I don’t think the book and program examples are equivalent. You can edit a manuscript easily but it’d be a big headache to edit a binary program either through a hex editor or decompiling it and figuring out what it all does. I think an equivalent would be receiving the finished source code, as though someone else coded it for you.

Anyway, if it’s a personal project I want to do for the sake of it, then no, I like the process and the amount of control. If it’s something I’m only doing because I want the end product then maybe, but would have to decide on a case by case basis.

I don’t think any of those types of guns count as “non-violent”. None of the movements that have been the most effective have been strictly non-violent. You don’t have to be killing people at every action you do, but all the most effective movements have been willing to strategically use violence whenever the situation calls for it. Every strictly non-violent movement I’ve seen has simply been shooting themselves in the foot. When you’re shot at, shoot back, or you’re a coward obsessed with losing.

Shooting cops with guns.

On duckduckgo.com it’s unfortunately enabled by default though. You have to go out of your way to set your search browser to noai.duckduckgo.com if you want default AI disabled (which you’ll want on e.g. private browsing windows/any browser that autodeletes cookies when you close it). It’s extra hassle because most privacy web browsers use DDG by default, not the noai subdomain.

Auto upload to a remote location (e.g. VPS), ideally somewhere out of the country to really minimise chances of deletion. Could also have it auto upload to several places. You’ll need good enough internet connection to upload it though, so if they’re using signal jammers at a protest that could be a problem.

In terms of preventing deletion on the phone itself, you can’t really stop them from “losing” your phone, even if they can’t get into it.

Daddy’s money (USA)

“yall keep promising me the roman empire is gonna collapse but it never does”

No state lasts forever, least of all an apartheid state with such a resilient resistance movement against it. Israel’s only 78 years old—there’s plenty of living people older than that. It will fall, because Palestinians aren’t going away, and they will continue to want to return.

I didn’t say it categorically wouldn’t happen, just that if that was the person’s real intentions then they’ve been very stupid about it. If you’re going to commit a murder don’t create evidence pointing to you. Like the other commenter said, a gun and self defence skills will cover you in both cases.

I’m a she. But yes, I think arming yourself is a good idea regardless of the likelihood you’ll need it.

Get a gun and learn how to use it.

But as other commenters have said, if he was actually intending on killing you, it’d be real stupid to call you in advance to say so. Most likely just wants to scare you.

If you can’t feasibly vet the code yourself (I think it is feasible for things like scripts and other small projects) and the star count is low/it’s not already well known and trusted, probably try running in a VM first and look out for signs of it doing things it shouldn’t, e.g. if it’s sending HTTP requests to the internet despite it being a program that should be completely offline. Using things like AppArmor and SELinux to prevent programs from doing things they shouldn’t need to do is also good practice.

Also, the tool itself may be low star count, but is the developer known at all? Someone with any kind of a reputation wouldn’t risk putting malware on their profile.

I suppose you could also look at the list of dependencies of the program. Is it using any libraries that don’t make sense? e.g. with the above, is there some kind of HTTP request library being used for a program that shouldn’t need to access the internet at all?

I think generally the risk is quite low as the author would be hiding their malware in plain sight if the source code is available. They’d have to bet on literally nobody checking. Which is fine for very obscure projects, but if you want your malware to spread, you want a good number of people to use it, at which point someone would presumably look at the code and notice it’s malware.

I think the point of the reddit screenshot is to show what Windows users are putting up with, not to share the meme itself.

How do you like your carrots? Whole, chopped in a certain way?

I do actually not find buffalo flavoured things (I don’t eat buffalo wings but I do buffalo cauliflower & tofu) spicy. And yeah I like to add hot sauce to foods that are not already spicy, but if they are already spicy I don’t add hot sauce.

I don’t think my spice tolerance is crazy tbh. I’ve definitely eaten things that were too spicy for me. I tried the Buldak 2× spicy and found it nice but once I got to the end of it I was struggling. Still managed to finish it though.

Hot sauces are very variable in spice levels imo. Most of them I don’t find spicy at all, but some of them are so spicy that even adding a little bit to my food has ruined it before.

Is there something genetically different with people who enjoy this?

Probably. My parents are from a place known for their love of spice, though I mostly grew up in places that were very conservative on spice.

Get a carbon monoxide detector. Maybe that?

The short arms thing is real as fuck. I’m 5’1 and am constantly inconvenienced by how short my arms are (elbows don’t reach armrests, can’t reach the back of the cupboard, can’t reach the corner of the kitchen countertop, etc). I think in a fight with a taller person they would have the advantage: faster due to longer legs and longer range arm reach.

People play games for different reasons. A lot of people play games to relax, and challenge themselves doing serious stuff. It’s literally fine for things like cheats to exist (and there’s no such thing as cheating for singleplayer games anyway). If someone wants to make their singleplayer game easier, or to skip a particularly hard section, or whatever, it doesn’t affect anyone else in any way, so let them.

No worries, happy to help :) Yes it’s a common misconception like I said. Hopefully if you reread the commodity fetishism section of Capital with that in mind (it’s just one subheading under the first chapter, though of course it’s relevant to the whole book) you’ll see some of the points I took from that section in what Marx says.

My understanding is that Marx’s analysis is that when individual commodities are fetishized he meant that people believe that commodities as commodities are capable of meeting the believer’s personal human needs, when in reality it is actually the human relationships that are meeting the needs through the application of labor on nature to produce that which is needed.

This is a common misunderstanding, but not correct. The commodity fetish is not something that occurs in people’s minds. We could all be consciously aware of the commodity fetish but it would still happen; it doesn’t describe a false belief, but it describes the actual appearance of commodities under capitalism. It falls into the category of a “real abstraction”, that is, an abstraction that actually happens in real life, rather than one that is psychological. Another example of a real abstraction is abstract and concrete labour. Concrete labour is the actual labour performed, such as sewing, farming, driving, etc. Concrete labour must become abstract labour in order to exchange commodities; if I exchange cookies I baked for a T-shirt you tailored, we somehow have to make baking and tailoring commensurable, even though they are qualitatively different labour. How many cookies is a T-shirt worth? That would seem a nonsensical question at first glance, because those are two completely different things. But the value-form provides a universal quantifier of commodities, that is, socially necessary labour time, which must be a measure of abstract labour, because e.g. 1 hour of highly skilled labour is worth more than 1 hour of unskilled labour (here, “skilled” is not meant disparagingly towards unskilled labour; skilled labour is more labour because it requires education, e.g. a doctor’s labour is not just 1 hour of doctoring but also 10 years of medical school split up across the doctor’s whole career). Making concrete labour into abstract labour is a real abstraction, i.e. it really happens every time you exchange commodities. You can be aware of it, you can be critical of it, you can hate that it happens, but it will still happen; it is part of the exchange process. Similarly, the commodity fetish is part of the commodity form. If it were psychological, it would be divorcable from the commodity form; the exchangers of commodities could simply decide in their heads to “combat” the commodity fetish and not be beholden to it.

Marx clarifies in the section of Capital I’m talking about (the subsection of chapter 1) that the causation is not “people see objects as homogeneous labour → they exchange them”, but the other way round: “people exchange products of labour → they equate different kinds of labour as human labour”.

Like, what even is an example of a “mystical property” that would apply in the context of industrial modernity?

Taking directly from chapter 1 of Capital again, the commodity reflects the social characteristics of people’s labour as objective characteristics of the products of labour themselves. This is a peculiar trait of commodities—in pre-capitalist societies, relations between people appeared as relations between people, but in capitalist societies, relations between people appear as relations between things. Examples Marx gives of this:

• Equality of different kinds of labour takes on the form of equal objectivity of products of labour as values
• Measure of labour-time takes on the form of magnitude of value of products of labour
• Relationships between producers take on the form of social relations between the products of labour

Isn’t this mystical thinking?

Again, we’re not talking about any kind of thinking. The commodity fetish occurs without awareness, i.e. it is not a process that occurs in the mind.

“Money means you can get more stuff” is ascribing a power to commodity (in this case money) that is actually a power inherent in the relationship between humans.

I mean, no, “money means you can get more stuff” is true in the context of capitalist society. I have a job not because I love doing shitty manual labour for the capitalists I work for, but because I need a roof over my head and I need to eat. I’m alienated from the means of subsistence as a proletarian so I need to sell my labour-power to obtain means of subsistence. This is objectively correct; that’s how capitalism works. Being anti-capitalist or a Marx scholar or attaining any kind of consciousness is not going to change these facts.

And content is not a commodity (or it is only in the colloquial sense, not in the Marxist or economic sense). Commodities have an exchange-value. Generally, online content is not exchanged, but distributed for free (since it can be copied nearly-infinitely nearly-freely; e.g. you reading my comment doesn’t prevent anyone else from reading it).

Genuine question, have you read any of Capital? Not trying to be an ass, but Marx explains in the first chapter, and the book I linked is a good supplementary text too. You don’t have to read all of Capital; like I said, the commodity fetish gets explained in the first chapter. (Though I highly recommend taking the time to read all of Capital; it’s a great text and provides the basis of a scientific critique of capitalism and class society.)

“Fetish”, in “commodity fetish” refers to the commodity appearing to have mystical properties, when in actuality it’s an inanimate object. But it appears animate; it appears to be capable of magical things; and it also makes social relations between people appear as relations between things, e.g. the relation of domination between capitalist and worker appears as an exchange of commodities, a wage in exchange for labour-power. The wording of “fetish” comes from an old racist conception where Europeans said that Africans had a “fetish” of particular religious objects, i.e. they ascribed magical properties to these objects that they didn’t have. Whilst that old conception is racist and wrong, I think the concept of the commodity fetish still holds true.

The commodity fetish isn’t particularly related to what OP is talking about. Clout-chasing is just clout-chasing. The desire to make money is because, well, we live in a capitalist society, and more money means you can get more stuff. The commodity fetish describes properties of commodities, not behaviour of people. It describes the way commodities actually appear; there’s no mental process or actions you can take to undo the commodity fetish, because it is a description of the actual way commodities function under capitalism.