Anarchy doesn't mean "absence of law". Absence of law is anomie. One is often confused for the other, but there is a slight difference.
Anarchy is more about you and your community having the autonomy to decide your own rules, not a central authority. I believe "autonomy" is the key word here, not "law".
So I am playing a bit of devils advocate here, but then isnt the KKK a good example of Anarchy? The community agreed that part of the residents should not live there anymore, they made there own laws and tried to enforce them.
No, because the KKK itself represents a coercive power structure acting without the consent of those it attempt to enforce power over, which is inherently not anarchist.
If the KKK only tried to harass or harm people who had consented to be subject to them, then you'd have an argument.
This doesnt tally with the previous comment. Then you are saying anarchy has laws, but they cannot be enforced.
So your interpretation is no laws (which can be enforced): then how would you prevent the KKK in forming (violating your rule) without a government to enforce "no minority killings, please"
To call the KKK anarchist is to ignore that they had the tacit approval of the state and contained within their ranks many state actors. It seems odd to me to ask how Anarchism would prevent the rise of the KKK when the state permitted the creation of the KKK.
One view is to see the KKK as basically raiders/marauders who left their own communities to terrorize other communities. Without a state to intervene on their behalf obviously the affected communities would have to rise up in self-defense. So, what really happened? The state didn't intervene on the behalf of black communities. The state would've brutally put down any attempt to resist the KKK with force, black communities were not permitted to use force. The KKK were a state sanctioned paramilitary group carrying out a mission of terror with the aim of preserving the racial hierarchy at the center of the south's the social order.
You might ask "How would this be better with Anarchism?" but I find myself asking "How could it be any worse?"
No, I'm saying anarchy implies laws arranged by consent.
The existence of the KKK is not in violation of anything I suggested. If they want to be an abhorrent debating club, they should be free to.
But the moment they try to initiate aggression, it is justified for anyone to defend themselves, an anarchism would generally consider it justified for anyone to band together to defend themselves, against that aggression, up to and including e.g. creating militias or a standing police force.
The key points throughout are consent and voluntary association, and the ability to withdraw that consent at any time. Not absence of structure, but the minimal structure needed at any time, arranged by consent.
If anything, anarchists are obsessed with structure of society - that is why there are so incredibly many different anarchist ideologies.
I frankly find it bizarre that this is a difficult concept to understand, because conceptually it is very simple: Consider what happens if we delegate power bottom up, instead of appointing representatives who delegate power top to bottom.
In theory nothing needs to change other than that, if we believe that current systems accurately reflects the will of the people.
The reason we're even discussing this is that nobody - not supporters of anarchism or its detractors actually believe that current societies accurately reflects the will of the people.
But detractors assume that people will withhold consent to every structure they believe are needed to maintain a functioning society.
Ultimately it reflects a fear of democracy - a fear that most people will opt to let society collapse, and it's really quite odd to behold these arguments.
I heartily recommend "The Search Space" podcast to anyone interested in learning more about logic programming. The host is very good at introducing concepts in an easily understandable manner, and
at chaining them in the right order so that you don't feel overwhelmed. I'm a complete noob, plus not a native english speaker, yet I didn't feel the need the rewind things at any point while listening to it.
I may be mistaken but Han Chinese weren't forced to undergo sterilization. If you had a second child, you were fined and your child wouldn't be recognized as a Chinese citizen. Still horrible though.
> The state regularly subjects minority women to pregnancy checks, and forces intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands, the interviews and data show. Even while the use of IUDs and sterilization has fallen nationwide, it is rising sharply in Xinjiang.
> But while equal on paper, in practice Han Chinese are largely spared the abortions, sterilizations, IUD insertions and detentions for having too many children that are forced on Xinjiang’s other ethnicities, interviews and data show. Some rural Muslims, like Omirzakh, are punished even for having the three children allowed by the law
> Leaked data obtained and corroborated by the AP showed that of 484 camp detainees listed in Karakax county in Xinjiang, 149 were there for having too many children - the most common reason for holding them. Time in a camp — what the government calls “education and training” — for parents with too many children is written policy in at least three counties, notices found by Zenz confirmed
> Seven former detainees told the AP that they were force-fed birth control pills or injected with fluids, often with no explanation. Many felt dizzy, tired or ill, and women stopped getting their periods. After being released and leaving China, some went to get medical check-ups and found they were sterile
> But are Han Chinese sent to concentration camps?
All of them? Certainly not, China would look pretty empty. Some of them? Yeah, unless you have a special definition of concentration camp.
The organ harvesting also does not seem to have an ethnic component. You tend to be targeted if you're loudly critical of the government or engage in unwanted religion, your ethnicity does not spare you.
> The organ harvesting also does not seem to have an ethnic component. You tend to be targeted if you're loudly critical of the government or engage in unwanted religion, your ethnicity does not spare you.
If Surgeon Enver Tohti’s testimony is to be believed, then Uyghurs are indeed targeted for organ harvesting.
Most likely, my point is: so are Han Chinese that are imprisoned for a variety of reasons. It's not an ethnic thing, it's primarily an authoritarian-regime-with-little-regard-for-human-rights-thing. Falun Gong practicioners for example are also heavily targeted, and they are predominately Han.
