@tomww@mastodon.social2026-08-12 19:53:25
Die Smartphonekamera sagt, "das gehört so".
#SoFi
@tinoeberl@mastodon.online2026-08-24 10:12:11
Am 28. August lohnt sich frühes Aufstehen für #Astronomie-Fans.
Bei einer partiellen #Mondfinsternis geraten mehr als 90 Prozent der Mondscheibe in den Kernschatten der Erde. In Süddeutschland wird der Höhepunkt gegen 6:13 Uhr erreicht. Gute Sicht bietet ein erhöhter Standort mit fre…
@hex@kolektiva.social2026-06-27 05:43:55
OH! I forgot the whole "out of band" thing. Let me get into that.
When you put all this together you have a business owned by a church (or, in the Dutch case, an FFI) to interface with capitalism and then a community that's collectively controlled via the legal entity of a "church." (Again, I like the word "coven," but I'm trying to use the legal definition here.)
This gives you a community that exists partially outside of the dominant system. If this seems like a new idea, it is absolutely not. There are very insular religious communities all over. Many are really oppressive cults (go watch Wild Wild Country), others are insular religious communities (for which there is a lot of legitimate criticism, but I'm only talking about decipherability here) such as Haredim or Mennonites. In some ways Tribes match this also, with various tribal governments organizing things for members.
In all of these cases, there exists an element that is outside of the dominant system. This becomes somewhat "invisible." How well do you understand the inner workings of an Amish community? How much do you think a CEO cares or thinks about them?
There are many hidden worlds that only become revealed when they become a problem (such as when a cult leader tries to take over a county by spraying e. coli on a bunch of salad bars.) This can be good if you're trying to build a new society without attracting the attention, but insular communities can also permit abusive dynamics that could otherwise be identified by the larger society. So keep the risks in mind, and be active about preventing them. Hierarchy is dangerous, but hierarchy in hidden groups can be especially dangerous.
@detondev@social.linux.pizza2026-09-03 01:18:53
One resident at the retirement place I work at turned 100, and at his party, my grandmother learned of a nearly 200 year old bible he inherited and only recently physically acquired, elaborately decorated with over 1,000 engravings, a map of Palestine (specifically proudly advertised on the New Testament's intro), genealogies, summaries, interpretations, and even records of the owning family's births, marriages, and deaths, written in impeccably preserved cursive. She got my younger …
@cdarwin@c.im2026-07-29 22:32:03
The US and European stock markets might be numb to the enormity of the AI bubble at this point,
but in East Asia it’s a different story.
In South Korea, the AI bubble appears to be bursting
— at least partially
— with the Korea Composite Stock Price Index (Kopsi) plummeting by over 40 percent from its June highs
after the Korean chipmaker SK Hynix failed to impress investors
despite reporting a sixfold increase in quarterly earnings.
Across July 28 a…
@seeingwithsound@mas.to2026-07-29 06:31:19
Reading comments, on Facebook, to the New Scientist article about Science Corp.'s PRIMA retinal implant does not give the impression that there will be a sustainable market https://www.facebook.com/newscientist/posts/pfbid02r…
@tiotasram@kolektiva.social2026-07-26 17:31:24
Semi-subtoot: there's a certain kind of anti-genocide narrative that draws comparisons between the Gaza genocide and the genocide of Jews, queer, and disabled people during WW2, with an incredulous overtone, the subtext of which is: if the good nations invaded Germany to stop the Nazis' evil in WW2, it's hypocritical for this nations not to take action to protect Gazan civilians now. There are a couple of problems with this line of reasoning, but the most obvious from an anarchist perspective (which sees "good nation" for the oxymoron it is) is that it's ahistorical. The reasons for the various allies' entrance into WW2 are varied, but they weren't about good and evil, and in fact the full depth of the evils of the Holocaust *was not known* in allied countries until after the war. Nations never really do things to "fight evil" like some humans might; they always act out of a kind of (imperfect) self-interest. The motivations for many of the allies were simply "we don't want Germany to conquer and destroy us" (and the imperfection in that motive is amply evident in the appeasement that preceded the war). America was of course not swayed by that motive, and it was the Japanese that (thinking the issue would have to come to a head eventually and that a surprise attack was worth speeding it up) put America in a situation where it joined for similar reasons.
Why is this extra relevant right now? Because neither the US nor any European country is existentially threatened by Israel (or threatened at all in fact, quite the opposite they're all benefiting economically from the situation in Gaza). The lesson of history isn't "brave, good nations will stand up to fight against anyone who commits genocide or other major evils", it's "nations act in their narrow and twisted and often mistaken self-interest (the interest of the national entity, which is often counter to the interest of it's citizens), and they always mythologize their actions after the fact as having been a fight against evil, which sometimes by luck is partially true."
To double down on this point: in the European theater the U.S. war actions were pretty good overall, defeating an evil opponent through military force and being a fairly gracious victor to the civilian populations there. In contrast, in the Pacific theater the U.S. was one of two evil empires duking it out for global dominance at the expense of civilians on both sides. The Japanese empire was a vile regime and perpetrated horrors in China, Korea, and across southeast Asia. The U.S. was barely better, between Japanese internment camps at home, and mass targeting of civilians on Japan, both with the firebombing of Tokyo and especially the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So if your model of how we stop genocide is "convince the good guys to invade (or exert political pressure) and save the day", your model is wrong. That's not what happened in WW2. I'm not confident I know the perfect solution, but I do think it involves a mass of people making increasingly disruptive protest so that the cost *to rich companies and thus politicians* of falling to intervene is too high to stomach. That's a large part of what succeeded in South Africa, for example. Thankfully, there is already a vibrant protest movement to end the genocide in Gaza, and even though they haven't been fully successful yet, I'm optimistic that as things naturally (and through hard work) fall apart for various fascists politically, that movement will be able to succeed.
#gaza #genocide