Collatz_problem [comrade/them]

Because you can only vote for servants of the bourgeoisie.

Is this Axlotl tanks from Dune?

Kind Vladimir Ilyich would have shot the political leadership of every post-Soviet country.

This means that you could write a syntactically valid statement which cannot be proven from the axioms of that system even if you were to add more axioms.

You can actually add the statement itself as an axiom. The point of the theorem is that no finite number of additional axioms will completely eliminate all unprovable true statements from the theory.

Also, it relies on consistency of the formal system, because inconsistent system can prove anything. In fact, you can prove consistency of a formal system if and only if it is inconsistent.

Information-theoretic incompleteness is new to me, but seems to be similar to Gödel’s theorem but with a focus on computation saying that if you have a complex enough system there are functions that won’t be recursively definable. As in you can’t just break it down into smaller parts that can be computed and work upwards to it.

In fact, any function, growing fast enough, will be non-recursive. And the same applies to various similar definitions, resulting in fast-growing hierarchy.

All in all this means that no algorithmic theory could actually describe everything. This means you cannot break all of physics down into a finite set of rules that can be used to compute reality. Ergo, we can’t be in a simulation because there are physical phenomena that exist which are impossible to compute.

It should be noted that it doesn’t rule out analog simulations.

The US is like that friend you should stop lending money to and also he will break your legs if actually you stop lending him money.

“I played Russian roulette and my brains didn’t get splattered all over the room. Revolvers are harmless, really.”

American parties play “good cop and bad cop” routine. They are not the same, but they work together to the same ends.

Five minutes ago I saw discussion about a Democratic candidate, who was a Blackwater merc, Abu Ghraib guard and has a Totenkopf tattoo. Both parties are full of fascists.

Doesn’t really matter, because all leftist parties are banned.

Or ‘m’.

It is fascists vs corrupt oligarchy, which makes it simpler to do mental gymnastics.

Military coup (if I actually had an ability to pull it off).

The choice is rarely actually binary.

Step forward: we hear
That you are a good man.
You cannot be bought, but the lightning
Which strikes the house, also
Cannot be bought.
You hold to what you said.
But what did you say?
You are honest, you say your opinion.
Which opinion?
You are brave.
Against whom?
You are wise.
For whom?
You do not consider your personal advantages.
Whose advantages do you consider then?
You are a good friend.
Are you also a good friend of the good people?

Hear us then: we know.
You are our enemy. This is why we shall
Now put you in front of a wall. But in consideration of your merits and good qualities
We shall put you in front of a good wall and shoot you
With a good bullet from a good gun and bury you
With a good shovel in the good earth.

Also, why don’t we have Brecht emojis?

This is normal world police behavior.

Neoliberalism doesn’t actually seek to minimize the state’s role in the economy. It embraces state intervention on the side of bourgeoisie.

The position of the aristocracy of finance is most strikingly depicted in a passage from its European organ, the London Economist.

The Economist, a journal that speaks for the British millionaires, is pursuing a very instructive line in relation to the war.

I admit that I dislike Pulitzer-winning journalists way more than Hamas commanders.

This is Vladivostok, I think.

Why do you think they are so obsessed with denying climate change?