That's actually not true. The Han Chinese are imposed forced sterilization. Even worse, pregnant Han women who violate the policy have been taken from home to do forced abortion. I hate this policy as much as anybody, but I won't call it genocide.
And for people wondering why caring about on-premises hosting when you have the cloud, a few weeks ago there was a thread about why would you do the former in favor of the latter. It puts on display that actually a lot of people are still on-premises, and for good reasons, which makes a good case for a company like Oxide to exist.
Wow, I had never heard of Oxide before this. I work at a huge company that is nearly finished their cloud transformation, which was frankly largely a way to differentiate themselves form their competition more than anything, and a huge cost sink.
This probably would've accomplished the same goal, with a lot less overhead.
This article gets why Emacs is awesome so right, that, to be honest, there's nothing to add.
I'm always amazed by the people leaving Emacs for a few years to then come back and falling in love with it once again. Only very good tools make us feel like that. Everything else is nostalgia.
A lot of people here are suggesting, like you, that a low-carbs diet or ketos can help your body "heal" from T2D. I just don't see why starving yourself from carbs, which is like the basis of life for your cells, is going to help. From what I gleaned here and there, T2D is more linked to fat-heavy diet, which clutters blood vessels and keeps yours cells from absorbing the insulin your body produces, thus preventing them from "disgesting" the carbs you sending to them, resulting in diabetes. Reducing all the cholesterol in your diet will help your body "cleanse" gradually from these plaques on your blood vessels.
I'm not doctor, nor a nutrionist, but this guy makes really good and sourced videos on these subjects:
I really recommend watching them. They're clearly oriented (duh), but still quite informative.
I'm sorry, my reply is a bit rushed and not that polished, but I really wanted to reply to see if anyone has something to say about this interpretation of carbs and T2D. (And it's damn late right now where I live!)
Bodies can run on ketones (byproduct of breaking down fats) or glucose. I'm not sure where you got the information that T2 is related to fat heavy diet, that is not true at all. It can be related to bring fat, for to complications with obesity. It is related to glucose spikes, which causes insulin spikes, but the T2s body is insulin resistant and so sugar and insulin stay in the blood stream and can't be utilized. High sugar in the blood is the cause of most T2 chronic issues.
Also of note, a recent study has found that ingestion of cholesterol does not correlate with how much is in your blood.
Those videos were painful to watch (what's up with his intonation, it sounds like he's introducing prizefighters) and the guy looks anorexic and anemic; not someone from whom I'd take nutritional advice.
T2 is related to glucose ingestion(sugar, carbs) NOT fat. Glucose spikes your insulin, and the continued, extreme spiking of insulin is what causes T2.
“Be the change that you wish to see in the world.” ― Mahatma Gandhi
These things you classify as comfort may not be that essential and good for you and the others. Someone that eats animal products everyday and claims that it's their comfort, while it's affecting their health, the lives of 56 billion animals per year and the environment, is, to me, problematic.
I always, in my head, compare it to slavery. While it's not the same thing, of course, the pattern is the same. Something that's not ethical at all, but we, for a long time, did not care because of the comfort it brings us. Can we still live without it? Of course. And well.
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time getting my point accross in these topics, but what I mean is that what you call "comfort" may not that critical to your well-being at all. You don't need to change eveything from day 1, but doing it a bit more everyday will make feel like a better human being, as you know you're living by respecting others and your environment, while giving money is kind of too easy and doesn't influence what's surrounding you. If you want things to change, you have to be this change. By being it you expose others to the issue you're fighting and make think about it in another way, up to a point they might understand it and join the fight, or at least acknowledge it. It's a very slow process but this is how sustainable change goes since the dawn of time. Actions matter, but ideas win. And ideas don't get seeded with money (well, in the long-term... because propaganda and stuff, but I hope you get the gist).
In another comment you mention you don't like walking. These likings are not by any means frozen in you. Maybe you never tried enjoying walking alone, with your thoughts drifting away in your mind and just living the present moment. Comfort is really subjective, I really think what we should all yearn for is the greater good, which, suprisingly doesn't cost that much in the end and gives you a real sentiment of fulfillment. It's just a matter of /being/ that change.
The computations used to do symmetric and asymmetric encryptions are completely different. Asymmetric encryption is just about factoring out big numbers into primes, if we simplify things a bit. And modern computers aren't very good at it, but Quantum Computer happens to be, and can break it. Read a bit about Shor's Algorithm[0].
On the other hand, symmetric encryption can be seen as a super convoluted and costly shift cipher. And it seems that Quantum Computing does not help much with dumb and costly mathematics like this.
I don't think I suffer from a disorder like you seem to have, but I, too, can't keep any habit, regardless of my motivation. The most annoying 'habit' that I can't keep is sleeping. I never fall asleep and wake up at the same times. Trying too hard to setup a sleeping schedule only worsen the issue.
This is kind of frustrating when you see all those self-improvement books and people saying they 'achieve success' by twisting their will and forming the right habits.
I also use taskwarrior, this is really a wonderful to-do list manager. Along with Khal[0] to plan things (even if I can't stick to what I schedule, this is still stimulating to layout tasks in a calendar), it gives enough confidence to keep the head high and not sink under all the work that awaits me everyday.
The last sentence sum it up for me, these tools just help me to accumulate confidence and get things going.
