I assume from your phrasing you mean to say that “some industrialists will prefer human labour over cheaper machines”. (But you could instead have meant to say that “in society, there will always be a role for human labour”).

I think this proposition is false (in the long run) due to the the profit-maximization logic of capitalism. Even if some industrialists prefer human labour, in the long run they’d eventually be out-competed by those that didn’t. But yes, machines cost a lot upfront which could delay the switchover (possibly even beyond the sunset of the industry!).

I think the “Rate of profit falls” theory doesn’t matter. Assume it’s true: machines lower the rate of profit. But, capitalists can’t (as a group) decide not to use machines. Without control of private assets (e.g. capital) the capitalists cease to be, and become a purely rentier class again. It would no longer be capitalism but feudalism. I don’t believe capitalists have the power (or desire) to cause such a transition.

I’ve been doing this with rclone. https://github.com/rclone/rclone

I manually run it to sync my important files (which I modify on my Desktop) up to Google Drive (which serves as a web accessible backup).

I remember once getting a book of Murray Bookchin’s collected works (or something from the library). I had assumed that his social ecology would fit well with my environmental interests (it was environmentalism that led me to anti-capitalism which led me to communism). Anyway long story short I couldn’t understand a word of what he was saying. It was english words, but it’s like it wasn’t english sentences. To some extent it’s similar in ML circles – we use certain words in ways that are different. But it honestly just seemed like drivel. If anyone can summarize it for me or link an article that explains it I would appreciate it, as I’ve heard that Murray Bookchin’s writings have also been adopted by some middle east factions (but I don’t recall any details, so don’t quiz me please).

pigginz has a valid viewpoint. Most people I’ve given this advice to respond in similar ways. I think it comes down to two fundamental conflicts, the first is about “Being true to yourself” vs doing otherwise.

Did you see the Barbie movie? There is this great quote:

“You’re not your girlfriend. You’re not your house, you’re not your mink. [Ken] Beach? [Barbie] Nope. You’re not even beach. Maybe all the things that you thought made you you aren’t really you”

The idea is that “you are you”, and it’s more fundamental than superficial things like your clothes, body, job, conversational skills, etc. But if this is true, the idea cuts both ways: if “you” are not any of these things then you may change any of these things and still be true to yourself (because these things are not you!). Sort of absurd. “You” in some sense includes your capabilities, relationships (with people and property), your job, fashion sense, your family, your history, etc. But in a more immediate sense, I think “you” must certainly include your actions. Ken in that movie was an asshole because he acted like one.

So “being true to yourself” vs not is a factor whenever you change your actions. You choose to go to the gym. You choose to talk to strangers . You choose to leave the house. Perhaps you feel that making these choices will have violated your integrity, but I feel that’s hard to sustain which will become clearer when we look at the second fundamental conflict: Is it immoral to choose to act this way?

I would posit that you choose to do these things because you desire a certain outcome. That in itself isn’t immoral, because that’s why we’re all communists. We act certain ways (e.g. by reading books, posting, organizing) because we hope to achieve a certain outcome (a better society). But some actions are certainly immoral: but it depends on both the action and the motivation behind it. For example if you become a life guard because you want to save people, that’s moral. If you become a life guard because you intend to let a select few hated enemies drown, that’s immoral.

It’s immoral to lie and/or pretend to be something you are not, but it’s moral to present yourself as well you can, as far and wide as you can, because you want to attract a partner. But morality requires you to act with honesty, consideration and care towards others.

It’s not a meme. It works. Especially for men in their 20’s and 30’s.

It’s kind of like low cost insurance. People have a natural tendency to eat a similar calorie amount everyday. Society talks about mesomorphs, endomorphs, ectomorphs, but as far as I can tell there is no science backing this (instead these differences arise from the different daily calorie amounts). So GOMAD basically ensures a beginning weight trainer is getting enough healthy calories for muscle growth. It combats the “hard-gainer” phenomenon.

