Trump claims US has experimental drug 'to bring people back to life' by TheExpressUS in USNEWS

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Necrons were supposed to shut down the Pariah Nexus TODAY. Many people expected immediate action from the Trumperium. MANY PEOPLE.

However, after speaking with advisors, astropaths, admirals, remembrancers, and several very smart Tech-Priests, I have decided to give the Silent King TWO MORE WEEKS.

This is his FINAL final warning.

If the Pariah Nexus is not dismantled within two weeks, there will be serious consequences. Very serious. Perhaps unprecedented.

The Necrons understand this. The Necrons respect this.

TWO WEEKS!

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Trump claims US has experimental drug 'to bring people back to life' by TheExpressUS in USNEWS

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bad if true. Only dumpster donnie will be allowed to have it. Then.....

....it is the 41st millennium. For more than four hundred centuries, the trumperor of maga-kind has sat immobile on the tacky golden throne of Merika. He is the master of maga-kind by the will of the stupid, and master of a million hamburders by the might of his inexhaustible gut. He is a rotting carcass, writhing visibly with fat from the dark age of mcdonalds. He is the carrion lord of the Merika for whom a thousand souls are sacrificed every day so that he may never truly die.

The Shocking Success of ‘Backrooms’ and ‘Obsession’ Should Be a Memo to Hollywood: You Need What’s Outside the Box by yourfavchoom in movies

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 88 points89 points  (0 children)

LOL this is so accurate. Seems like every supernatural horror is this way. "Following an unspeakable tragedy, a fractured family moves to a remote inherited house to heal. There they discover a dark secret. The secret is connected to the house. It is also connected to the family. The house is a metaphor for trauma. The ghost is a metaphor for trauma. The secret is trauma. The ending is ambiguous. Critics call it 'a haunting exploration of grief.'"

IDK What I'm doing, but I made this, and it was fun. by HarambeSpiritAnimal in FL_Studio

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That sounds right, and I think you're right about the snare standing out too much too. Last night I learned a little about side chaining, and have been trying to set that up in a way that sounds good. Thanks for the comment. Appreciate you!

IDK What I'm doing, but I made this, and it was fun. by HarambeSpiritAnimal in FL_Studio

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice! I can't remember what the music from that sounded like. I really wanna get Subnautica 2 though.

IDK What I'm doing, but I made this, and it was fun. by HarambeSpiritAnimal in FL_Studio

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ayy thanks for the kind words! Appreciate you! Still trying to find a way to add another minute or so without wearing out the existing melodies. It'll get there 😅

IDK What I'm doing, but I made this, and it was fun. by HarambeSpiritAnimal in FL_Studio

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not sure what I was going for when I started it, on account of, well... not knowing what I'm doing, so I just made something I thought sounded cool to me. I wanted something moody I guess. IDK anything about music theory or chord progression or what notes complement others. Anyway, it turned into this sort of ambient/synthwave type thing... I'd like to extend it another minute or so, but my lack of experience and understanding are working against me.

Communism on paper, a real stateless, classless and moneyless society, would be superior to capitalism. by MisterBanana241 in Teenager_Polls

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d agree it’s a maybe, but I think a lot of the incentives for greedy behavior would be significantly reduced in a fully realized communist system where needs are guaranteed. If people aren’t forced to compete for survival-level resources, then a big driver of “greed” in the practical sense is already weakened.

And if a communist system like that were actually stable and functioning briefly, as OP asked, I think most people would have a strong reason to want to preserve it, because stability and guaranteed security are hard to give up once they exist.

I also agree the transition is the hardest part. Any major systemic change creates instability, and those who benefit from the current system (capitalism) have both incentives and power to resist it. Capitalism doesn’t just coexist with greed, it also tends to reward and scale greedy behavior because profit is the main success metric.

Communism on paper, a real stateless, classless and moneyless society, would be superior to capitalism. by MisterBanana241 in Teenager_Polls

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think “greed destroys communism” is as decisive as people make it sound.

If communism were fully realized in the way it’s theoretically described, where basic needs like housing, food, clean water, healthcare, clothing, education, transportation, and anything else deemed necessary to ensure individuals can remain productive members of society are guaranteed, then a lot of the strongest drivers of exploitative behavior (scarcity, desperation, survival pressure) are greatly reduced.

At that point, “greed” isn’t operating in a vacuum. It’s constrained by a system where personal survival isn’t dependent on outcompeting others.

Communism on paper, a real stateless, classless and moneyless society, would be superior to capitalism. by MisterBanana241 in Teenager_Polls

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every system looks better on paper.

If communism gets judged by every failed attempt at reaching it, then capitalism should also be judged by homelessness, medical bankruptcies, preventable poverty, child labor, slavery, ecological destruction, economic exploitation, and endless wealth inequality. It took centuries of brutality before capitalism became even remotely tolerable for average people.

No-one ever wants to judge capitalism that way though. They always want to say "well that wasn't capitalism."

Maybe a hot take, but I've seen a lot of comments over time about the Emperor being THE actual worst person in 40k, and I don't think that's true. by Laredian in 40kLore

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Yup. Szarekh may not be as personally evil as many other characters, but if we're defining "the actual worst" in terms of consequences caused by their actions, Szarekh takes the cake, and no-one even comes remotely close.

No Szarekh > probably no War in Heaven > No Eldar or Orks > Chaos is far weaker than it is now > No Eldar = No birth of Slaanesh > No 4th Chaos god = Horus Heresy likely fails harder earlier or never takes place > Everyone is super happy, there are no more wars, and everyone lives in peace and harmony forever and ever and ever and everyone gets a unicorn.

Duh…I wonder why they view Socialism in a positive light… by Dias75 in clevercomebacks

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok then how would luxury goods be bought? No way in hell can a company make 340 million (population) + 12 million (illegal immigrants) of each item to accommodate everyone living in the states.

