That hook could be cooler

Surely that’s a recount?

The lacroix of landslides

Slipping now, Sanchez is still up 50.081 to 49.919 with 95.584 % counted

Why does that website literally copy reddits CSS lmao

Vulgarizing Lenin is even worse here. Lenin’s whole thing was to not concede on principle to the tailists who projected all possible wisdom to the spontaneity of the masses. This guy is saying to vote for Platner merely because he might win an election, with no theory about how that helps a revolution or Platners ability to lead a movement; not less, his (in)ability to organize with any broader movement outside of himself

Electoral politics is uniquely adapted to the consumerist thought pattern

There’s famously never been a revolution in a large country

Peruvian Elections Update Reloaded:

87.88 % of the Vote Counted

• KEIKO FUJIMORI (FAR-RIGHT): 50.80% (-0.72%)
• ROBERTO SANCHEZ (LEFTIST): 49.20% (+0.72%)

• Sources

when one poster falls, another picks up the Peruvian election vote count

Crocodile face with chicken aura

I read some cool research about some material that could radiate heat at a specifically engineered frequency that our atmosphere is transparent to. Basically the inverse of greenhouse gases which are opaque to infrared, this material would passively cool the earth by dumping into the infinite heat sink of space

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_daytime_radiative_cooling

I will not be gaslit.

No one cares

TIL T. Rex had forward-facing eyes. Makes it even scarier.

Lesser known, unpopular prototype before Blu-ray

the Ghan

Marx is talking about a specific bourgeois ideology of asceticism, the ideology which says abstinence is the source of wealth; that abstinence from consumption and satisfaction of one’s personal wants is how profit is made. Therefore when a capitalist profits, it is through their own personal abstinence, and they morally deserve the profits after having denied themself. Conversely, from this view, the working class has given in to those baser human needs, when they ought to be abstaining from those needs in order to prosper. This argument persists today in the conservative complaints about millennials buying avocado toast and fancy coffee.

If abstinence is the source of wealth, then the sum of that wealth is the sum of one’s self-denial. The resulting hoard of money is the objectification of the life not lived, with its own separate (alienated) existence as cold, hard cash.

You are questioning why, out of all dangerous things, we have seatbelt laws, but we don’t have laws against things that are equally or more dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt.

My answer is that you are looking at it backward. Seatbelts are legislated because way more deaths occur from cars than from contrived alternatives like skiing over toddlers. It has nothing to do with comparative danger or individualism. It’s about scale and aggregate social impact. If toddlers were getting mowed down by the tens of thousands per year, we would have specific laws against that too.

I was focusing on the false equivalence between casualties from vehicles and those from contrived scenarios. Vehicles are a leading cause of death. If you start from empirical reality instead of the abstract concept of “danger” then it is not a mystery why there are seatbelt laws but no goomba stomp laws.

Having acknowledged the shift from that to this new consideration, the question of whether many casualties could have been prevented by seatbelt use. The answer is yes. Many casualties would have been prevented by use of a seatbelt.

Traffic today is denser and faster than even at the time seatbelt laws were introduced. High-performance cars are very accessible today. Road speeds are higher — you can’t drive as fast in some rickety steel Cadillac from the 70s as you can in a Tesla. Brakes and tires have also improved significantly, so people have more confidence driving fast.