mtgr18977's recent activity

  1. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    I don't know about that. But even so, the idea is to improve the lives of people around the world. And for that we need another system that is not tied to the central (financial) power that...

    Living standards right now are really good compared to the past, and I personally don't think I'm smart enough to set-up a new state from scratch without creating new problems.

    I don't know about that. But even so, the idea is to improve the lives of people around the world. And for that we need another system that is not tied to the central (financial) power that controls and exploits.

  2. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    It's very hard to believe that a bilionaire is an outsider on politics. The whole purpose of maintaining his wealth is linked to his ability to make policy and influence people and institutions....

    No one is an outsider if you expand the definition of insider wide enough. Trump wasn't involved in politics before his 2016 run though.

    It's very hard to believe that a bilionaire is an outsider on politics. The whole purpose of maintaining his wealth is linked to his ability to make policy and influence people and institutions. The idea of an outsider would be more like the idea of a person outside the axis of (financial) power, capable of breaking with the system. This is not the case for any billionaire today, mainly because their wealth depends on their ability to be eloquent and capable political actors.

    I think you're confusing the ability to be and do politics with being a professional politician (making a living from it).

  3. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    We have a lot of revolutions that have failed in other countries over time. But we also have a lot of revolutions that have significantly changed the status quo. And we have a lot of popular...

    Violent revolution is a coin flip and probably won't end with my ideal utopia. While our current systems have problems, it's very possible that the fascists would take power and crush civil rights. I'd rather reform our current institutions than bet on a maybe.

    We have a lot of revolutions that have failed in other countries over time. But we also have a lot of revolutions that have significantly changed the status quo. And we have a lot of popular revolutions that have been defeated by the power of finance capitalism (as we saw in Haiti). The possibility of other groups using the revolution for other means is always a threat, of course, but I don't think it's a threat to people's ability to change.

    As an individual example, if you've ever worked at a job you didn't love, why didn't you change jobs? More than the risk of unemployment, most people have some justified fear of the unknown. It's always possible the new job will be significantly worse.

    Agreed. But I don't know if this can be extended to a community view.

  4. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    Trump is not an outsider. The same goes for every other right-wing politician in the world (Milei, Bolsonaro and the whole Banon gang). They sell themselves as outsiders? Of course they do. But...

    Trump is not an outsider.
    The same goes for every other right-wing politician in the world (Milei, Bolsonaro and the whole Banon gang). They sell themselves as outsiders? Of course they do. But they are not. They are politicians or businessmen who are already involved in political games.

    3 votes

  5. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    I understand these differences, but at the same time you can see that they are essentially the same side of the same coin? In any other country they are both conservative capitalist parties with a...

    I understand these differences, but at the same time you can see that they are essentially the same side of the same coin?
    In any other country they are both conservative capitalist parties with a very strong protectionist economic culture. But you make a very good point about the minority issues, which are a big difference. But again, it is very narrow to say that these parties are not essentially the same.

    2 votes

  6. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    The same rich Americans control both parties, the oligarchy. If it is a different set of oligarchies in each party, I can't tell. Disagree, the parties are pretty much the same. They differ on...

    What same people control both parties in your view?

    The same rich Americans control both parties, the oligarchy. If it is a different set of oligarchies in each party, I can't tell.

    They largely have entirely different voting bases, different politicians, different pundits, different donors, and different policy proposals.

    Disagree, the parties are pretty much the same. They differ on some minor points of civil and individual liberties, but in the end they are almost the same. There is no difference between them and the system is designed that way. The idea of a progressive x a conservative party, it's not true. They are both conservative with, as I said, minor social and economic differences (mainly for the minorities).

    4 votes

  7. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    Agreed. But politicians are the representatives of businessmen, so businessmen don't have to get dirty in politics. Presidents (and other congressmen) don't have to be rich because they serve...

    A pretty telling key indicator that points against your central thesis is looking at how many US presidents became billionaires due to their presidency. I can't personally think of any.

    Agreed. But politicians are the representatives of businessmen, so businessmen don't have to get dirty in politics. Presidents (and other congressmen) don't have to be rich because they serve other people's interests.

    Aside from professionally, you can obviously vote in general elections, but you can also vote in primaries, which is how political parties choose candidates. "The party" isn't some external group of people, everyone who is registered to a political party makes up the voting body of that party.

