to draw any attention to themselves. they were too afraid to make any longlasting commitments in case it would all just be taken away from them on three-month’s notice. such a weight lifted from their shoulders that all the stress came barreling out and they crashed hard. this news — that their citizenship can be taken away on vagueties of ‘national security’ (most of the people i know there are activists), or because of ‘crimes’ committed long ago in their home countries, or that the rules could apply retroäctively — have brought back their stress right when they were just recovering and finally felt safe digging into their new permanent life.

it doesn’t matter that these policies are ‘targeted’ at ‘terrorists’ and gangs. these changes affect everyone who migrates to Sweden for any reason. the government’s habit of wildly changing the rules every 6 months isn’t helping.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

— Mikhail Bakunin, God and the state, Chapter 2

Expertise merely refers to one’s knowledge or skill in a particular field, but my understanding of CPR or ability to bake shortbread cookies does not make me an authority over you. Other than the conflation of force and authority, this is one of the most common confusions people have about anarchism, made worse by the fact that there are some anarchists who still use authority to refer to both command and expertise just because Bakunin did. Personally, I find that creates needless confusion. If you’re using the word authority to describe everything from slavery to knowing how to build a bridge, then why use the word at all? Just use the word expertise when you’re talking about expertise. Listening to medical advice isn’t a hierarchy. Having expertise doesn’t give me the right to command you unless I hold a position in a hierarchical power structure that grants me that authority. As Bakunin himself said:

…we ask nothing better than to see men endowed with great knowledge, great experience, great minds, and, above all, great hearts, exert over us a natural and legitimate influence, freely accepted and never imposed in the name of any official authority whatsoever, celestial or terrestrial.

— Andrewism, How Anarchy Works » Dissecting Authority (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrTzjaXskUU)

I highly recommend reading in full that section from Andrewism. It’s no more than 5 minutes to read.

I don’t like unions strongarming companies

‘i don’t like it when the people who produce value for the capitalists have a say in their working conditions’

‘i don’t like it when corporations are forced to comply with the rule of law’

‘i don’t like it when neoliberals have to comply with local labour market practises in foreign markets’

‘i don’t like it when other people pull the boot out of my mouth’

i can relate to this. i can hear the electricity coursing thru the walls. lately it’s been so loud that it keeps me up at night. no one else hears it, but i do.

i had to flip the breaker to the bedroom to quiet it down enough to sleep.

also seconding this great comment over in !books@lemmy.ml.

seconding a focus on sexology; we don’t need another Institut für Sexualwissenschaft incident.

off the top of my head:

• The History of Sexuality (Michel Foucault 1976 – 84 + 2018)
• Transgender Warriors (Leslie Feinberg 1998)
• Gender Trouble (Judith Butler 1990)
• Undoing Gender (Judith Butler 2004)
• Caliban and the Witch (Silvia Federici 2004)
• Black on Both Sides (C. Riley Snorton 2017)
• The Stonewall Riots (Marc Stein 2019)

including all the works of Judith Butler and Silvia Federici.

more academically:

• Kinsey Reports; The Kinsey Institute: The First Seventy Years; and any other expansions on the work of the Kinsey Institute
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Healthcare: A Clinical Guide to Preventive, Primary, and Specialist Care (Kristen Eckstrand, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld 2016)

you can probably farm the bibilographies on these.

there’s a bot that will do this for you over on lemmy.world. i think you’d like it better over there.