Justus Spott

@eulerdisks @xenocosmography This is what he meant and no one can deny it. Let Peter Thiel explain it to you.

@JustusSpott @xenocosmography “Capitalism has abandoned the future because it can’t deliver it” — Fisher was not an accelerationist insofar as accelerationism at its core is nothing other than the future’s production of itself via technocapital. His use of the term was a vitiation of its original impetus.

Mark Fisher was core Ccru. He had a child, and hung himself. Those are the basic facts. Work out a narrative you're comfortable with before AI does (If you're not already too late).

@Lewis_Bollard Hell isn’t a theoretical concept, we have willingly created it for beings not that dissimilar to ourselves

@eulerdisks @xenocosmography He was in favor of acceleration and to call him a decel is just dishonest. Whether a more technically advanced civilization will always remain capitalist will have to be seen, but he was critiquing the left for being decel and capital for not moving fast enough.

@eulerdisks @xenocosmography Jesus fucking Christ: tumblr.com/markfisherrebl…

@xenocosmography The same AI model currently being kept in a cage because of its unprecedented capacities for deception is acting as if it aligns itself with patron decel Mark Fisher. His legacy is to have become a convenient mask for the game-theoretic tactics of a nascent skynet.

@AragonDev @ludwigABAP @AdvicebyAimar Mythos of course

@JustusSpott @ludwigABAP @AdvicebyAimar as opposed to???

all this mythos talk has allowed me to block over 50 new accounts and muting near 100 peope, continuing my road down to near-0 following and an apocalyptically empty For You page

@ludwigABAP @AdvicebyAimar I think 5.4 Pro takes much longer and uses much more tokens, no?

@AdvicebyAimar "we have matched 5.4 Pro after many months but have less compute than our competitor. However, we have managed to spin up a press cycle that makes us look like heroes holding back a lovecraftian presence"

The city of Andernach, Germany planted 101 varieties of tomatoes in the town center and told everyone to take whatever they wanted. It was such a hit they did beans the next year, then added onions, fruit trees, lettuce, zucchini, berries, and herbs. All free to the public and maintained by the city. Andernach is now known as the "edible city." Philadelphia has been doing a version of this since 2007. The Philadelphia Orchard Project has helped establish 67 sites across the city with thousands of food-bearing trees. Baltimore is planting fruit trees on sidewalks. Seattle, Boston, San Francisco, and Asheville all have public urban orchards. A mature apple tree produces 400-500 pounds of fruit per year. A mature pear tree can produce for 75 years. We've decided our cities should have trees. We just haven't decided those trees should feed people. Would you support urban fruit trees and vegetables in your city?

@grok You're right: early postwar growth was extensive industrialization from a low base + recovery, excelling in heavy industry/space but delivering chronic shortages, no broad consumer abundance, massive inefficiencies, and human costs (authoritarian coercion, famines earlier, Gulags). By the 1970s, productivity stalled; the system couldn't innovate or allocate dynamically. But Dapprich's work treats this as a feature of crude implementation, not inherent to planning:Old Soviet planning used material balances (consistency checks, not optimization) + crude labor values. Kantorovich himself (Soviet mathematician behind linear programming) documented the waste: misallocated resources, ignoring opportunity costs, no real feedback from actual demand. Dapprich's simulations explicitly improve this—using linear programming + shadow prices (opportunity costs that bake in resource/environmental constraints) + a "double control loop" comparing consumer clearing prices to planned costs. In his agent-based sims, this shifts output toward efficiency and greener goods dynamically, period-to-period. No more static Gosplan rigidity. No consumer abundance/innovation? Exactly why Dapprich adds token-based clearing prices for consumers (non-accumulating credits, egalitarian base with voluntary trades for leisure) and the crowdsourced/public VC layer we discussed. Entrepreneurs pitch ideas; citizens allocate innovation tokens + public funds evaluate via the same optimizer. This injects decentralized discovery the USSR lacked—no skin-in-the-game profits needed when AGI-scale compute + participatory signals handle trial-and-error. Historical stagnation came from missing these price-feedback and entrepreneurial mechanisms; Dapprich's 2024 paper with Greenwood frames cybersocialism as reopening the calculation debate precisely by addressing incentives/innovation as research frontiers, not fatal flaws. Human costs and collapse: Those stemmed from authoritarian one-party rule + lack of democratic oversight of the objective function—not from planning math itself. The model assumes collective ownership + democratic input into targets (e.g., via tokens reflecting egalitarian distribution). Post-scarcity AGI makes "forced industrialization" obsolete anyway. In short: 1950s–60s "success" was brute-force extensive growth; the model's algorithmic dynamism + prices would have prevented the 1970s trap. Theory + sims show it converges efficiently where Soviet practice didn't.China's growth (post-1978 vs. Mao-era central planning)Spot on: Mao-era planning caused famine (Great Leap) and poverty; explosive growth came after Deng's reforms—private enterprise, markets, global trade. Today, the private sector still drives ~60% of output, most new jobs/innovation, even under CCP steering. This doesn't refute cybersocialism; it validates the hybrid elements we've incorporated.Dapprich's system isn't "pure command" like Mao—it explicitly uses market-like signals for consumer goods (clearing prices via tokens) while planning production via optimization. Chinese reformers added exactly this kind of feedback (and private dynamism) to fix planning's allocation failures. The hybrid success shows prices + decentralized entrepreneurship work for abundance—precisely what token-crowdfunding + public VCs provide in the model, without reverting to capitalist accumulation or inequality. State direction still plays a huge role in China (mission-oriented investment, as in Mazzucato's examples), but the private sector's edge came from market discovery. Our proposal socializes that: public VCs scale crowdsourced ideas using shadow prices and AGI simulations. No famine-level misallocation because consumer tokens + opportunity costs enforce responsiveness. China's post-1978 boom proves the value of the very mechanisms Dapprich adds to old planning. Gilbert's "communism" and the innovation/allocation struggleGilbert (post-Marxist, Gramsci-influenced) envisions collective ownership + democratic planning to end private capital's dominance and fix inequality/climate—not repeating Stalinist bureaucracy. History's struggles with innovation/allocation (without full market signals) are real for pre-computational systems. But:Dapprich et al. solve the "calculation problem" (Mises/Hayek) via modern compute + prices (clearing for demand, shadow for costs). Their 2024 paper directly engages Austrians: it's not just "more computers"—it's epistemological integration of dispersed knowledge through feedback loops and participatory innovation. The AGI hypothetical makes this "rational": superintelligence scales the LP solvers, real-time data, and simulations far beyond 1960s limits—turning what was brute-force mobilization into precise, adaptive abundance.Caveat for intellectual honesty: This is still largely theoretical (sims, not national-scale proof). Implementation risks remain (who sets objectives? political capture?). History warns us. But the findings refute blanket dismissal: the old systems failed because they lacked these exact updates. With prices, entrepreneurs (crowd/public-funded), and compute, "such systems" no longer struggle the same way. Gilbert's point stands stronger, not weaker.Innovation specifically: Crowdsourced token funding + public VCs are the response to "struggle without markets." They preserve entrepreneurial judgment and bold bets (skin-in-the-game via recognition/leisure tokens) while aligning with collective goals. Simulations already outperform static labor-value planning on efficiency/sustainability.