    OK, but who chooses the politicians who run in the primaries? The system is too internalized for you to see that access doesn't really exist, it just looks like it does, because this democratic system is made to look like it gives you choices, when in reality it surrounds you with the same people, with the same opinions, and gives you similar answers.

    It mostly sounds like your issue with democracy is that the majority of voters disagree with you, which I guess you could view as a flaw, but wouldn't you rather have a system that at least takes the will of the people affected by it into account?

    My main question is: is it the people's opinion? Foucault believed that power is exercised through institutions, and that institutions have the ability to deny people their individuality. This power is omnipresent in society and operates at every level of social relations. The deeper we get into the system, the more we can't see that it is flawed because we can't see any other solution or alternative to it. We believe that the system is the best we have because we have been denied the idea of any other material alternative. We become so obsessed with the idea of a bourgeois democratic society that we believe people defend these ideals because they want to, not because they are bombarded with common sense all day long in every place (schools, businesses, the media).

    My point is more like: do people want this? Have people chosen this? How much individuality is left in a system with such omnipresent institutions that always deal with and defend the same people and the same interests?

    3 votes

  8. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    That is a very good answer. Thanks.

    That is a very good answer. Thanks.

    1 vote

  9. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    The alternation of power between two very similar ideologies controlled by the same people sounds very rigged to me ...

    The alternation of power between two very similar ideologies controlled by the same people sounds very rigged to me ...

    4 votes

  10. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    This is the power of myth. But I was thinking of a much more communitarian society where you don't have to obey a system that is rigged (the "why" is debatable, but nowadays it is) and you don't...

    They really want a father figure to fix the problems so they don't have to. I've been thinking about this more recently with respect to the presence of kings and superheros in fiction

    This is the power of myth.

    But I was thinking of a much more communitarian society where you don't have to obey a system that is rigged (the "why" is debatable, but nowadays it is) and you don't have access to change (the financial barrier is too high for any normal person) because "it's the better we can think now". I'm not changing anything, I'm just trying to understand why so many people defend a rigged democracy with so much enthusiasm and don't want to imagine anything else.

    1 vote

  11. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    This is a 2016 text, a lot has change worldwide since then. I guess nowadays we have way more problems with the options pout int the table. I agree. But democracy is no longer even questionable....

    That’s a strong claim to make which is not the consensus option of political scientists https://www.vox.com/2016/5/9/11502464/gilens-page-oligarchy-study

    This is a 2016 text, a lot has change worldwide since then. I guess nowadays we have way more problems with the options pout int the table.

    But above anything else “Why democracy” The answer is anything else that has ever been tried has turned out worse. That’s not to say democracy is the final state of governance for the rest of human history. But if you’re going to propose something else, you need a compelling case that’ll actually be better and not fall into the same traps as previous utopian failures that we saw endless examples of in the last century.

    I agree. But democracy is no longer even questionable. Anyone who wants to ask the question "what if ... not democracy?" will be dismissed as a lunatic.

  12. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    I was thinking about access. What are the real chances for an ordinary person to have access to politics? People are limited to voting for a candidate chosen by a party. Usually the candidate is...

    I guess I reject the central premise here. I think what we really have is a collective decision of citizens that has chosen a government that differs from your preferred outcome.

    I was thinking about access. What are the real chances for an ordinary person to have access to politics? People are limited to voting for a candidate chosen by a party. Usually the candidate is just an avatar for a powerful group (media, tech, etc). What is the real choice in a democracy controlled by a bunch of old rich people?

    Yes, a dictatorship of the military is so different from any western democracy. So very, much worse. I'm curious what leads you to believe that a military dictatorship could have any possible good outcome, based on the historical evidence or any other reasoning.

    My mistake, military democracy is not an option. English is not my first language, so I might have been a little imprecise in what I was thinking. As a sudamericano, the military dictatorships are always a threat, but also, these military are always connected in some deep way.

  13. Comment on Why democracy? in ~society

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    But this is not what we see every day. Today we have a rigged democracy. It's in the hands of a few billionaires who can control states through financial capitalism. The idea of checks and...

    Elections, term limits, and institutional checks and balances are designed to prevent any single entity or group from consolidating power indefinitely.

