That’s a complete misread of what I said, I said that bloodshed will be inflicted upon us, I said it already is. You are ignoring that in the name of ‘progress’.

Okay, but stop pretending that you are offering anything more than burying your head in the sand, it’s embarrassing.

We are going to have bloodshed no matter what, when state power feels threatened it will lash out violently, we don’t get to decide this.

There is already bloodshed, and there always was, states fundamentally rely upon violence to enforce their interests both domestically and internationally. The point is to finally stop this cycle.

Personally, I feel that our best hope lies in parallel power structures, so the best place to start with that would be in trying to organise members of your community to get together and sort x problem yourselves. It doesn’t matter what the problem is, it’s fine to start anywhere, it just seems to me that an important step is in people realising how much power they have when they work together.

Everything else happens through protest and voting at a variety of levels.

That is just simply not true, unless you use a very broad definition of protest which goes up to and including the Coal Wars, but given the general sentiment I expect you have calmly marching along and begging for your masters to consider you for once in mind.

Even if it was true, you still haven’t attempted to address the power problem that I discussed at length (that being the point of my comment, not the broad solutions that you appear to deem a requirement), I have fulfilled your arbitrary demand, now please answer what I actually said.

Edit: Also, to respond to a comment centred on voting not being a solution due to the fundamental structure this takes with “actually, you just need to vote more”, without even mentioning a single point I raised, is incredibly obnoxious.

Voting will not save us, huge numbers of problems stem from fundamental imbalances in power, power which the political class require in order to impose their will (or that of whomever they serve further up the chain), even when their will is genuinely benign.

Voting just decides which people (with already powerful people/structures frequently playing an outsized role in exactly who you get to choose between) get into power, then this power both alters their brain and causes their lived experiences to diverge from those of the electorate.

Our solutions need to include a fundamental redistribution of power or we are just maintaining the conditions (a key component being the concentration of power centres, which has been dramatically accelerating for the past few decades regardless of how people have voted) that will lead us right back here. This redistribution is not going to come from people who, however pure their intentions, require power over others to fulfil these intentions.

I won’t discourage voting,^* but we have to stop pretending that we just need the right rulers and everything will be fine, voting is not enough.

*Although I do understand people; particularly in FPTP safe seats; who choose not to play their part in the theatre of pretending that we are granting them some kind of justified authority over us- if not one single vote was placed, they would just choose how to distribute power amongst themselves after all, they wouldn’t leave the seats empty to reflect the outcome of the theatre, because that isn’t where their power actually comes from. This becomes clear when you consider ideas such as designated survivors, they collectively assume power over all of us and have a clear delineation of the rulers and the ruled.

If a primary motivation is fear of the ‘wrong’ people getting into power, that structure was not built to serve you.

Too many don’t, they vote and consider it done with, but the voting is not the solution part of this. With how things are, particularly under FPTP voting systems, it is mostly holding off the worst of it until enough people feel disenfranchised enough to either not bother or vote for some far right conman or another…

Our only way out is by building systems of mutual support for ourselves and one another, but regrettably voting is much easier than that, so it rarely happens.

Sure, but calling people fuckstick isn’t used on a large scale to shut down conversation, there is a qualitative difference here.

Edit: I belatedly see your point that it could have been directly in response to that, in which case the pattern recognition was misfiring and I apologise.

I don’t need you to tell me any of this, much less in such a condescending way, I am perfectly aware of how the world works. It does, however, amount to a rhetorical sidestep, and I know how it goes from here. Have a good one.

Why is it that every single time you see someone trying to claim the role of ‘adult in the room’, they appear to be speaking from a perspective of being perfectly oblivious (albeit sometimes for the purpose of obfuscation)?

Even if you disagree with them, people who oppose LLM usage for ethical reasons still exist for example.

You aren’t making yourself seem above it as you would like, you are making yourself look unable to intellectually engage with the concept.

Why are you running defence for them? Their job is to manage your expectations into extinction, they are your rulers not your friends.

The US Revolution was justified as being in protest against taxes, but taxes raised to pay for the Seven Years War which (chronologically, if not causally) began with George Washington ambushing French troops and resulted in colonists gaining significant territory. One of the nowadays less romanticised causes of the revolution itself was the block on westward expansion of the colonies by the British government too, incidentally.

Your outline there also ignores the many wars and atrocities that describe the westward expansion of the USA (and beyond, the Philippines for example) as it actually did happen too, they very much did not begin their imperialism with the start of the cold war.

The Stanford Review is evidence enough that at least Thiel was already an utter piece of shit before this.

That’s fine, there are a great deal of more impactful and meaningful things that people can do instead of voting. My point is that if someone’s sole contribution is voting, they haven’t actually done anything.

The ratchet effect works because vast swathes of people can’t perceive of any way to affect change beyond voting, thus creating a single (recurring) major choke point for going through the ‘correct’ channels.

If all you do is vote, you can’t complain.

My understanding was that any hitherto success of LLMs in mathematics was in its trying approaches and information from different fields where they weren’t traditionally applied (within mathematics), they have surfaced potential links but haven’t created anything in any real sense. Still, a potential legitimate use for them that I personally hadn’t anticipated.