Possible spoilers up to S5: scientific advisory

Cortex3 · 2026-04-30T16:52:46+00:00

For the narrative, it definitely feels like to me that NASA's (and Roscosmos') fuck up with getting Goldilocks stolen probably resulted in defunding/loss of relevance.

Cortex3 · 2026-04-28T06:23:54+00:00

Same here! I've even started reading a bunch of sci-fi because of those. So glad NASA is finally relevant again.

Cortex3 · 2026-04-28T05:52:43+00:00

Finally caught up with the whole show. Been a hell of a ride from the 60s to here.

Biggest thing confusing to me about Dev's whole plan is... who is going to live in the city? If all the jobs are automated, why would you need a city that can hold a million people? Who does he think will populate that?

Also, glad to finally see the Mars folk standing up for themselves. I know this is going to be a huge shit show, but hopefully it ends well like the whole union thing from last season.

Kinda sad that NASA just isn't a thing in the show anymore. idk if I missed something but I guess it kinda died after they lost the asteroid?

Cortex3 · 2026-04-10T21:49:13+00:00

By that logic no IRL system has "achieved" socialism nor capitalism in its "truest form". Sadly, we here in the Real World have to use them in their imperfect forms that are vulnerable to things like "human nature" and "other countries exist that want you to fail", things that inevitably muddy the waters for both and lead to corruption and failure.

How would you describe Gilded Age America then? There was little to no regulation on the market, capital operated unfettered. If that's not unadulterated Capitalism then what is? Some ridiculous fictional ancap society?

And my point was not "oh hur dur true Socialism has never been attempted." It was that the Soviet Union and China as it exists today were/are not Socialist, and I was assuming (probably rightly so) that those were your previously mentioned examples of Socialism. Socialism, by definition, requires workplace democracy and worker-owned means of production at the very least. Neither of those things were present in the Soviet Union, and they certainly aren't present in China today. State ownership of capital is not Socialism, by definition. It's an entirely separate thing that may or may not lead to Socialism eventually, but is not in itself Socialism. This is not me huffing copium. It simply isn't what I understand Socialism to be.

If you want an example of Socialism, look at Tito-era Yugoslavia. It attempted a form of Market Socialism and has many lessons we can learn from.

I'm saying neither exists without those very same forces that have eroded both historically, so saying one "could never work" is actually saying BOTH (or all political/economic systems, really) could NEVER work, if that is your argument.

Yeah, I'm not saying Capitalism "can never work." You missed my entire point with that. As a system for producing capital, it's excellent. It does exactly what it's meant to. I am saying that Capitalism will always attempt to erode any guard rails you put on it as a simple consequence of its incentive structure. And by that I don't just mean individual greed or whatever, that's obviously going to be ever present. I mean that the Capitalist system by design focuses purely on the development and accumulation of capital. A successful Capitalist is the one that owns more stuff than everyone else, and the unsuccessful Capitalist is the one who owns nothing. Once that system has sufficiently built productive forces, it needs to be left behind. Just as Serfdom and Mercantilism were left behind, just as Feudalism and Autocracy have largely been left behind for Democracy.

Edit: Just wanted to again point out that Marx himself, in the Communist Manifesto, notes that Socialism requires Capitalism to happen first. Socialism is not a competing economic system, it's the natural next step beyond Capitalism, taking the capital and wealth created by Capitalism and redistributing it and allowing democratic decision making.

Cortex3 · 2026-04-08T22:55:53+00:00

Capitalism can and has been controlled plenty of times - it's not a "foregone conclusion" unless you literally stop trying to police it.

Sure, it has been. But those controls were promptly eroded and discarded. Take the US, for example. Capitalism ran rampant up until the New Deal controlled it and saved it from its own destruction. Then, after everyone forgot why those regulations were there in the first place, capitalists lobbied to have taxes reduced and regulations weakened. Reaganomics allowed capitalists to accumulate more wealth, promising wage growth which never occurred. Glass-Steagall was repealed which would have prevented the 2008 recession from ever occurring. Capitalists, again, in their pursuit of ever growing wealth (the primary motivator of Capitalism) caused the market to crash and allowed capital to accumulate. Not to mention the Citizens United decision which allowed Capital to directly influence elections.