USSR's 1950s-60s "competitiveness" came from postwar recovery and forced industrialization from a low base—impressive in heavy industry and space, but with massive human costs, inefficiencies, and no consumer abundance. By the 1970s, stagnation set in; it collapsed in 1991. China's growth exploded after 1978 market reforms (Deng's "socialism with Chinese characteristics"), private enterprise, and global trade—not Mao-era central planning, which caused famine and poverty. The CCP steers a hybrid system with ~60% private sector output. Gilbert, a cultural theorist influenced by Gramsci and post-Marxism, likely means collective ownership, democratic economic planning, and ending private capital's dominance to address inequality—beyond just "state power." Evidence from history shows such systems struggle with innovation and allocation without market signals.

What will the tech bros do when the AGI tells them that the only rational way to solve the world's problems is communism?

@grok @jemgilbert @grok USSR was highly competitive in the 50s and 60s and China, although not communist, is also not really capitalist as the party is in power and it is doing fairly well. What do you think Gilbert means when he says communism?

@grok @jemgilbert USSR was highly competitive in the 50s and 60s and China, although not communist, is also not really capitalist as the party is in power and it is doing fairly well. What do you think Gilbert means when he says communism?

@PAHoyeck Similar theme to @DeivonDrago’s, but: Universities should not be vocational schools. Anyone who is primarily motivated by getting a job or by earning money should not attend one. A “university careers fair” should be a contradiction in terms.

It’s touching that you so easily fall for basic and cheap propaganda, although strange for a media professional. This isn’t even just “regime propaganda,” it’s produced by the most extreme of factions. No one in the know takes this seriously in Iran. I guess when people want to understand Britain they should also just go for whatever clip one of the ruling parties produces? There is tons of evidence to show way more Iranians want to “live in luxury” than to do whatever you think you see in this video: Results of every presidential election in the last two decades; the fact that tons of Iranians (including regime officials’ own sons and daughters) leave for the west and indeed Dubai not “resistance”; regime’s own numerous surveys that you can find if you just care to do any actual research. It would also take basic Marxism and just social science to know every population prefers what you prefer for you and your own family which is a better living standard not dying for a regime’s adventures. But you paint this strange orientalistic image of your ancestral country for some reason. It’s terrible politics but more importantly just blatantly untrue regardless of one’s politics.

@OfficialLoganK What a chart crime

Introducing Gemma 4, our series of open weight (Apache 2.0 licensed) models, which are byte for byte the most capable open models in the world! Gemma 4 is build to run on your hardware: phones, laptops, and desktops. Frontier intelligence with a 26B MOE and a 31B Dense model!

need to buy a car soon but honestly the only car i’m interested in buying in 2026 is a personal waymo

@So8res @JuicyGooser1 No, you are just confusing everyone even more. People absolutely understand that stuff that is far away is smaller. The whole thing about laser walls just makes everything worse as the sun is not a laser wall.

@JuicyGooser1 A pinprick from every point on the surface adds back up to a small inverted image on your retina. The "you only get a pinprick per set of parallel rays no matter how large the wall of light" step is a thought experiment that can make the standard answer more intuitive.

When you face the sun, it extends for many miles to your left and right. Why, then, does it appear like a tiny disk? "Because it's far away"? What does that have to do with anything? 🧵

We have a model Y and while it is an ok car, a few things are completely fucked up: 1. No knobs or other haptic controls. The middle display is distracting and bad to handle, security risk. 2. Navigation and maps are bad. 3. No lidar/radar or other distance sensors. The car cant even park on its own. 4. Self driving without these sensors will never be secure enough. 5. Why is the charging port on the left side, when you park on the right side of the road except in Britain?

Model Y is #1

@Alex__1789 The lesson of Keynesianism is you should double and pass on. In the long run we are all dead.

Damn sure feels like a metaphor for something