2,106 karma · joined May 6, 2015
https://lbbonline.com/news/claude-anthropic-mother-jeff-low-...
I wonder how much the CEO of ChatGPT used his own weapon to counter (very weakly, imo) this human-made attack ad.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/15/books/review/open-socrate...
https://www.politico.eu/article/epp-votes-with-far-right-to-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_groups_of_the_Europe... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_political_alliances
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024%E2%80%93present_Serbian_a...
https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/
Discussion in 2019: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18985017
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_(television_documentar...
Also, if look at the exact plane movements of his visits, they specifically avoid the air space of countries that do take the ICC seriously.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_prime_mi...
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/netanyahus-jet-largely-avoid...
https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/view-a-transcription-...
> in an age of rising geopolitical tension, world powers have an interest in upholding Vučić’s rule – seen as a guarantor of stability in a troubled region. Indeed, the strongman’s attempt to blame the crisis on foreign interference is ironic given the extent of his own reliance on external backing. He enjoys bipartisan support from Washington and is in favour with most European leaders, as well as Russia, China and the UAE. He has earned goodwill by supplying weapons to Ukraine and Israel, and Serbia’s vast lithium reserves have caught the eye of both the EU and the British-Australian multinational Rio Tinto, which is planning to open a new mine in the Jadar Valley despite public opposition.
Economic historian Trevor Jackson engaged with Abundance (together with eco-radical book Overshoot) in the September issue of the American left-ish publication NYRB, if you're curious about an earnest essay [0].
Since it's behind a paywall and the Overshoot book also gets reviewed, I picked out the most substantive quotes to highlight the actual critique:
> The evidentiary core of each chapter consists of a summary of the academic work of a few experts, usually economists, with frequent and lengthy quotations, as well as the occasional interview, whose conclusions are repeated uncritically. (To take one example, they quote without scrutiny the claim of Zoom CEO Eric Yuan that he is requiring employees to work in person in order to foster trust, rather than to impose discipline or to recoup the costs of commercial real estate.) They give no sense of the unruly literatures on their subjects, the ranges of disagreement, the difficult problems and mutually exclusive solutions. They claim to set an agenda for a new liberal political order, but what they have done is read some economists and argue, again, for deregulation.
> Klein and Thompson are opposed to redistribution, which they refer to as “parceling out the present” and which they claim is “not enough,” and instead of imagining “social insurance programs,” they propose that we make “technological advances.” [...] Klein and Thompson do not seem to realize that their proposals would also entail large-scale redistribution and that the ills they seek to cure are the result of inequality rather than regulation, because they do not seem to understand how prices and property work in capitalism. Translating higher profits to shorter workweeks would require a scale of redistribution that far outstrips anything Bernie Sanders has proposed. Claiming that profits will be shared because they are based on “the collective knowledge of humanity” opens up a wider set of imperatives than they realize. Most profit, labor, and technology is in some way built on the collective knowledge of humanity, in the sense that education, work, and knowledge are shared, social, and cumulative, and all workers are the result of collective social reproduction.
> They devote no serious thought to the basic political problem that homeowners are a large and powerful constituency, especially at the local level, who are likely to oppose (or already do oppose) the reforms Klein and Thompson suggest because driving down the cost of housing will drive down the value of homes. That constituency has produced undeniably regressive politics—which is a political fact to be reckoned with. So must the fact that homeowners organize to protect their asset prices because decades of American policy have used mortgages to substitute for the welfare state and wage growth. Any plausible agenda to drive down the cost of housing is going to require things like social housing, rent controls, and some mechanism to keep Blackstone and other private equity giants from buying up all the new housing and holding it empty until prices rise. Housing abundance calls for redistribution, in other words, as well as an aggressive state willing to confront property owners ranging from homeowner coalitions to asset managers.
> Klein and Thompson likewise seem unaware that technologies are owned by people. Despite an entire chapter on the problems of scaling technologies to mass consumption, they do not pause to consider that the self-driving cars, the lab-grown meat, and the solar electricity of their imagined future will be property, whose owners will have an interest in higher profits, higher rents, and higher prices. Klein and Thompson’s agenda is predicated on avoiding distributional conflicts by increasing supply so as to lower prices, yet they do not address the problem that lower prices are good for buyers but bad for sellers, and therefore are themselves a kind of distributional conflict, though one mediated through markets instead of politics. Their faith in markets is axiomatic. In passing, they describe “modern liberal politics” as an effort to “make universal” a set of “products and services.” Not justice, equality, dignity, or freedom, but products and services. This is the vision of the future that has attracted millions of dollars to remake the Democratic Party.
> Klein and Thompson do not cite but bring to mind John Maynard Keynes’s 1930 essay “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren,” which also imagined a future of abundance and shorter workweeks. Keynes predicted future GDP almost perfectly, but he thought economic growth would be widely shared, and his future included a solution to technological unemployment as well as the end of the accumulation of wealth as a source of social importance. Klein and Thompson do not consider why this future was superseded, and now, ninety-five years later, they set out to imagine it again, believing the past is a long trajectory of technological progress temporarily held back by regulation and social protections enacted by procedural liberals. For them, the relation of the past to the future is part of a story of overcoming, not a tragedy of lost possibilities. They are right that much of the blame for our current predicaments can be traced to the forms of liberal governance since the 1970s, but they are mistaken to blame, more specifically, its predilection for environmental regulation and building codes. Rather, it is the way liberal politicians have either acquiesced to or actively encouraged the rise of an unaccountable tech and finance oligarchy that now threatens the continued existence of democracy itself and that claims a monopoly on the capacity to imagine and create the future.
