calcopiritus

Nono. You see, Israel wanted to bomb Iran, but the US knew that if that were to happen, Iran would attack the US. Therefore someone should stop this situation! So they bombed Iran harder to avoid the retaliation from Israel's planned attack. What else could they have done?

/s

You went through my comment history and quoted me, to just not read the whole quote.

Here, I'll help you:

It's fine if someone already answered with what you were going to answer. You can just upvote that guy and move on.

As I said, there are already 3 top comments explaining to you why you're being downvoted. I don't need to explain myself when I mostly agree with them, I just upvote them.

If everyone had to explain every downvote, we would have hundreds of comments on each post, and most of them would say the same thing.

There are at least 3 comments with well laid arguments (hint, they have way more up votes than the post). You have answered to none of them.

I never used them. AI is shit, and they're still at the "burning money" stage, wait 2-3 years and they'll enter the enshittification stage, where it will be even worse.

Plenty of times I've seen coworkers stuck at the same problem for hours. Until they come and ask for help and I give them a simple answer for their simple problem. Every time it is "well, I asked the AI and it said this thing and it didn't work, so I asked it to fix it and it didn't either, a bunch of times.". I just tell them "you're surrounded by a lot of people here that know a lot about programming, why don't you ask any of them?".

For real, why use an AI at work where you are surrounded by people that can actually answer your question? It just makes no sense. Leave AI to those that can't pay an artist for their game. Or to those that have a "game design idea that will change the world" but won't pay a programmer even if they can't program themselves.

It's not. Numbers are arranged (both binary and base 10) with the most significant digit on the left.

Whether you read the number from left to right or right to left is irrelevant and you can choose whichever one you want.

But it is completely consistent with base 10 (normal numbers).

Pay your seniors then. Changing jobs is a hassle. No one will do it if they are happy with their current job. Give them also work from home, so not even moving due to a partner will make the senior change jobs.

Ah now I understand why this has gone for so long. Your reading comprehension skills are non-existent.

First of all, the US is a flawed democracy, not even a real one. And those genocides are done to people outside the US. None of my arguments are about what is morally correct or not.

What I'm saying is that anarchy is not a stable system, it will eventually evolve into a stable one.

In fact, the US right now is a perfect example of what I'm saying. You guys voted an openly fascist imbecile twice to the top power. And the other branches of government gave him even more power. And still, he has only openly killed like <10 citizens out of 330 million. And you guys still have elections. Sure, democracy has eroded a lot. But it's still technically a democracy.

If someone like trump obtained that amount of power in an anarchic society, he would've just killed every democrat in the country.

In a democracy (even if a shitty one), with a good chunk of the population backing him, he still does not have absolute power. More than 5 years in, he hasn't yet managed to end democracy.

Then that means it's shit.

In a democracy, governments derive their power from the legitimacy that the support of their voters give them. If someone in government decides to "not be nice about it", then most likely the rest of the government would stop it. Remember, the government is made up of a LOT of people. If an entire political party goes nuts, then the opposition would get votes and reclaim the monopoly of violence.

All of the examples you mention where anarchy works are small groups of <50 people. This post is talking about anarchy in the scope of an entire labor market. That is thousands of millions of people. The context is way different. Furthermore, all of those examples are small anarchic groups in the context of a non-anarchic society.

A family can be anarchic, but they still can call the police if a family member murders another one.

I won't read a book just to argue with someone. Each word has thousands of definitions depending on who uses it. Each different person I've talked to in this thread has a different definition of what anarchy is. If I read a book about anarchy, I can only argue with the author. I won't read 1 book per random person on the internet.

I ask a simple question: how is an anarchic system going to defend against foreign and inside enemies? In any other system this is a simple answer, yet for anarchy I'm encountering walls of text that either sidetrack the conversation or give an utopian answer of "everyone would come together and defend eachother" which has no basis in reality.

How are those demands going to be enforced?

In most other political systems there is a central authority with a monopoly of violence that can enforce rules via violence.

If your political system only works if everyone acts in the interests of society over their own, then it's not a political system. It's a failure. Because there are plenty of selfish people, and you can't change that.