I did, and from what I heard, it is a big myth that the results were actually as useful as the first assessment on discovery of them had been. Later studies have, as far as I know, been much more sobering as to the “usefulness” of the data acquired there.

The website you link also immediately shows the problem (even in presentation, presenting them quite sensationalist, immediately highlighting, that there is no possibility of neutrality in assessing the results): The “cruelty for cruelty’s sake” in the conditions of the experiments cannot easily be removed from the results. Making the data in the end only useful for very specific circumstances, and hard to untangle. Lets take venereal diseases for example - it ultimately shows how they spread and interact in conditions of forced mass rape under conditions of extreme squalor, as documented by people not engaged in proper double-blind environments. The usefulness of that is not as high as the myth surrounding Unit 731 or Mengele’s experiments might suggest - and as your linked website also shows, there is a material interest in selling that myth of “forbidden, evil experiments resulting in knowledge”.

So, this has actually been one of those things often claimed, you may have heard of it or maybe even thought it yourself (I certainly had the thought as an edgy teen). Stuff like “For all the horrors, they probably did make some progress with experiments in concentration camps” or similar things.

Now, beside the point of it being unacceptable to do so ethically - the stuff done there was also quite useless. I currently can’t do the work of searching for and gathering all the sources again, but to my memory: the cruelty and dismissal of humanity made the “results” of those “studies” mostly useless garbage, saying nothing at all worthwhile for science, and being clearly tainted ideologically.

Because, while you may think that in some “ideal” world, you could have neutral research on unwilling humans, the reality has always been, that the conditions needed to get humans to do such experiments on other humans, necessitate the kind of ideological distortions, that mostly make the results useless in the end. There’s simply not enough psychopaths that are also willing to do proper, frustrating, hard-work-necessitating, non-self-aggrandising research - and to get non-psychopaths to do it, you need an ideology that ultimately removes their neutrality and the neutrality of the research.

The only things I remember being deemed “useful” and “properly” done from a scientific perspective in the recovered “studies” were things like “lethality of grenades by proximity to the explosion” - something that is questionable to begin with in value and that can also be determined with sensors of different kinds - as well as “effects of massive hypothermia and frostbites” - which as far as I remember basically just confirmed what has been estimated from case studies in a broader way, as well as animal studies (the latter, admittedly, have their own legitimate controversy).

That’s fair criticism, and I guess that is something that happens in my psyche as well. But the thought process is basically:

The communist movement of the 20th century had been pushed back by a mix of Social Democracy succeeding in mitigating class conflict in the West, world market structures creating conditions for the exploitation of internationally cheap labour in service of upholding the global profit rate while still maintaining high living standards for the big Blocs, the conditions after WW2, where so much had been destroyed, creating opportunities for massive growth and basically 0 unemployment for a few decades - and the hope of the Soviet Union maybe actually being a viable solution directing class struggle into imperialist bloc-think instead of political struggle for the working class itself.

The Social Democratic welfare state is basically in retreat across the board, from what I gathered, even in its traditional places of strength, like Scandinavia, it develops more exclusionary mechanisms. One of the main reasons of this happening is related to point #2, that the global net profit rate has been in crisis since the late 70s, which prompted neoliberal politics (and ultimately also the crisis that furthered the collapse of the Soviet Union due to their dependence on the global resource market). At the same time, international, cheap labour has become less ubiquitous, mainly due to China developing a new, massive middle class, which removed a huge chunk of that cheap labour, and which is now also becoming a player in the kind of economic imperialism the west had been doing to uphold its own balance. (Note that China is now starting to face its own crises as well, as that period of growth begins to stagnate). The Soviet collapse also shook things up, removing what in hindsight turned out to be a false hope, but percisely the removal of a false hope opens up the room for a new one.

Thus, the underlying class conflict is erupting again, and from that, political organisation is necessarily as well. Say what you will, but there suddenly were phenomena like “socialism” being a genuine word even in US political discourse. There’s currently disorganised flailing around of politics without an underlying organisation and consciousness, as that old middle class is dying to serve the profit rate. The way I see it, we are in the chaotic times of growing problems and suffering (also exacerbated by the climate catastrophe), but those problems and suffering have always also created the contradictions and conditions for change. The very fact that fascism is organising is in my eyes a symptom of the upper class reacting to a new, burgeoning class struggle.

Now, I have no crystal ball to see what will happen, no one does. (And I’d like to stress: Pessimistic positions don’t, either. Just because there is a current in our ideology upholding the status quo to immediately dismiss anything remotely hopeful as impossible.) But it seems clear to me, that the material struggle between classes is very real, again. And the tools have all still been there, if anything, the internet actually increases international organisational capabilities.

I think across the world, you have the phenomenon of the younger generations being less interested politically in the old status quo, while material conditions continue to get worse and consolidation of capital does so as well. In recent elections here in Germany, the younger generation has been as split as never before, between leftist movements on the one hand, while their support for fascism was about the same as in the rest of society, and the old centrist parties had shrunk to a clear minority in their support, as one example.

No matter what it will be calling itself, I indeed think it is inevitable, that there will be a new movement of international struggle, that will fit the bill of “communist” - the really existing movement in opposition to capital and its tendency to create a growing class of people that own nothing beyond subsistence but their labour power to sell.

How strong it will be, how it will pan out in the end - that will be decided by us and our actions. But the political necessity of asking questions of property relations and class, that exists and will become more prevalent, I am sure of it.

Ah, okay, I was indeed missing all the snark, lol

We’ve never tried a pure and proper capitalistic movement either.

Genuinely confused what you even mean there - because, yes, we did. Like, to the extent “proper” makes sense - “pure” is nonsense that only makes sense for ideologies, not materialist movements. I assume there is some intentional snark to it? I may be missing some signalling there, AuDHD and all, but I think it is worthwhile to explore that idea, regardless:

What do you think the long and arduous, sometimes brutal, sometimes liberatory, stuff was, that happened in the early modern era? Where property relations and the mode of production changed from Feudalism to global (back then at first colonial) markets and industrial capitalist wage labour? That is also precisely, why I think a material analysis of the Eastern Bloc is so damning: They had wage labour, they traded on the international market, they even had hire- and fire at factory gates at times, with a more decentralised economy than more consolidated western economies at times (managers competing against each others for state resources) - even though their ideals said that that should not happen. Not for lack of their purity or ideological drive, simply because the material and historical conditions panned out like that for those entities.

That is what I am getting at: “Pure” does not make any sense, it’s ideological nonsense, IMO. And “proper” only means - being a material, real political force. If you go on general strike, the effects of that at first don’t care for ideology at all, they are immediate. (further organisational capabilities are still important, though)

I think that’s something we sort of lost in ideology, especially since the 80s - thinking not from the perspective of “ideal -> reality”, plopping an ideal on top of reality (and failing, and getting more brutal in failure) - but instead “reality <-> contradictions within reality”, where there are developments stemming from the way we produce, we distribute, power manifests and we, more broadly, interact with the world, and then resulting from that, failures and contradictions building up, leading to eventual, revolutionary change over several key, historical events. (That often fail repeatedly at first. See how republics and democracy faired in the 19th century after the French Revolution, where the common consensus for a long time was basically: “That can only result in new mass terror and a new Napoleon - or, if at all, maybe work for a low population, rural settler state like the US”)

As an aside: That does not mean, vision is completely unimportant, or anything, just that vision is itself is not useful as an ideal to strife for, but just a tool for changing along what is necessary and possible materially, and organising for that.

To provide a materialist explanation the way I understand it: From my perspective, that’s because there has been no proper communist movement in the sense of how Marx put it - a really existing historical movement as material fact in the political space - for many decades. (I, personally, do not think the Eastern Bloc fit this role after the 1920s, where it developed a state-capitalist turn due to their material conditions, e.g. having to industrialise, advancing from feudal-like structures, trading on the world market, etc. - cue the infighting over that interpretation.)