[0] https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2025/09/25/how-to-blow-up-a...
Others have already quoted the milk bars all across Poland.
The Netherlands has childcare benefit for the poor that covers 96 % of the costs.
Many European countries have some forms of rent freeze or rent cap. Biggest recent example is Paris since 2019.
I think more examples will follow when my fellow Europeans are on their state mandated lunch break.
^https://x.com|https://xcancel.com
^https://instagram.com|https://imginn.comMany residents would rather see the American ships leave than arrive. Curaçao traditionally maintains close ties with Venezuela, and residents fear the island will be drawn into a geopolitical conflict. [...] The Dutch government determines the course in these areas under pressure from Washington, while Curaçao itself has little influence.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2580380-curacao-voelt-spanning-tussen...
I have been following the evidence that was shared in the trial the last years. The summary is clear [0] - there is plenty of evidence Bolsanaro and several higher military members tried to stage a coup.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Brazilian_coup_plot
It's not at all, although we can discuss the nature of the medium.
>Last year, the Teletekst app was used daily by an average of 690,000 people. They opened the app an average of 2.4 million times per day. The news index on page 101 was accessed 1.9 billion times in 2024, making it the most visited page, followed by the football index 801, with 530 million visits.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2561892-informatief-en-zonder-poppenk... (Dutch news article)
Dutch Government research: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2024/07/12...
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/timothysnyder.bsky.social/post/3ll5...
>Does that mean that until a coherent set of economic and political ideas, comparable to Keynesian or Hayekian paradigms of old, has taken shape as an alternative way of running contemporary societies, no serious change in the existing mode of production can be expected? Not necessarily. Outside the core zones of capitalism, at least two alterations of great moment occurred without any systematic doctrine imagining or proposing them in advance. One was the transformation of Brazil with the revolution that brought Getúlio Vargas to power in 1930, when the coffee exports on which its economy relied collapsed in the Slump and recovery was pragmatically stumbled on by import substitution, without the benefit of any advocacy in advance.
[1] https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n06/perry-anderson/regim...
A few weeks after the new post-war government was installed, all hundred currency notes were declared invalid, out of the blue. All hundreds could be taken to the bank, where they were put on a blocked account for an indefinite period. Anyone who could not prove that they obtained the money in a honest way, their money would be taken and they would also be put on trial for black market trading. It was a rare case of the burden of proof being reversed in NL.
The confiscation of the hundreds was only just the beginning. The next step was that all Dutch paper money was invalidated in one swoop on 26 September 1945. At the same time, all bank accounts were frozen. Everyone was given a week to bring their money to the bank. Everything was registered, including foreign currency holdings, life insurance contracts and recently concluded mortgages. Only the coins remained outside this purification. Salaries were not paid that week as not to disrupt the system; the following week the pay packets were doubled.
For a week, from 26 September to 2 October, everyone had to survive on exactly the same amount: the famous "Lieftinck Tenner". For a short while, there is total economic equality in the Netherlands. It was not a tenner by the way, it was five notes of one guilder (1) and two of one rijksdaalder (2,50). It was a conscious decision not to pay out the money in one banknote, but in different denominations because no one else would have change.
Lieftinck, the economic minister at the time, explained: “Money purification is not only necessary to track down black market profits and to hit those who have made black market profits, but also because, after five years of German extortion, we are as destitute as no one could imagine. Limiting the circulation of money must prevent disloyal elements from stealing all the available goods from the market due to their excess of money, whereby people with small fixed incomes will be duped.”
From 3 October 1945, the money that has been frozen was gradually unblocked and replaced by freshly printed banknotes. There are only a few hundred million guilders of new money available, barely enough to pay wages. Lieftinck wants to hold on to the surrendered money for as long as possible, to prevent inflation and to detect the illegal war profits. As long as the monetary balance has not been restored, everyone gets enough money to live on, but it is not much. In retrospect, it is unbelievable how the whole of the Netherlands obediently accepts that Lieftinck keeps the piggy bank locked up indefinitely. The realisation "that it is simply necessary" was so widespread in the country that there was no notable protest against the blockade.
(Also, in order to complete the monetary purification, Lieftinck introduced two drastic wealth taxes: a one-off wealth tax, and a special levy on capital obtained during the war. The latter levy in particular could be quite high: anyone who could not prove how they earned their money during the war was assessed 90% and thus lost almost everything.)
The monetary purification was not completed until 1952, when the last amounts were unblocked. In seven years, Lieftinck had thoroughly reorganised the economy. The monetary balance has been restored and, moreover, the banking system has been unintentionally stimulated enormously. Thanks to the purification measures, for the first time in Dutch history almost everyone has a bank account, which means a huge boost for the Dutch banks.
It is not sure if this move was also succesful in actually punishing the people that made cash profits during the war - there was a huge flight in capital goods of gold, jewelry, land, houses. Another example is a farmer laundering his money by buying a bull for hundred times the real price. Some researchers claim the government might have emphasized dealing with the war profiteers because such a radical national economic effort would not have received as much support otherwise.
[1] https://anderetijden.nl/programma/1/Andere-Tijden/aflevering...
(You can activate week numbers in Office Outlook as well. Or go to ukenummer.no for simple display)