    But this is not what we see every day. Today we have a rigged democracy. It's in the hands of a few billionaires who can control states through financial capitalism. The idea of checks and balances is beautiful. But it does not work the way it should. It is the same problem you pointed out about temporary autocratic powers. In theory it is supposed to work, but it is not what we are seeing day in and day out in the democratic world.

    I can see your point about democracy IF democracy worked that way. Same with any other political system. I'm just trying to think about this idea of an ultimate system (democracy) that has shown some clear signs of stress.

    Or, to put a question about it: how can we solve the problem of a democracy that is only accessible to those with (a lot of) money? Can we exchange a dictatorship of the military for a dictatorship of the businessmen? Is it so different?

    1 vote

  14. Why democracy?

    ~society Ask
    First of all: this system brought undeniable historical advances in the West (formal equality, freedom of speech, universal suffrage). There's no way to deny this when compared to monarchies and...

    First of all: this system brought undeniable historical advances in the West (formal equality, freedom of speech, universal suffrage). There's no way to deny this when compared to monarchies and the civil-military authoritarian regimes in Latin America. However, even so, current democracy inherently carries the objective of preserving the economic order. The political structure is designed so that economic elites (whether bourgeois or corporate) maintain control through campaign financing, legislative influence, and media dominance.

    With this in mind, I decided to bring up for debate why democracy is considered the ultimate and best system we currently have, leaving no room for criticism of the system itself (representative democracy). This system derives from a stratified one (Greek) that has been refined over centuries to take power away from monarchs and transfer it to the bourgeoisie. Today, we live in a bourgeois-liberal democratic state that restricts any minority group’s access to the center of power. Everyone notices this, but since proposing or thinking of something distinct from representative democracy is dangerous, most people aim to patch a system that was designed to be this way: exclusionary and elitist. In the end, this term (democracy) has been elevated to an absolute moral ideal, leaving no room to question its central premise (the maintenance of centralized power in financial capitalism, which now finances the most radical right-wing movements).

    By the way, it’s worth considering how the right gained power in the world (money). And how it maintains its hegemony over cultural thought worldwide (money). Who funds this? Who benefits from this? Why couldn’t a decentralized yet ~autocratic~ proposal (I understand the difference between autocracy and the lack of checks and balances, but I fail to see why the current system is inherently better) be superior to a centralized government defending the interests of a dominant class? (Hint: the right maintains its hegemony because it controls financial resources and the means of cultural production; it’s not just about governments but a machine operating at multiple levels where the dominant ideology reflects the ideology of the ruling class.)

    Continuing, there are no decentralized and autocratic proposals (in the sense of concentrating power efficiently for certain decisions while decentralizing access to power overall) because these challenge the traditional logic of checks and balances, which ironically has been more effective at blocking structural changes than preventing abuses of power. For instance, the concept of distributive autocracy (a model in which power is temporarily centralized to carry out rapid structural reforms, followed by mechanisms of redistribution and decentralization of power) is rarely discussed because the tripartite and bicameral system locks this debate in place to maintain control through financial power (amendments) of the country.

    We remain hostages to a system that has become humanity’s manifest destiny, where no questioning can be raised without the individual being labeled as morally inferior. It’s not that representative democracy is inherently superior, but that it was historically designed to be acceptable within the context of bourgeois power. The question, therefore, is not simply "autocracy vs. democracy," but how we can create inclusive, participatory, and redistributive systems where power structures are transparent, accessible, and fair for everyone.

    14 votes

  15. Comment on Verbalize - text editor with writing assistance for Brazilian Portuguese in ~tech

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    Tanks a lot :) I have no idea how to integrate with Emacs =P In fact, come people ask for Obsidian integration, but for Emacs it's the first time.

    Tanks a lot :)

    I have no idea how to integrate with Emacs =P
    In fact, come people ask for Obsidian integration, but for Emacs it's the first time.

  16. Comment on Verbalize - text editor with writing assistance for Brazilian Portuguese in ~tech

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    Yes, indeed. But I think the target audience is those who write professionally and need an editor to help identify unusual writing errors. Grammar, collocations, and spelling are things that have...

    Yes, indeed.

    But I think the target audience is those who write professionally and need an editor to help identify unusual writing errors. Grammar, collocations, and spelling are things that have many solutions that are absurdly better and more mature.

