Only ran once, doesn’t measure x server cpu usage, claims “not necessarily more efficient” despite kwin and labwc showing higher framerate for seemingly similar power usage numbers, no discussion of e.g. frame times, consistency and cpu vs gpu limited…

Rather why dont you tell me why America is the only civilized (and use that term lightly) nation that considers it suppression to prove ones identity before filling out a ballot to vote?

Why do people like yourself lie so frequently and so easily?

I’m not from the US and have voted without ever having to “prove” my identity.

Yes we are. The US uses our airbases and we’ve run intelligence flights for the US. We continue to fund Israeli arms firms.

Starmer’s ‘defensive strikes’ on Iran are a ‘fiction’, air force veteran warns

UK played hidden intelligence role in Iran war, data suggests

Gaza spy plane spotted leaving UK air base on Cyprus

2.33% | UK expenditure on defence as a percentage of national GDP in 2024.

The UK has met NATO’s 2% target every year since its introduction in 2006, and is a slight increase from the previous year (2.25%).

5th | The UK’s position in global defence expenditure rankings in 2024, according to IISS.

This is the same ranking as in 2023. SIPRI, who include expenditure on state paramilitary forces in their estimates, rank the UK 6th globally (also the same as last year).

24% | The rise in Germany’s defence expenditure in 2024 compared to the previous year. This equates to an additional $18.2 billion spent on defence in 2024. Germany’s large increase in defence expenditure has resulted in them overtaking the UK into being the second highest spender in NATO (behind the USA), while allowing them to meet the 2% NATO target for the first time.

[…]

The USA maintains its position as the largest defence spender in NATO, with expenditure of $935 billion, representing 3.21% of their GDP. The USA spent nearly twice as much on defence in 2024 than the rest of NATO combined. The UK was the third highest spender in NATO, spending $84.2 billion on defence. This is the first year since 2014 where the UK has not been the second highest spender in NATO, being behind the USA and Germany. Germany spent an additional $18.2 billion in 2024 when adjusted for inflation, which is the biggest increase from the previous year among European NATO countries.

Finance and economics annual statistical bulletin international: defence 2025

But sure, it’s “based” to support bombing Iran for no reason or aiding Israel’s genocide.

GBNews is a reactionary, far right wing “”“news”“”" channel. Don’t link that shit under any circumstances.

deleted by creator

https://bsky.app/profile/latimeriidae.bsky.social/post/3mi52awgh7s23

Walking thru the “Ultra Normie” No Kings rally in my extremely rural, white town and there are Patagonia wearing moms carrying signs that say “DEAD PEDOPHILES DONT REOFFEND” and “ICE GETS THE WALL” and I hi fived an old guy with a sign that said MY DADDY FOUGHT NAZIS AND SO WILL I” this is wild

However, he did not think this was more likely than revolution in western Europe. He simply saw it as it was, a great but likely squandered opportinity.

We’ve been over this already, with sources I was able to provide. I directly responded to this. If you’re gonna complain about listening, don’t do it while repeating shit at me I already responded to.

I do agree, this isn’t ever going to get anywhere if you can’t even treat me with the respect of listening to what I said.

I listened to what you said, disagreed, and now you want to keep whining about it and insisting that its wrecker behaviour as if that’s respectful. Grow the fuck up or just leave it be.

Removed by mod

I am when people decide to be annoying. I can have a back and forth with someone without you feeling the need to pretend this is some major issue.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

deleted by creator

There was no misunderstanding, thanks.

Marx did not merely say they had an opportunity in the abstract, he was directly involved with them and actively seeking to aid them. That is not the action of someone who merely once on the side referenced it as a vague possibility then effectively rejected it, which is what you now have to claim to deny the actual history and Marx’s own words on the topic to maintain the idea that Marx effectively only thought a revolution would happen in the west. Just stop going in circles.

I don’t know why you’re continuing to double and triple-down.

Because you keep repeating something which is not true.

However, he did not think this was more likely than revolution in western Europe.

This is directly contradicted by his letters and actions. He and Engels were directly corresponding with Russian revolutionaries, and literally surmised a Russian revolution could in fact be the first to set off a world revolution and was actively interested in aiding it. You’re just refusing to take in new information.

To be annoyingly accurate, Marx still held the belief that the west would be the first to revolt and establish socialism

And he literally contradicts this, not just in this but his other research and letters, and even later editions of the communist manifesto.

https://monthlyreview.org/articles/marx-and-engels-and-russias-peasant-communes/

“The very existence of the Russian commune is now threatened by a conspiracy of powerful interests,” he noted—but if that threat is defeated, it “may become the direct starting-point of the economic system towards which modern society is tending; it may open a new chapter that does not begin with its own suicide.”14

Marx and Engels repeated that argument the next year in their preface to the second Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto.

In Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

Marx and Engels did not study Russian conditions out of academic curiosity. On the contrary, they believed that Russia, once the heartland of backwardness and reaction, had become “the vanguard of revolutionary action in Europe,” so understanding it was a political necessity. This understanding fueled their consistent support for radical populists who took action against the Tsarist regime, and caused them to distance themselves from people who were limited to analysis and commentary. Their approach was motivated, as Marx wrote in another context, by the conviction that “every step of real movement is more important than a dozen programs.”

And you’re entire response was denying this by suggesting Marx only thought this could happen in western, capitalist societies, which is flatly wrong. You aren’t even understanding the contention, nor responding to it.

Marx still believed that the west would be the first to transition to socialism.

And Marx literally directly contradicts you on this. This letter comes after the publication of Capital, and Marx is explicitly stating the opportunity to not have to become a capitalist country.

Now what application to Russia can my critic make of this historical sketch? Only this: If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction – she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples. That is all. But that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marche generale [general path] imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.) Let us take an example.

In several parts of Capital I allude to the fate which overtook the plebeians of ancient Rome. They were originally free peasants, each cultivating his own piece of land on his own account. In the course of Roman history they were expropriated. The same movement which divorced them from their means of production and subsistence involved the formation not only of big landed property but also of big money capital. And so one fine morning there were to be found on the one hand free men, stripped of everything except their labour power, and on the other, in order to exploit this labour, those who held all the acquired wealth in possession. What happened? The Roman proletarians became, not wage labourers but a mob of do-nothings more abject than the former “poor whites” in the southern country of the United States, and alongside of them there developed a mode of production which was not capitalist but dependent upon slavery. Thus events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historic surroundings led to totally different results. By studying each of these forms of evolution separately and then comparing them one can easily find the clue to this phenomenon, but one will never arrive there by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical.