Would it be possible for the CLI not to be binary and just a shell script, or a webshell would be great.
My issue is I've had my work laptop wiped twice because of things I've installed on it and it's a hassle to switch accounts/devices but I've love to give sprites a go.
> I still don’t fully understand how ideology can cloud the mind so thoroughly that only a single way of thinking remains possible.
I'm envious of those true believer kind of people.
My father is one of them and he's held absurd ideas as 100% facts and we've had many nasty quarrels about it, BUT it also means he 100% believes in whatever his current goal is and he's achieved a lot more than I ever will because he's unwavering in his beliefs and goals, whereas I'm always doubting and second guessing.
> I'm envious of those true believer kind of people.
> My father is one of them and he's held absurd ideas as 100% facts and we've had many nasty quarrels about it,
I am not even able to fathom how this is possible; unless someone is trying to convince you to join them in their belief, how on earth does a quarrel arise from differing beliefs?
I'm a lifelong atheist surrounded by religious family (and friends, too, TBH), and the only problem is when they refuse to take subtle hints that I am not interested in reading their book and I have to be blunt with them. And even then, that is not sufficient to start a quarrel!
I've had friends - they really felt like friends at one point - tell me that they don't want to know me anymore when they learned I'm an atheist. One told me that "without God there's no morality", so they can't trust in anything I say. Just like that. One told me that atheists should be branded or marked somehow, so that they can't pose as "good people". To my face. When I mentioned that history knows such policies, and that they almost always lead to massacres, pogroms, and things like the Holocaust, the person didn't see any problem with that. At all.
Beliefs, especially strongly held ones, warp a person and their perception of reality. This influences their actions, and those actions can hit you hard. If a father "100% believes" homosexuals are worse than dirt, and a son firmly believes he loves his boyfriend, that's how a "quarrel" will arise. Most people agree to "live and let live" in principle, but when it comes to details, it's almost always "but we don't want X or Y in this neighborhood".
You're really fortunate to have only met people who hold beliefs that are not in direct opposition to your continued existence in this world or in their presence. However, you need to be aware that there are beliefs that are more incompatible with yours, and that there are people who hold them - and that you will quarrel (or worse - much worse) when you happen to meet.
I would say that you are very unlucky. I know people of multiple different religions, and atheists, and agnostics, and people of no particular belief and I have never known anyone to make a comment like that about anyone else.
I know many families whose members follow multiple different religions or none in multiple combinations.
> If a father "100% believes" homosexuals are worse than dirt, and a son firmly believes he loves his boyfriend, that's how a "quarrel" will arise.
Yes, but that is atypical. It most commonly happens either with American evangelicals, or in the context of very conservative societies in certain places (e.g. in multiple African and Asian countries).
American evangelicals seem to have a peculiar obsession with homosexuality as some sort of uniquely bad sin - perhaps to deflect attention from what the Bible and Christian tradition have to say about materialism and wealth. Traditional Christianity is quite non-judgemental and optimistic - e.g. the belief, or at least the hope, at all or almost all of humanity will be redeemed.
> To my face. When I mentioned that history knows such policies, and that they almost always lead to massacres, pogroms, and things like the Holocaust
The Holocaust was carried out by people who had to invent their own religions (their variant of neo-paganism and "positive Christianity") to have religions that could be reconciled with their ideology. Their ideas were more rooted in "racial science" than anything else.
> The Holocaust was carried out by people who had to invent their own religions (their variant of neo-paganism and "positive Christianity") to have religions that could be reconciled with their ideology. Their ideas were more rooted in "racial science" than anything else.
Some of them thought they had to invent or resurrect such religions to sell their movement to the masses, yes. That movement's actual religion was that ideology and racial "science"; it kind of was its own religion. (Not that this is exclusive to nazism / fascism; the same goes for communism.)
> I've had friends - they really felt like friends at one point - tell me that they don't want to know me anymore when they learned I'm an atheist. One told me that "without God there's no morality", so they can't trust in anything I say. Just like that. One told me that atheists should be branded or marked somehow, so that they can't pose as "good people".
That doesn't actually lead to a quarrel any more than having a friend saying they want to stop being friends for any other reason.
IOW, if a friend wants to stop being your friend, does the reason matter? I don't argue with people who don't want to be friends anymore (regardless of the reason)
> If a father "100% believes" homosexuals are worse than dirt, and a son firmly believes he loves his boyfriend, that's how a "quarrel" will arise.
I can certainly see a quarrel arising from that because ... well ... what are you going to do? Stop showing up at family events because your boyfriend is not accepted? Cut off all ties with your family because your boyfriend is not accepted?
This "quarrel", though, is not like a normal quarrel about differing beliefs; this actually has an impact on the ability to remain part of the family.[1]
-----------------------
[1] TBH, though, if it's only the father in this case who objects, simply not showing up at any event he is part of will usually be sufficient to get the rest of the family to pressure him into at least keeping quiet if you do show up, boyfriend in tow.
If the father is willing to keep from having outbursts, that more than sufficient to not quarrel. You don't need to man to believe that it isn't immoral. You don't need him to accept it. You just need him to shut up about it.
> You're really fortunate to have only met people who hold beliefs that are not in direct opposition to your continued existence in this world or in their presence.
What makes you think that?
I'm non-white, grew up in apartheid South Africa; in 2026, even transgenders in first world countries are treated better than my race was in 1986.
If you think systemic discrimination is bad, try living under legislated discrimination.
> However, you need to be aware that there are beliefs that are more incompatible with yours, and that there are people who hold them - and that you will quarrel (or worse - much worse) when you happen to meet.
No, I will not. If they are morally against my existence, let them go vote for laws to that end. I'm not gonna stand there arguing with them about it.
I'm sorry. I assumed too much about you, and I'm a bit ashamed for sounding so patronizing in my previous post. You seem wiser than me, and you're definitely wiser than I was back when it happened: I tried to defend myself. That's how the quarrel happened: I believed that I cared about morality, so I didn't want to just accept the accusation that I'm inherently immoral. That led to a few more shouts than it should; but as your sibling commenter says, at such points emotions tend to run high. I could have just walked away, and that would have been wiser. Somehow, I didn't manage to.
> What makes you think that?
Because you said you're "not even able to fathom how this is possible" - honestly, I still don't quite understand that sentence, especially after what you wrote above. It looks like you're advocating stoicism and disengagement, and I agree that it's a good strategy. But I can't believe you never felt the anger of being perceived through a lens of a belief that makes you into someone you're not - and that you "can't fathom" how that anger can get the better of you, to make you "stand there arguing with them about it". I get that you're able to rein in those emotions and simply walk away from situations like that; but I can't bring myself to believe you never felt that anger at all.
> You don't need him to accept it. You just need him to shut up about it.
Yes, that's rational. It's a way to live on without turning all family meetings into war. But maybe that particular war is worth fighting? Maybe, through countless battles over the Christmas tables, society changes course? Maybe by fighting against the belief that you're something lesser than human, by turning your life into a miserable one, you're paving a way for younger family members or the next generation to live their lives a little better than you could?
I don't know, to be honest. I'm not some activist. But I think I can understand people who decide to "stand there and argue". It's probably less rational and often leads to quarrels, but I'm almost sure that beliefs that are never challenged won't ever be changed. That's why I found your "I can't fathom" line a bit strange; sorry for overreacting :)
Is missing out a variable. It's an action. An action e.g. it has been brought up.
Idea + idea2 + action
Merely encountering someone with an idea different to one we hold shouldn't lead to a breakdown in communication. It needs an action to e.g. discuss the idea, and this action is controllable. Most of the time we do not quarrel with people even though they are different than us.
Often we are not the ones who can control this, but we can control our reactions and stop participating in the quarrel should one start. (That's easier said then done as its all emotions by this point!)
There is a growing school of thought in academia and in some radical groups that says that we shouldn't stop participating in quarrels and that we should let our anger out and voice heard. This idea says that any call to understand the other (empathy) is therefore toxic and harmful and that it's a choice which suppresses our important story. (Usually we just say they are impossible to understand and so "other" them, which leads to de-humanisation as only humans can be understood). Often our pain needs recognition but to reject the idea of understanding another seems to lead to a worse world in any reality.
Now whilst to deny understanding is utterly fundamentally wrong in any and all rational belief systems, there is actually some truth to the idea! It will cause pain and effort to understand another. It does weaken one's own ideas and certainty about things. If I try to understand someone who opposes me on some important idea that I have, it will change me somehow. Maybe I will have less attachment to the idea, maybe I will find other ideas, maybe I will reject the idea, maybe I will not. These side effects of understanding can be dangerous.
It's Von Daniken's books that lead me here:
Why do people think funny things. What are the processes to believe things? What are the processes and ideas which keep people from changing their beliefs. What do people really desire? How are people manipulated and how do they manipulate others? How can people in a cult come out of a cult? How do cults work? How do people change the ideas inside them? How do I tell what I believe in? What does "ideology" mean? How can I tell where what I believe in comes from? How can I talk about different ideas with others?
> There is a growing school of thought in academia and in some radical groups that says that we shouldn't stop participating in quarrels and that we should let our anger out and voice heard.
I think the problem is in wanting to convince the other party to change their mind, except that humans untrained in presenting arguments just switch to campaigning instead.
Academia has always been where new ideas are seeded, germinate and flourish; this means that a lot of campaigns for change come from academia. It always has, probably always will.
The problem we have had recently (Moreso in the last 10 years or so) is that academia itself has tried shutting itself off from ideas; it's why there's safe spaces, and why people have been prevented from presenting talks at campuses, etc.
This new approach is resulting in a lot of "Nope, we won't even discuss it, nor will we allow you to discuss it to third parties".
Leading us to be in a thread about von Daniken, making fun of people who have a belief that meets a higher bar for evidence than the clear majority of the world.
The people making fun of the theories aren't even self-aware enough to realise that they interact daily with the rest of humanity who have even wilder beliefs.
> How can I tell where what I believe in comes from?
I believe (hehe) that this is where Cogito Ergo Sum came from.
Often we think someone is 100% sure but they only appear that way to us. Trying to change someone's thoughts by arguing with them never works.
Nasty quarrels might indicate an amount of uncertainty, or an amount of inability to articulate a thought. We often have ideas we don't really know why we have them, so we can help others to try to explain things to us in a way that helps them understand why too.
A "nasty quarrel" requires more than one side, and this other side is also responsible for the quarrel.
I think its wise when trying to talk about difficult things to first identify and agree upon the small things you can both agree upon.
If a conversation becomes heated it's no longer a conversation and you should get out before it gets worse. If you feel it's leading into fire and can still be salvaged you can then go back to these shared things and start again.
However a real conversation about ideas will also challenge and change your own view of the world. You might find your own ideas changing. People generally find this a psychologically painful process and will subconsciously resist such a movement. Generally we prefer to label the other as different, alien, us vs them. Having a quarrel is therefore even more likely as it means that your own psyche is protected from encounter with the dangerous other. Understanding that this also applies to the person you are talking with can also help reduce tensions and increase empathy. Again, starting from common shared baseline will help.
I think you are very close to explanation. Ideas in human minds can be presented as facts. If you decide that you are happy by some setting - that becomes a fact to you, while in reality that is a belief. The same about depression and sadness - you can get impacted by information you did not knew and would not be impacted if you were in blissful ignorance and some people choose exactly that choice. Some people get psychosis and their mind is hallucinating that they are on fire - that is real to them as what are your experiences, though those also are not based on facts, but serve as an information delivery to your brain.
The whole issue with human minds is that it is not built to deal with scientific facts, but with socium of other people. You can't use facts when operating with society - you have to use symbols, that they will associate with. And I think that the issue is with you(as it is my experience as well) - I can guarantee, that there are people, that will explain to your family members EXACTLY the same ideas, that you are trying to explain to them... and they will agree to that person - and not to you, because you are clearly doing it wrong.
You should try and and do what the OP is suggesting, i.e. to try and put yourself in your dad's shows and try to see the world the way he sees and understands it. I.e. this type of conversation goes both ways.
Becoming conspiracy theorist yourself is not a way to prevent dangers of conspiracy theorist. It will make the issue worst - instead of one conspiracy theorist, we now have too.
I also think that's the case, but I'm open to the idea that there are people that are really really good at this and maybe they are indeed 10x.
My experience is that for SOME tasks LLMs help a lot, but overall nowhere near 10x.
Consistently it's probably.... ~1X.
The difference is I procrastinate a lot and LLMs actually help me not procrastinate BECAUSE of that dopamine kick and I'm confident I will figure it out with an LLM.
I'm sure there are many people who got to a conclusion on their to-do projects with the help of LLMs and without them, because of procrastination or whatever, they would not have had a chance to.
It doesn't mean they're now rich, because most projects won't make you rich or make you any money regardless if you finish them or not
> don't need 10 parallel agents making 50-100 PRs a week
I don't like to be mean, but I few weeks ago the guy bragged about Claude helping him do +50k loc and -48k loc(netting a 2k loc), I thought he was joking because I know plenty of programmers who do exactly that without AI, they just commit 10 huge json test files or re-format code.
I almost never open a PR without a thorough cleanup whereas some people seem to love opening huge PRs.
Completely anecdotal, but when I was 18, in highschool, I trained in the gym in my hometown, supervised with a trainer, 12 reps per muscle group, very modest gains.
I move to university, start reading a fitness forum where people were saying do max 6 reps if you want big gains.
I also started supplementing with whey protein, and within 3 months the gains were spectacular, everybody noticed, I felt on fire, best time of my life, I miss so much how great I felt in my own body.
I've seen other colleagues and how they trained -- I can say there was 100% correlation that those people who were not training hard also did not have big gains.
People who had enough breath left in them to chat in the gym simply did not gain as much as people I saw as training hard.
Also for me, the 6 reps to exhaustion felt completely different then 12 reps (again, to complete exhaustion) -- immediately after the training it felt amazing to be alive, the world became a comfortable place, my anxiety completely vanished, and in the night and morning after an intense training (especially the legs and back) the erections and libido boost were out of this world, something I never felt with the 12 reps regimen.
What do you consider gains? Consider that this paper looked specifically at hypertrophy (size), not strength. While they correlate, training for one or the other can be very different..
"Traditionally" the rep ranges recommended for hypertrophy has typically been significantly higher than the ranges recommended for strength, but the number of sets recommended is often also significantly higher, often translating to significantly higher total volume.
> I've seen other colleagues and how they trained -- I can say there was 100% correlation that those people who were not training hard also did not have big gains. People who had enough breath left in them to chat in the gym simply did not gain as much as people I saw as training hard.
Well, yes, but training with lower weights and higher rep ranges does not automatically translate to "not training hard".
Having gone through a period of really high rep training, including for a short period doing 1000 squats per day as an experiment, mostly bodyweight, that was far harder exercise than when I 1RM'd 200kg. But the effects are different.
I much prefer Stronglifts and Madcow but because I favour strength over size, and it's far more time efficient, not because you can't also get results with more, lower-weight reps.
> Consider that this paper looked specifically at hypertrophy (size), not strength.
I'm not sure where this idea came from that people do one or the other. Except for the advanced lifter, both will happen from either program. Show me a person who is really big and they are likely pretty strong as well (see Ronnie Coleman). Same with the other direction.
It is unreasonable to talk about newbies. They grow from anything. I mean, you put newbies on the stationary bike and their pullups increase (real study!).
So we should talk about at least intermed. trainees.
And in those, the correlation does not go both ways. Getting more muscles does increase the strength, but getting stronger does not necessarily increase muscle (technique, neurological adaptations, etc).
Simply speaking, guys with big pecs and triceps are going to be strong in bench (even if they don't train it), but strong benchers (especially if they mostly train in 1-3 reps range, outside of hypertrophy 5-30) don't necessarily have big pecs/triceps.
So yeah, the parent was correct in asking what the previous parent mean by having great gains. Because getting stronger does not necessarily mean that your muscles also grew substantionally. Also, if you gained weight also doesn't mean the muscle gain. Due to leverages, the bench and squat results increase even if all you gained was pure fat.
He's a shorter guy, and if you notice is always wearing big baggy clothes. Look up pics with his shirt off and he looks like someone who could walk on stage at a body building contest for someone in his weight class.
I'm not a fitness nerd by any means, but it's worth mentioning that your bodys ability to get oxygen to you muscle can reportedly easily become your bottleneck if you're training too once-sidedly or use performance enhancing drugs/steroids.
So the bulkier person could theoretically perform better, but doesn't in practice because their body isn't able to actually utilize the muscle effectively.
That's why farmers often outperform lifters outside of the exact niche the lifter trained
I did not at all suggest anything else. Both will happen, but not too the same extent. It doesn't take very much lifting before differences in training regime can be apparent.
It’s definitely different, but somewhat at the margins. There is a reason people call it “farmer strength” where a moderately in shape looking guy can outlift a body builder looking bro.
I know I’ve definitely seen the difference training with a personal trainer telling her I want to train for aesthetics vs strength and vice versa.
There is a strong correlation but it’s definitely not 1.
Anecdotally as someone who strength trained on a recreational basis the last 20 years (and run a marathon just to see if I could), nothing beats heavy lifting.
A Strong lifts 5x5 program build around squat, deadlifts, bench and shoulder press can always make me feel pumped for the day!
There really isn't much of a difference between doing 6 reps vs 12 reps, what matters is going to failure which I think may end up being harder when doing 12 reps because people maybe don't realize how much they have left in the tank.
Going to failure can also be a question of which ‘link in the chain’ is hitting failure at any given rep range.
Bent over rows being and easy example: at a 5RM upper back is giving out as desired, but past 10RM my lower back is the issue. If my goals are bent over endurance in my core then higher reps will force adaptations where I’m weak, if I’m trying to get my shoulder blades sexy and humpy I gotta keep the stimulus where I want results. In addition to manipulating reps something like a snatch grip can provide a leverage based answer to the same targeting needs.
Proximity to failure is key, targeting and maximizing that proximity is individual and highly goal dependant.
[As a bit of a physio case I’ve found General Gainz (/r/gzcl on Reddit), to be a highly productive RPE based system with very happy adaptive approach to hitting personal limitations mid workout; no “failures” or broken spreadsheets = motivation = consistency = progress; strong recommend to check out]
> People who had enough breath left in them to chat in the gym simply did not gain as much as people I saw as training hard.
IDK. When I powerlifted the goal was to move the weight. I've almost passed out from heavy deadlifts, but was rarely out of breath. I also almost never chat in the gym because it's my meditative place, not because I couldn't chat :)
I think what OP is specifically refering to is the intensity level that varies among individuals. I suspect that oft times when people train with a low weight/high rep scheme, they accidenrly let their intensity levels slip. I suspect that for most people, especially newer lifters, doing a high weight/low rep scheme makes keeping the workout for intense because it is easier to focus on being intense for a short time. Just a thought....
Why did you stop? It seems you did, but since it made you feel excellent, it seems strange to “choose to stop”.
It’s not an innocent question: Gains and feeling extremely well and confident and serotonin-boosted are only useful if it can be sustained in life. The two alternatives are: 1. It pumps you but tires you very fast and you get fat down the line, and your overall life is ~obese (seems to happen to way more people than one could assume), 2. Only the change produces this feeling, and change cannot be sustained forever.
Not just one reason, but I stopped because I more or less maintained my physique for 7-8 years afterwards (probably being in your 20s helps) and my life circumstances were in a goldilocks zone; my dad (a doctor) was adamant I'd destroy my heart with all the muscle mass I added.
The thing that motivated me to start was the fact I was not very successful with girls and gaining 30 pounds of muscles in early 2000's Romania was intoxicating, if anybody told me before that girls would send kisses in the subway, grab my arms in the bus and start conversations with me or ask for my number in clubs, colleagues ask me to dump my girlfriend I would have said it's impossible.
I'm ashamed to say, but all that validation was even better than the way lifting made me feel and the primary drive to weight lifting.
It's only now that I remember how good weight lifting in itself made me feel, I never did give it much thought back then.
But now it's very hard to find the time or motivation to start it again.
I'm not really scared of getting fat down the line, I'm in my early 40s now and I've never been fat.
You could be right, that it's only the change that makes you feel amazing, and I only ever went to the gym for some 6 months total, but I have my doubt that it would ever go away, I've been on many, many drugs, NOT ONE ever made me feel good for 6 months straight, they all downregulate very fast.
Now thinking about it, I get a renewed motivation to re-start weight lifting
And this is incredible motivation for me. I’m in my 40ies, and have been unsuccessful with girls. Of course being in your 20ies helped because that’s when good stories start, and at 40 women are already taken, but I find it a decent explanation of the times I was successful or not and it’s worth trying again. I was very fit at 30 but never muscular, just a guy with 8 hours or random sports per week, so like you before 18. I still do 3-5 hours of sports per week, I should redirect that towards gains.
Two caveats: I'm talking about early 2000's Romania where it was quite rare to see really muscular men AND I was in my early 20s, I have no clue if men in their 30s or 40s get the same kind of attention, it was the shallow kind of attention.
By the time my 30s hit I was already married, however we did have a very rough patch where we were very close to divorce, I traveled alone, was part of an NGO and I think a lot of the young women there got a strong clue about how rough things were between me and my wife because I also got a lot of attention from women back then but then it wasn't because of physique - it was because I was their photographer and high status in the NGO and much higher net worth.
