I might be able to give you a hand. Pipewire makes everything way simpler and easier nowadays.

Revolutions in Reverse, but I think it was copied into the Possibilities book maybe.

Not to go all the way back to the beginning but I feel like some news mega heads are souring on China.

The Adjuster was Time's Person of the Year in 2006!

has some incredible writing on this:

One of the most remarkable things about such moments is how they can seem to burst out of nowhere — and then, often, dissolve away as quickly. How is it that the same “public” that two months before say, the Paris Commune, or Spanish Civil War, had voted in a fairly moderate social democratic regime will suddenly find itself willing to risk their lives for the same ultra-radicals who received a fraction of the actual vote? Or, to return to May ‘68, how is it that the same public that seemed to support or at least feel strongly sympathetic toward the student/worker uprising could almost immediately afterwards return to the polls and elect a right-wing government? The most common historical explanations — that the revolutionaries didn’t really represent the public or its interests, but that elements of the public perhaps became caught up in some sort of irrational effervescence — seem obviously inadequate. First of all, they assume that ‘the public’ is an entity with opinions, interests, and allegiances that can be treated as relatively consistent over time. In fact what we call “the public” is created, produced, through specific institutions that allow specific forms of action — taking polls, watching television, voting, signing petitions or writing letters to elected officials or attending public hearings — and not others. These frames of action imply certain ways of talking, thinking, arguing, deliberating. The same “public” that may widely indulge in the use of recreational chemicals may also consistently vote to make such indulgences illegal; the same collection of citizens are likely to come to completely different decisions on questions affecting their communities if organized into a parliamentary system, a system of computerized plebiscites, or a nested series of public assemblies. In fact the entire anarchist project of reinventing direct democracy is premised on assuming this is the case.

To illustrate what I mean, consider that in America, the same collection of people referred to in one context as “the public” can in another be referred to as “the workforce.” They become a “workforce”, of course, when they are engaged in different sorts of activity. The “public” does not work — at least, a sentence like “most of the American public works in the service industry” would never appear in a magazine or paper — if a journalist were to attempt to write such a sentence, their editor would certainly change it. It is especially odd since the public does apparently have to go to work: this is why, as leftist critics often complain, the media will always talk about how, say, a transport strike is likely to inconvenience the public, in their capacity of commuters, but it will never occur to them that those striking are themselves part of the public, or that whether if they succeed in raising wage levels this will be a public benefit. And certainly the “public” does not go out into the streets. Its role is as audience to public spectacles, and consumers of public services. When buying or using goods and services privately supplied, the same collection of individuals become something else (“consumers”), just as in other contexts of action they are relabeled a “nation”, “electorate”, or “population”.

All these entities are the product of institutions and institutional practices that, in turn, define certain horizons of possibility. Hence when voting in parliamentary elections one might feel obliged to make a “realistic” choice; in an insurrectionary situation, on the other hand, suddenly anything seems possible.

V'ger must evolve.

Yeah that one!

The original calculation (adding up all the ages in the genealogies in the Bible) was done a few hundred years ago, but all the young earth creationists I saw put the start at 4000 A.D., so 6000 years ago.

My one coworker at my old company claimed that Europe was banning people from growing their own food in their own gardens, and that the fires in Western Canada last year were caused by women firefighters in a diversity firefighting group that can't do that job because they're women and accidentally let a blaze out of control.

It was probably more than just one kid being rowdy and that was just the last straw. Could be just a shitty teacher though.

I have a hard barrier around expressing anything like that, online or off. The inherent hetero power dynamics make it creepy even if it's not a sexual impulse.

My friend turned to me after we watched that and said, "was that the most reddit movie ever made?"

The horniness was whatever. Bill fucking Hader as "Chief Firewater" pissed me off to no end.

The mental clarity you get at the 60-day mark of nopiss is like nothing I've ever experienced before.

Omg I want this on a mug!! If there is a God She will make this happen 😍

The real answer for a black bear is make yourself look as big as possible, back away slowly, and tell it to fuck off in a deep voice. If it charges you it's hopefully feinting, but if not whack it right in the snout with whatever you have.

Premade chili, or a thick lentil curry, will be your best bet if you're doing anything active on this camping trip. Cook it ahead of time, throw it in the cooler, and heat it up. You may want to add a grain if you don't want to do rice before or after on the same burner (minute rice will be easy though).

I personally love to dehydrate the above but that tends to be for backcountry canoe camping and hiking, where weight and volume matter a lot.

There are ways to hide your power level but you have to be very accomodating, not get heated, and figure out what direction to guide someone to get them started questioning the dominant narrative, instead of going debate bro mode. People want to be listened to and respected, and will remember your tone, affect, and willingness to treat them like a person far more than they will your points 90% of the time.

It means you have to tread carefully when organizing, and that it's important not to be callous about hardship.

If your position is, "bring on the US collapse; maybe it'll ease the boot off the Palestinians' necks," all I can say is that I hope you're right and I hope you're prepared.

If your position is, "bring on the US collapse; I mean how much worse can it actually get?" you probably have no clue what you're talking about unless you've personally spent time in a war zone or lived through Katrina or something like that.

One of the things that struck me while studying the Russian revolution is just how much of an academic relationship we communists have to major periods of historical change. From our position it's way easier to imagine ourselves in the room with Lenin trying to make a tough decision on agricultural policy than it is to imagine stretching your food store through a region-wide famine and crop failure, or watching your family all catch cholera, or getting shot by the white army...

She's better than Will, Felix, or Amber tbh.