I’m sorry you got the wind knocked out of your sails. But you did mostly right, good instincts.

First it was good that you didn’t make a move on her on the beach in front of all her friends. You’re unlikely to progress a relationship in front of a peer group. The risk is too high: that they’ll be judged, or that it’ll ruin other relationships with those peers.

Second you accepted the rejection with grace. This is good, as it’s never worthwhile to put someone you say you care about through a bad time. Besides, a rejection is usually less about you than you might think. For example:

• She might have a boyfriend or have her eye on someone else.
• She might not want a long distance relationship.
• Maybe you’ve got a habit she doesn’t like (e.g. smoking or something)
• Maybe she’s not looking for a relationship at all. Maybe she just got out of a bad one.
• Maybe a friend of hers is in crisis and she has too much to deal with.
• Maybe she wants to be unattached to move elsewhere in world after university.

Anyway my advice would be to move on (mentally – don’t like physically change houses). The easiest way to do that is to date other people… to that end I have some practical advice I can offer you.

First your increase your chances at attracting a partner if you are healthy and fit. This answers any potential deal-breakers about your fitness, lifestyle, potential as a parent, etc. So eat a lot of lean chicken and vegetables, and commit to drinking 4 litres of whole milk each day every third week and lift heavy weights (e.g. Stronglifts or Starting Strength).

Second, learn how to talk. This is hard, but force yourself to say something to a complete stranger every day. Later increase the difficultly (say something to someone near to your age, say something to a woman every day, compliment a stranger, compliment a woman stranger). Keep track of your progress and keep practicing and it gets easier.

Third, live an interesting life. Avoid being at home in the evening. Take a dance class, join a dance crews, pick-up an instrument an go to open-mic night, karaoke, join a social group (via meetup?) for your age group.

Anyway, if you’ve done 1, 2, 3 then you should be meeting and talking to potential partners regularly. You’ll be in peak physical condition and not at all nervous… and you’ll do just fine.

As oscardejarjayes has said, the $10 isn’t for computer resources, it’s mostly to pay the customer facing domain registrars and disincentivize squatting domains. Each subdomain (.com, .ca, .uk, etc) is controlled by some entity and for national domains part of the fee is a tax set by and collected for that nation.

In terms of the “compute” required for the DNS – that’s actually your internet service provider. ISPs synchronize and serve up DNS locally in order to give you faster internet (so users pay for DNS indirectly). You might have switched your domain to 8.8.8.8 (Google’s DNS servers) which Google provides for free in order to try to speed up peoples internet access.

I don’t think blockchain is a suitable for DNS (or for anything actually).

To “run a blockchain” requires a lot of infrastructure. At a minimum I think you need communication between all the participants (otherwise how would one tell the others it has successfully produced the next block?) and you need some kind of pool of waiting registrations that they can all access (otherwise what would they build a block from?).

The block chain is just a ledger, and a ledger is a terrible format for DNS data because it requires scanning every ledger record to find a match (so it scales linearly with the number of times anyone modifies a DNS entry). To solve this any real DNS will need to covert the ledger into an internal database. I would think all this complexity would raise costs, not lower them.

The existent DNS (a simple distributed hierarchical database) is replaced by a voluminous distributed ledger system. This change by itself doesn’t resolve any of the problems you mentioned.

You’ve said a few other things that don’t make technical sense:

• “hosting fees will decrease”: A .com or .org DNS domain name is about $10 a year and is independent of the amount of traffic you have. Different DNS subdomains also charge different amounts, so it’s mostly a nominal fee.
• “A domain must keep a minimum amount of traffic”: There is no accurate tracking of traffic to a domain name because it’s often cached (this is why you’re advised to wait multiple hours after making DNS changes to see the effects).

I think you are conflating hosting with DNS. The DNS is just the resolution of a human readable string to a bunch of keywords (e.g. www server addresses, mail addresses, metadata tags, etc). Hosting is providing the necessary servers and bandwidth to deliver the services (like email, websites, torrents, etc).

Hi long time lurker, first time caller. Wow this is a great question.

First a database is just data at rest; you need to do something with the data therein. Others have mentioned Linear Algebra and “Towards a New Socialism” (the Harmony Algorithm) and I want to speak to those first.

Lets start with linear algebra: good, bad, and ugly. In a (basic) linear algebra approach you’d pose problems like so:

Ax + b = y

Where A is a matrix of input-output relations: a massive matrix with each row representing a recipe for something you’d want to produce and each column being some type of input. For example perhaps 1 unit of leather takes 1 hour of labor and consumes 1 cow, you’d put a 1 in the leather column and negative 1’s in both the labor and cows column. The vector b kind of represents things you’d get automatically (And we’ll assume it’s all zeros and toss it). And that leaves y as the goal vector (e.g. how many iphones you want to produce, how many cars, etc). Linear algebra, and the above formulation, allows you to work backwards and solve for x. This tells you how much metal you need, power, labor hours, cows, etc.

The good is it’s fast, reliable and well defined if you’re using it right. The bad is it’s quite limited: Take energy production for example – there are several ways to do this: wind, solar, gas, nuclear. Linear algebra isn’t going to handle this well. And what happens if some outputs are both end-products but also inputs to other products? Things get messy.

But the ugly is that the linear algebra approach is literally just a system of equations that represent a mapping between two different high dimensional spaces. Every column and every row should be measuring a totally unique thing. This is not an ideal situation for planning, here outputs of one industry are inputs to another.

This limitation can be creatively addressed by subdividing the problem and combining the answers. Perhaps splitting by region, or looking at each industrial sector in isolation. Which brings us to a good time to mention the Harmony algorithm which is one approach to subdividing the problem and recombining the answers.

But before we go on from here, it’s worth mentioning that there is no guarantee that solutions built from solutions to subproblems will be optimal. But they might be: it depends on the problem domain.

However there are more sophisticated models, such as the linear programming model. In this model you recast your planning problem into a description like so:

    Maximize happiness
    Where happiness is 1.5 * number of iphones, + -.5 * level of pollution + ...
      AND acres of land used < 1000
      AND number of labor hours used is < 50000
      AND number of iphones = labor hours * .01
      AND level of pollution = labor hours *.001
      AND ...

This model is much nicer: we have an objective to maximize (the happiness equation) and we can accommodate multiple production processes as constraints on the solution. We can also accommodate that making leather also produces beef, and that raising cows one way produces fertilizer but raising them another way produces pollution shit pools. So that solves the energy problem (we can also encode all of the different ways energy can be produced). We can also set hard limits on negative things (e.g. the max CO2 we want to emit).

But this model is much, much slower. I believe the largest solvers on the largest supercomputers can handle ~8 billion variables. But each production process you add could require dozens to hundreds of variables in the final model. So you’re back to divide and conquer approaches.

And we’ve barely begun! We haven’t looked at how you decide what to produce. We haven’t even looked at future planning (deciding what capital goods to invest in) nor geography (Where do you build or produce these things? Where do you run rail lines? Where is the labor that needs the jobs or has the skills?).

And what about your solution quality? Do you need the best possible plan or will any reasonably good plan do (e.g. top 10% of plans)? And what about the variety of possible solutions? Maybe one good plan is based on railway lines and collective agriculture while a different really good plan achieves the same with densification and high tech industries. How do you decide what’s best, but more importantly: Did your planning approach inform you that you had these very different options?

Nor have we looked at things like Cybersyn – how do you monitor your industries and identify weird-shit-happening-now in the production process (e.g. delays in shipping, sudden bursts of productivity, rising worker unhappiness, etc) and route around it?

I don’t think there is a planning “solution” but there are planning “tools”. All these approaches and more should be used by a dedicated planning department that can plan and correct for many timescales and contingencies. This department would also need to communicate the plans to appropriate stake-holders.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed reading this, I certainly enjoyed writing it :-)