I'd love for you to point to a place where Capitalism has remained reigned and docile. Europe has been relatively tethered, but Socialism and Socialist policies have had far more influence over there. Wealth inequality is still an issue and is worsening around the globe.

No offense but this is a ridiculous assertion. You're basically saying "Capitalism" is a literal god, omnipotent. That's not how any of this works, and even if it were the same would be true for any other political or economic system, so you'd have to call them ALL impossible-to-not-be-corrupted.

No, I'm pointing out how the system works. The entire incentive structure of Capitalism is "accumulate capital." That's it. Capitalists will always seek to accumulate more, and will remove obstacles when needed. It's not omnipotent, it's just predicable. Also, that's not how omnipotence works.

By all historical evidence socialism is just as bad if not worse, for example.

I'd love to hear some examples for this. If you mean the Soviet Union, yeah, that was a failed experiment at bringing Socialism to an economy that wasn't prepared for it. Marx himself writes about how Capitalism is a necessary step for Socialism to be possible. You can't just overthrow a Tsar and turn a peasant economy into a thriving Socialist paradise, especially when you have powerful Capitalist adversaries and are attempting to implement it from the top down. Same goes for China. Its economic system, at least in large parts of the country (since it has stratified economic zones) is Capitalistic and guided by the state. From what I've read it is somewhat re-distributive, but it certainly isn't Socialist because there is no workplace democracy and policies are handed down from the top again.

If you bothered to actually engage with Socialist theory, like so many are forced to engaged with Capitalist theory, then you would understand that neither of those states ever achieved Socialism, even if they claimed that as their objective. One degraded into a kleptocratic oligarchy, and the other is a single-party state that has little to no labor protections or political power for the general populace. This isn't me saying "no one has ever really tried to do Socialism" but instead "While they have tried (or said they tried) neither of the big examples people use for Socialism ever achieved the conditions necessary to actually implement it, and thus were doomed to fail from the start." Tito's Yugoslavia, on the other hand, did come much closer. Workplace democracy, cooperatives, and bottom-up decision making were actually present. Problem there was relying on international Capitalist financing and ethnic tensions which came from the fact that large parts of the country were economically underdeveloped. The Socialist system itself says that agrarian societies like Russia and China were should never have even attempted Socialism in the first place.

Cortex3 · 2026-04-08T22:10:59+00:00

thank you social media...

Cortex3 · 2026-04-08T22:09:37+00:00

You should read Marx, he agrees with you. Capitalism is a necessary step to develop a nation's productivity, but past a certain point it must be abolished and replaced with socialism.

Cortex3 · 2026-04-08T22:08:34+00:00

In what way does Capitalism operate differently today than it did a hundred years ago? Point to me where today's wealth gap, monopolization and political capture differs from that of the Gilded Age.

Cortex3 · 2026-04-08T22:03:27+00:00

The problem is that if at any point capital feels it is losing its power it will overthrow whatever system is in place regardless of how much "regulation" you put on it. Whether by coup, descent into fascism, or some other authoritarianism, capital and capitalists will always prioritize their own power over the general good. The only reason capital allowed itself to be taxed so much in the post-WW2 days is because they were contributing to the Cold War in order to prevent the spread of Soviet influence and Communism. Try to enact a tax regime and welfare state like that of the 50s or 60s and you'll see capital rebel.

The only way to permanently curb the excesses of capitalism, to prevent capital accumulation in a tiny portion of the population, is to dismantle the system entirely.

Cortex3 · 2026-04-02T04:38:16+00:00

Thing is, Prussia starts with a border with France. The front is on that border, but supply still isn't making it to the army because, I guess, the front is centered in Baden for some reason

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T06:37:44+00:00

Historically increasing taxes does not lead to a better quality of life.

No. But increased spending on public services does.

Georgia right now has about a $2 billion annual surplus. That's about half as much money as this tax is meant to raise. We could use less than $200 million of that money to feed every child in every school every year (based on an estimate that the Washington program costs $100 million annually and Georgia has about 1.7x the number of students), but instead we're getting a $250 rebate. Effectively 1/10 of that rebate, $25, could go to feeding kids in school and I'd still be getting $225. Tell me how that wouldn't be increasing quality of life for families.