    That's why my idea is to go with a Hemingway approach, which is very different from Grammarly.

    But thanks for the feedback :D

    1 vote

  17. Comment on Verbalize - text editor with writing assistance for Brazilian Portuguese in ~tech

    mtgr18977
    Link Parent
    My bad. Many people are giving me this feedback. In fact, it's not wrong, but this editor ir more focused on hints on readbility. Like Hemingway Editor. It will highlight complex phrases, jargons,...

    My bad.
    Many people are giving me this feedback. In fact, it's not wrong, but this editor ir more focused on hints on readbility. Like Hemingway Editor. It will highlight complex phrases, jargons, adverbs in excess, etc. The grammar it's a not a issue for this editor. But maybe, with all the feedback about it, I have to implement a basic grammar corrector (it's not that hard, I guess).

    Thanks for using and testing :)

    5 votes

  18. Verbalize - text editor with writing assistance for Brazilian Portuguese

    ~tech Text 248 words
    I believe this is a interesting issue to post it here because it's very difficult to get writing tools outside the English language. That's exactly why I ended up starting this project. If it's...

    I believe this is a interesting issue to post it here because it's very difficult to get writing tools outside the English language. That's exactly why I ended up starting this project. If it's not allowed, I apologise in advance.

    I'm a linguist and technical writer (tech writer, dev writer, documenter, technical editor, etc.) and I've always used Hemingway for my English writing. The problem was that I'd never found a text editor capable of suggesting possible improvements to a text in Brazilian Portuguese.

    Years passed, and this week I had time to create a fork of Techscriptor with some interface improvements and adapt it to Brazilian Portuguese. That's how version 0.1 of Verbalize was born.

    What does it do?

    In a basic and summarised way, you can upload a file from your computer (in md or txt, for now) and the editor, besides allowing you to actually edit, will give you hints on how to improve the text (long sentences, complex words, jargon, adjectives and other things we should avoid in texts, especially technical ones).

    Once edited, you can download the file in md format.

    Access

    The application can be installed (Electron), accessed through the web, or you can download the code from GitHub and run it locally in your browser.

    Improvements

    I have a few 'next steps' in mind:

    • Google Drive/Onedrive integration.
    • Possibility to upload a custom rules file.
    • Allow it to be used offline as well.
    • Improve the GUI.
    9 votes

  19. Comment on Rabbit R1 it's a scam in ~tech

    mtgr18977
    Link
    I posted this on Hacker News (an I got flagged) to see how the discussion goes. The majority of people there agree that the rr1 is a SCAM, or at least, a misleading product. The whole point around...

    I posted this on Hacker News (an I got flagged) to see how the discussion goes. The majority of people there agree that the rr1 is a SCAM, or at least, a misleading product. The whole point around the rr1 is the LAM, a AI model that it's suposed to deliver an automation for your everyday tasks.

    But, the thing is: there is no LAM in rabbit r1. Or, you can say that an automation is a LAM (it's not).

    Bringing up the definition of the Silvio Savarese’s article, the first one to mention the LAM model:

    To be clear, an LAMs job isn’t just turning a request into a series of steps, but understanding the logic that connects and surrounds them. That means understanding why one step must occur before or after another, and knowing when it’s time to change the plan to accommodate changes in circumstances. It’s a capability we demonstrate all the time in everyday life. For instance, when we don’t have enough eggs to make an omelet, we know the first step has nothing to do with cooking, but with heading to the nearest grocery store. It’s time we built technology that can do the same.

    The definition provided by Silvio Savarese highlights the ability of a LAM to not only transform a request into a series of steps but also to understand the underlying logic that connects and surrounds these steps. This includes the ability to adjust the plan as circumstances change.

    Based on this definition, claiming that rabbit r1 is a LAM-oriented assistant seems to be inaccurate. If it does not demonstrate the ability to understand and adapt to contextual changes in a logical and effective manner, it cannot be classified as a genuine LAM.

    For a true LAM, it is crucial that the technology not only follows a predefined sequence of steps but also understands the logic and purpose behind each step, adjusting as necessary to achieve the desired goal. If rabbit r1 does not meet these criteria, its classification as a LAM indeed needs to be reviewed.

    And, with that in mind I can assure you that rabbit r1 it's not a LAM oriented assistant as they claim.

    4 votes