Going the traveling groups, I also did get quite a bit of attention, because there were a lot of single women in their late 20's and I'm sure a lot of them got this fantasy they would find their soul mate on such a trip and I was 100% not interested in anything romantic but I was very open to socialize. All sorts of un-intended "adversarial" techniques I noticed worked -- again my portrait photography hobby seemed attractive to the ladies, when I noticed one was too interested, I pulled away so she won't get the wrong idea, which made her even more interested, I also chatted up foreign women in the hostels because I was geniuinely curious about their background -- I had a long conversation with a hot, early 30s phd in fish farming and a young woman in our group started interrupting us by saying "You know, we've been together in this group for 3 days and you haven't spoken to me as much as you did to this foreigner, why?".
I clearly remember I talked to a psychology major woman in the bus because I'm very interested in psychology and I did quite a few years of psychotherapy and I'm very interested in Schema Therapy. At some point we discovered we run in the same park and she invited me to run together. It was then that it hit me she probably had the wrong idea, but I felt it would be weird to say "that's great but I'm married" and I was in a headspace where if I wanted to I would have gone with her for a run regardless of what my wife thought about it, but I also got the feeling this young woman will not take it well if I said I was married, so I just started avoiding her. I noticed she tried even harder to approach me.
Later that evening one of of the women in the group asked me "Oh wow, so I checked your facebook and you're married?". And I said, "Yes." . That young woman just blurted it out "But I asked you to go running together, why aren't you wearing your wedding band????".
The point I'm trying to make is I'm sure having a great physique is sure to be helpful even in your 30s and 40s and it will certainly set you aside, but there are other, more powerful tools to build attraction, alas, some quite manipulative (like social proofing, oblique approach, status, feigned low interest, push pull, triangulation).
I think it's very important to understand where you stand, where your target demographic stands, and where your competition stands.
If you're in an area where all the guys are super fit millionaires, you're not going to have much luck with the ladies there.
I was never in the pickup scene, and I've seen some terribly messed in the head men because of it (bitter redpill types), but I think there are quite a bit of spoken or not so spoken psychoevolutionary tricks out there great to know and take with a huge grain of salt.
Probably the biggest trick is no trick, but to actually be ok with yourself, empathetic, reasonable, have fun by yourself, explore, have healthy boundaries, but still generous, not have/display emotional baggage, basically present yourself as being what the kind of woman you want also wants.
> Reputation management is what it will take to bring trust back to all forms of media.
Does that really work, though? I think it doesn't -- think all the anti-vaccine type influencers -- their identities are known and they're ok with it.
> It means creating a trusted identity that can be verified, and that the identity is known to be a real human with a reputation to lose if exposed as being a bot or otherwise untrustworthy.
Surely this won't be used for nefarious reasons or to silence individuals like it's done in the UK or in the cancel culture actions. /s
That's completely beyond the point, though?
Kodak invented the digital camera, did not think anything about it and others then ate their lunch.
Those others are also not crushing it in 2025.
The point is IBM is not the go-to to listen about AI.
Also not saying they are not right, even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.
> The point is IBM is not the go-to to listen about AI.
Why not, though? For better or worse, they're a consulting services company these days, and they work with an eye-wateringly large number of companies. I would expect them to have a very good view as to what companies use AI for, and plan/want to use AI for in the future. They may not be experts in the tech itself, but I think they're decently well-positioned to read the tea leaves.
> expedited the fall of Soviet Union by forcing them into expensive competition?
Nobody forced the Soviet Union into anything.
I think the soviet leaders knew that the system in the West AT THAT TIME was simply better in all ways imaginable and the comunism utterly failed at its mission -- the workers in the West were enjoying a much much better life that those in communism, and having lost that ideological space, they thought they could override common sense on the battle field -- surely, if you win the space race, more olympic gold medals or on the battlefield, then communism actually won?
Cold War involved a lot of imperfect knowledge - until Gorbachev, soviet leaders were utterly convinced that USA plans to attack first. On one hand, it was paranoia, on the other hand, US intelligence actions including gleeful setup of mass scale murder in Indonesia reinvigorated that belief.
First, China is nothing like the USSR economically and the West is NOTING like the old capitalist West in any regard.
Second, the ideological capitalism of the West during the Cold War is not what actually brought prosperity to the masses, I think it was just the fear of comunism that kept the elites at bay and willing to give some scraps to the unwashed masses.
China is full of Potemkin villages. They strategically invest huge resources into areas the West finds politically advantageous, but somehow only grow exactly the 5% they say is required. It’s had to square the circle when so much is obviously nonsense
My issue is I've had my work laptop wiped twice because of things I've installed on it and it's a hassle to switch accounts/devices but I've love to give sprites a go.
reply