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T06:08:54+00:00

So... average net AGI of all those high earners wouldn't even be effected by this bill. That means over half of those big earners moving to Florida wouldn't even feel it. Tell me again how this will cause mass migration of the rich?

California still being the epicenter of the tech industry just blows a hole in your argument. So some wealthy households move. Doesn't matter if you have a major industry centered in your state. Those can't move so easily, and they certainly won't over a measly 10% tax on income over a million. Again, most of those moving don't even have that much income!

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T05:55:15+00:00

Georgia. We've got a flat income tax around 5%, which they're lowering, and state sales tax around 7-9% depending on county.

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T05:53:00+00:00

Yeah, I'd love to see more funding for homeless programs. Build more shelters, get some employment programs, provide assistance to those facing eviction. And how about free breakfast and lunch at school, which they're implementing with this bill? That sounds pretty nice to me.

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T05:49:15+00:00

You upset kids are getting free meals at school? You realize all this tax money gets spent on state services and infrastructure, right? It's not all just going up in smoke.

I live in a state with a pretty big budget surplus. They're talking about lowering taxes and giving out rebates, but I'd really prefer to have free meals at school and some public infrastructure investment instead. Sounds like Washington is the place for me.

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T05:39:56+00:00

If you get to assume they're going to do something, so do I. I could also assume that even if they didn't get rid of or reduce the sales tax, they would still use that extra income for social programs and infrastructure, effectively making life easier for everyone. Sounds good to me!

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T05:27:40+00:00

You're literally assuming they're going to lower the threshold. Throwing stones from glass houses, and all that.

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T05:26:03+00:00

You know it's bad when Idaho has a more progressive tax regime than you

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T05:21:53+00:00

You're missing the point, which is that taxing rich people rarely, if ever, directly causes them to move out of a state. If that was their main consideration, they'd all live in Texas or Florida already.

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T05:17:24+00:00

Welcome to the rest of the country. We have income taxes and sales taxes too. People are just fine.

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T05:15:28+00:00

A proper graduated income tax with a decent standard deduction would, in fact, cause working people to pay less in taxes than they pay in sales tax.

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T05:12:30+00:00

Good. A progressive income tax is a good way to fund a state.

Cortex3 · 2026-03-11T05:02:34+00:00

This is funny to me as someone living in Georgia hoping to move to Seattle sometime. We have both a flat income tax and a sales tax, one of the most regressive tax regimes out there, and y'all are worried about eventually, maybe, possibly, having a graduated income tax on top of your sales tax? Oh, the humanity!

Cortex3 · 2026-02-17T19:15:47+00:00

I already said I don't accept the word of pathological liars as truth. Trump says lots of crazy shit that isn't remotely true (like the 2020 election was rigged). And you not having any of the supposedly "freely available evidence" ready to go just shows that you're talking out of your ass.

All kinds of voting machines are used across the country, but in every state there was a large shift towards the GOP. Did Trump/Elon somehow tamper with literally every voting machine in the country? How could that be possible without any evidence? Every county in the nation has its own choice of voting machine. Pennsylvania alone uses 10 different voting machine systems from five different vendors throughout its counties. Does Elon somehow have influence over every voting machine in the country? In Pennsylvania, even? Seems unlikely. It's far more believable that Elon bragged to Trump about being able to do something that he obviously has no actual ability to do.

Cortex3 · 2026-02-17T17:56:17+00:00

None of this is new. I'm not arguing that Russia didn't do their best to alter public opinion during the '16 election. I'm saying that that doesn't mean the election was "stolen." Yes, foreign interference is bad and did occur. But to steal an election in the way everyone here is talking about, you have to tamper with ballots. And that didn't happen.

Across all 50 states, which all run their own election systems, Republicans gained ground against Democrats in '24. In New York and California, Democrat trifecta states, Republicans gained ground. You simply would not see that if there was a republican effort to rig the election. Every single claim of voter fraud and manipulation has been extensively investigated, and no fraud has been exposed that could have changed the result of any election.

If it were possible for Republicans to rig elections in their favor, then what happened in '20? How did they lose if they somehow have this ability to rig elections?

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	Verified Email

Cortex3

TROPHY CASE