So “leftists” instead were just fighting against each other on a market of attention for resources - the dynamics thus becoming those of ideology, often religion-like, instead of material politics. Morality, purity tests, cult-like structures - all that shit was (is) common, because the material position of many groups was (is) - no matter how they would like to describe themselves - not really in opposition to capital all that much. It was in opposition to any other group for members, donations, attention and cultural hegemony within the “sphere of leftism” within the status quo, so to speak.

But at the core, I think that the mode of analysis has always been correct: One of class dynamics, one of property relations, one of production and distribution. So, the clever lots of the majority of leftist currents have been correctly Cassandra-ing for a long time now.

And right now, I think we are very much witnessing a proper, materialist crisis, the breakdown of the liberal status quo, social-democratic management of class war through the welfare state retreating - thus, I think necessarily, there will also emerge a proper communist, materialist movement again, which will hopefully direct the infighting over resources and members within the status quo, to proper political struggle again. (Not that the former will completely vanish, but I do think, it will slip into the background more). A material movement again, instead of an ideological one. One where it isn’t that much about what -ism you call yourself, or what flag you fly, or what newspaper you recommend to your friends - but one about how to get the political power so that you and your neighbours don’t get worked to death in labour camps and capital ceases to exist as a material force.

Even though this is most likely fake, it’s still worth a reminder, that learning how to fly drones is a hobby that could have some extra utility if the situation develops further in a way, where things may be needed that would be illegal to mention on reddit.

And even if that doesn’t happen - still a very cool hobby.

I can understand the tensions from the housing crisis, and I can also sympathise with not having a lot of personal sympathy for the Americans moving right now, who most likely won’t be refugees as such, but just people with the financial privilege and ability to choose where to emigrate.

But long-term, depending on how shitty the shit-show will get, there might be tent cities for persecuted Americans in the future, both for you and for us here in the EU (and, ironically, in Mexico, of course). You can say that you don’t like it, and you have every right to - but at least in my eyes, it’s an international duty to human rights when that point comes, and I, personally, won’t give a shit what people feel, then. The international community will have to take them in unless we want to follow the international trend of fascism and say “empathy is the problem” like Elon. (Even though I actually don’t think this would be about empathy, it’d be about upholding what remains of international standards, duties, laws and human rights, eventually with force if necessary)

My personal thought was “Aww, poor tech-bro capitalists are learning what the actual, obscene fundamentals of their antisocial ideology have always been, and that they were in fact not high-IQ genius technocrats knowing better than anyone else how to run mankind”.

But then I realised they most likely learned nothing and will claim that they, themselves, would never have been so stupid.

Wow, I guess they have now literally reached the earliest one they could do a live action remake of. Good to know that even while things have been heating up globally, the underlying current of absolute boredom in this dystopia is going strong.

What is this about? This?

Haven’t been on reddit and am notoriously often living under a rock when it comes to news outside my personal interests.

Yeah, I am not doubting that this happened, because in the mix of callousness and incompetence on display, it isn’t unlikely. But a source would be much appreciated, still.

Another classic:

Ah, that makes the context more understandable. Also, good job on providing that service, I think it’s actually great to have that in the ecosystem.

I do not put any limits on the database and even my lowest capacity plans have a very generous soft-limit 100GB media storage.

Actually, wow, yeah, having a quick look at your site, that is a very good and competitive offer for these prices and services provided, all things considered.

Yeah, I personally wouldn’t choose them, but I think they do fill a niche for non-techie users, who will gladly pay a (sometimes hefty) premium for having less hassle on the setup and maintenance sides, when compared to getting A VPS or dedicated server somewhere (or setting smth up at home).

Their videos are also usually pretty informative, including e.g. the one about managing mastodon storage - since it’s topical here.

It’s only half-topical, but let me say one thing: farmers are romanticised waaay too much in my opinion. Yes, they usually have a more precarious business, and agriculture as such is, of course, very much the foundation of our societies and very lives.

