What I find interesting about this article is that it critiques heavily about the first 200 pages, says almost nothing about the next 600, and then says the conclusion is unsatisfactory because it didn’t quote the book the author wrote in 1991. It’s transparently personal.

Academics write books. Get over it.

Yeah it’s a summary work that draws on decades of research. Both of these authors are extremely well-published in their respective fields. I’m like a third of the way through Dawn of Everything and it’s just as academic as “Debt” was, and neither are mass-market pulp. But work like this always draws hit pieces because it’s a way for critics to get their name out there.

Check out “The Dawn of Everything” by Wengrow and Graeber

What is wrong with it? I’ve been using it for years and it does what it’s supposed to do.

The Bush administration pioneered the theory of the unitary executive, which is the idea that the president can do anything because he is the president. They’re the ones who kicked over the guardrails, they just did it in the context of an endless war that they started. For more on this I recommend Sheldon Wolin’s work.

Could you link a source? I just want to believe this; I’ve never actually seen evidence of it.

Removing these biases is the whole point of public funding for things. Everyone shares the same resources and people who have more wealth give more. The fact that major institutions that perform public functions rely on private donations is the problem.

Not enough data for language scrape

To illistrate this, I just typed “restaurants” in Google Maps in downtown Prague and the first result was an ad for KFC (it looked like a real result but it said “sponsored” on top). But I do have a US phone.

It’s a reduction based on the history of regimes that call themselves communist… You don’t see a problem here? Maybe I’m just being pedantic but Marxian communism doesn’t have anything in common with any form of government in history. It’s more of an idealized state (state meaning condition, not polity). Nobody, apart from so-called primitive communist societies, can claim to be communist.

Your definition of communism further proves the earlier point about semantic drift. All of these terms are problematic because of their histories in the past 200 years.

The issue is that they are run as for-profit businesses but the product that they provide is a public good. They make money by providing as little product as possible. This type of structure is fine if your company makes luxury goods, but in the case of health insurance it results in unnecessary pain and death.

How do I jam a set of folding over-ear headphones into the top pocket of a backpack without tangling the cord with all the other crap I have in there?

Chomsky’s stroke came at a really critical time and we could use a successor to point out how idiotic the whole movement is.

The idea that LLMs are anywhere close to having the general intelligence needed to comprehend this kind of statement is ludicrous.

I’m in. How do I get started? Please and thank you 😁

Oh god. You can buy one on Temu for $10. I’m guessing they overheat and explode.

Right, but the issue is that if they don’t know what they are doing then the gear is irrelevant. I’ll give an example. If I’m skiing and I see someone hiking up to the off-piste bowl run in brand new topline gear, and they are visibly struggling to do the hike, I can ssume they are inexperienced and might really hurt themselves or crash into someone else.

If it’s a dangerous hobby then this becomes a safety concern.

You throw it in their mouths and rub under the lower mandible until it goes down. It’s not too hard, assuming your cat isn’t an asshole.