Glad you learned something. Normally this is where I get told that the marxist version of the term is wrong or dumb even though it’s closer to the original meaning than the modern definition.

I am sure the authors of Merriam Webster don’t mean anything harmful. Dictionaries update their definitions based on how they see the term being used, and many modern people don’t respect the original meaning of the term. In political circles we still use the original meaning. You can see why this causes confusion.

You’re using a definition from a random dictionary. This is neither the original meaning of the term nor the one Marxists use. The version you looked up is a “new” bastardization of the original term.

The bourgeois class under marxism is the class that makes money by owning capital through the labor of others. Think about people who own businesses or have large investments. They don’t make all that money themselves, they make it from people who work in facilities they own.

There is something called petite bourgeois that could be called middle class. These are small business owners who both work their own business but also have employees they profit from. Marxists care about how you make money, not how much.

Why does he blow the whistle?

The bourgeois are the rich. You have been misreading the whole thing.

Given it’s responsible for many or even most democratic societies I would generally say yes.

You realize lots of societies including American and France were formed around terrorism and coup d’état?

You know it’s not often I agree with lemmygrad or hexbear but I think they have a point here. Shocking that people are against this. Ideally we would kill the billionaires that own this infrastructure as well, rather than just destroy it and hope they don’t rebuild.

I can get 5G in small villages and towns even. So I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Stalin invented the term Marxist-Leninist. Before that they were just called Leninists.

Thank you I guess?

To be honest I don’t think intelligence can be boiled down to a single number. Like somebody or something can have a slow processing speed but can do a lot of different things, versus something or someone that is incredibly fast but limited in it’s usage. To some extent this actually happens inside human minds with things like system 1 vs system 2 in psychology having different roles within the brain/mind of a human and being suited to different things (flexible but slow and single tasking vs dumb but fast and parralel in this case).

Also I am considered by my society to have a mental disability. So regardless of how far right of this distribution I might be there are still things I don’t understand that more average people can. You could argue that those things are only domain-specific forms of intelligence but I don’t know if that’s actually true or not. There are too many variables and anomalies we don’t understand.

What the fudge is this comment?

Serious question: what kind of drug abuse does it take to shave off 10 IQ points? I’ve done my fair share and would prefer not to have that happen to me - if it hasn’t already.

This really depends on the distribution. If some or all of the people in that bottom 20% are very, very stupid it could actually work out that 80% are above average, because the average is being pulled down by the people at the bottom.

This is why we have different averages like mean, median, mode, and RMS because they each give you different interpretations of the raw data. For example the mean electro motive force of the grid is around 0 volts because it spends as much time in the negative as the positive. We use RMS here because negative numbers become positive when squared.

What about a butt call or a booty dial?

My guy if it wasn’t profitable companies wouldn’t build them.

The fact you think we don’t need baseliad power is very questionable. Like where are you going to store all the energy from these renewables?

Where are you getting your information from?

You can’t use renewables for all power generation though. We don’t have the energy storage for that. Also over the long term nuclear can be profitable - it just requires a lot of investment and planning

This is why we need SMRs and probably government funding as well. It’s hard to run a grid without base load power.

Probably because the whole industry keeps talking about them. Plus some are already in testing I believe, others are still being planned. We did it for nuclear submarines so it’s definitely possible.

I still don’t think that would work as a peaker plant, but it’s better than nothing! If they really have improved it more than that it might work, but you are going to need at least one power source that can be meaningfully changed multiple times per day.

I’m not saying the old logic of “ARM is efficient, x86 is fast” isn’t still true

Okay then I will say it. Apple Silicon is almost as fast per core than Intel and AMD. I am not talking just about x86 vs ARM in general because that’s a fools errand. I am talking about Intel. That’s also not an Atom chip, they don’t make Atom anymore. Sure it is made of E cores but those are several generations removed from the Atom chips. It would actually make more sense imo if they used the 8 core version of that chip.