But don’t be blinded by the image of homesteading and such - most farmers are basically just business owners, with their class interests often removing them from a large part of the population. Many of the seasonal workers for example have shit pay on top of shit conditions, and they are notoriously overrepresented with some kind of “rurally wholesome” image, when they can be just as much business assholes, that mainly own a piece of land and the machinery necessary to use it for agriculture.

This will only get worse, because bankruptcy like this has one main effect: consolidation, even more farmland operated by big business, even though I personally think small business like this one is clearly already not as good as people tend to make it out as.

Right? I thought that looked like some serious ideological, “but hurting business is too far!”-brainrot.

But the article is actually really confusing to me:

One in five Americans plan to turn their backs for good on companies that have shifted their policies to align with Donald Trump’s agenda, according to a new poll for the Guardian.

That means ~20% plan to boycott themselves, which is not necessarily the same as supporting a boycott. Participating != supporting. Not supporting would e.g. also potentially mean attacking people like the person with the sign in the article photo, or ruining a Thanksgiving dinner with a huge family argument. While supporting can also mean “I support the movement, but for this and that reason, don’t participate myself” (that may be due to genuine dependence on some boycotted things, or just lack of motivation, or a feeling of not knowing how to, etc.).

Then the article goes on with a quote:

When 20% of Americans are permanently changing their consumption habits and nearly a third of boycotters say they’ll hold out indefinitely, convenience may no longer be the decisive factor companies think it is.

Again, that seems like 20% are actively boycotting, which is actually a pretty big number for a movement like that.

But then, there is another conflicting number just one paragraph away:

When asked about the boycotts that have been making headlines over the last few weeks, 36% of Americans said they are or will be participating.

So, wait, what? Why are the numbers so significantly different?

Last month, a Harris poll found that 31% of Americans have reported similar goals to “opt out” of the economy this year in light of the changing political climate.

Wait, that is yet another number, where are the 20% coming from even?

Also, I swear, maybe I am imagining it, but I think the article changed while I was typing this, because I remember wanting to structure an argument around them later using the “support” wording again, but now I can’t find it any more. Maybe I was misreading, that happens to me at times, but it wouldn’t be the first time a news outlet has changed an article while it was already live without a notice.

To anyone not wanting to click, here is the neat graphic with some more demographic info from the article:

So, a few years back, when a good friend of mine tried out Linux mint, one of the main reasons he didn’t stick with it wasn’t even compatibility or anything (although he probably would have switched to a rolling release as someone who values cutting edge updates). But what ultimately made him return to Windows was something, I have been scratching my head on how to best handle it: The file system structure ultimately being too much of a change.

Now, of course, if you are used to it, I wouldn’t really call it better or worse - definitely more suited to what Linux ultimately is. But stuff like, “Where are the save games of my paradox games? Why is so much stuff in my user directory? Why is there no unified directoy for all the stuff I installed (including everything they use), like Program Files, but everything is scattered all around into different directories? Why was the path to my save games hidden in a dotfile-folder?” were examples of hurdles, where the current answer seems to be “you just have to get used to it”.

Now, I am not pleading to change the standard, there’s good reasons for it. But are there good transitioning guides from Windows to Linux, that do a good job at explaining the structure of the file system? Because I remember, myself, only really getting used to it months into my Linux journey all those years ago.

The current most likely theory of the people that dove headfirst into this seems to be, that she was a small streamer on peertube and other platforms (hence the many different webcam images, too). Looking into the chat of the stream on her peertube account reveals at least one person, that had all their messages removed by her. The linked accounts on the most common spam messages feel more like doxxing attempts, too - with ones like this asking for money most likely being copycats, as in the original messages and linked communities, there was a suspicious lack of asking for money or trying to start contact for a romance/catfishing scam.

This would all point to some kind of crazy stalker trying to doxx this woman for whatever reason, in a pretty weird way. Maybe they hoped it would get us all riled up and hating on her? Maybe they thought by just seeing her, we’d react in some way? Maybe they just wanted the feeling of power to doxx and intimidate her, and no real plan beyond that?

Whatever it is, it really looks more like creepy shit than scam shit at this point, from what I have gathered in the community research that has been happening.