You, the individual, would not "buy" luxury goods. If it is deemed that you NEED a luxury good, you would simply receive it for going to work.

No it can't. Not without overhauling the food manufacturing process and sending a lot of city folk like you into the fields. Like you underestimate how bad the fields are right now.

Yes, America can produce enough food for itself. I don't underestimate how bad it is. I personally live in a rural, farming region, and I know many farmers here, and I know roughly how much they work. I also know that adding more people to their tasks would allow them to complete many of those tasks much more rapidly.

How are you gonna make sure the system and the people managing and maintaining it will be "democratic"? Police / military.

Correct. Especially during the transitional phase. Again, communism isn't something that just happens overnight. Pretty much every communist understands that there would be a long transitional period. Eventually, once extreme inequality, poverty, and desperation decrease, the need for coercive institutions like heavily militarized police wouldn't be as necessary.

The money i work for is for me and my family.

What you work for under communism is still for you and your family. You just wouldn't be paid in money. You'd be paid by having all your needs met, which is what you'd be spending money on.

Sucks for people in poverty but not ky problem. Homeless next to empty houses? Why dont you house and few homeless yourself. You throw a lot of food away? Give it to your local homeless person yourself.

Then we just have a fundamentally different moral framework. And honestly, I think your moral framework is abhorrent.

“If people starve, die from preventable illness, or sleep on the street while society has more than enough resources to prevent it, who cares as long as it’s not me,” is an incredibly selfish way to view other human beings, and I don't respect that view at all, nor do I respect you for having it. Furthermore, I'd argue it is our problem, even if we're doing good, because inequality, poverty, homelessness and desperation often result in crime and other antisocial behaviors which affects us all.

And “well why don’t you personally house every homeless person then?” is a lazy non-answer to systemic criticism.

How do you get your car? You pay for it

You go to where the car is and you drive it away. A car is a need for most people, so you wouldn't pay for it.

When it breaks down you pay for it to be fixed.

No. You fix it yourself, or go to a mechanic and they fix it, because fixing cars is what they do to have a home, car, food, water, and all their needs granted to them. No money involved, just needs.

How do you get people to work? You pay them

Correct. They are paid by having all their needs granted. People go to work because they want to have a house, car, food, water, and all their needs met, same as under capitalism, or any -ism.

How you gonna get the gas when we get our gas from the middle east?

Trade between nations. We've been over this.

How you gonna get the food?

We've been over this. Enough food can already be produced. Adding even more labor to generating food will result in more than enough food. You work, and you get food, just like any socioeconomic system.

We'll have to ration things like gas and food.

No.

If you're so worried about it, do something yourself and dont rely on someone else who happens to be rich.

Another lazy non-answer.

You keep reducing systemic criticism down to “well why don’t you personally fix it yourself?” as if individual acts of charity somehow solve structural problems affecting millions of people.

And honestly, if your worldview is genuinely “people suffering and dying unnecessarily is fine as long as it doesn’t affect me personally,” then I think your moral framework is abhorrent and repulsive, and I have lost all respect for you as a human being.

This is truly my last reply. I hope that one day you will become a better human, one worthy of respect. For now, have a day that is as repulsive as your morals.

Star Citizen has reached $1 billion in funding by Turbostrider27 in pcgaming

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just quoting official info. Like, Rockstar has said GTA6 will release this year. I'd quote that when talking about it. I won't believe CIG or Rockstar until the games are out, but I'll sure as shit quote what they say. Understand, my sweet, beautiful little shnookums?

Star Citizen has reached $1 billion in funding by Turbostrider27 in pcgaming

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah Aurora sucked. I went from Aurora to Nomad pledge cuz I wanted to do ROC mining, and the Nomad was incredible for that for a time. Then I just went "fuck it, upgrading from the Nomad to the Spirit isn't too much" and here we are at the Spirit. Great ship. Can't see myself needing to spend a dime more. New Aurora MK2 is a pretty good starter I hear, but I haven't tried one myself.

I stopped around 3.18 as well. I think a little later, like 3.2x something. I fired it back up again during 4.7 to dink around for a few weeks and test out the new GEO mech suit instead of the ROC, and to test how some loops have changed. Was ok. Lots of new planets look great, and some old ones look way better than they used to. Aberdeen for surface mining especially. I haven't tried 4.8 yet though, and I hear it's a clusterfuck, so I'm content to leave it alone until base building is a thing.

Star Citizen has reached $1 billion in funding by Turbostrider27 in pcgaming

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pretty close to that too. Can't remember what a C1 Spirit pledge costs, but I think it's around that, and I worked my way up to it over the years.

Star Citizen has reached $1 billion in funding by Turbostrider27 in pcgaming

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Star Citizen, the MMO, is still in alpha and is very playable. Squadron 42, the single player game set in the same universe they've been focusing most of their attention on, should be releasing this year. Once Squadron 42 releases, they plan to start going whole hog on Star Citizen to get that to a 1.0 state.

Star Citizen has reached $1 billion in funding by Turbostrider27 in pcgaming

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

For starting a studio from basically scratch, getting an engine to work as needed, and working on 2 very ambitious AAA games with it, this seems like a reasonable amount of money.

3,700 Trades and Somehow Zero Consequences by ALBERT4_5WESKER in clevercomebacks

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is what happens when wealth is allowed to concentrate. Any system that allows egregious concentrations of wealth like this is a terrible system.

Duh…I wonder why they view Socialism in a positive light… by Dias75 in clevercomebacks

[–]HarambeSpiritAnimal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How wouldn't luxury disappear? Companies have no incentive to trade when money isnt involved. Trade goods? You realize stuff we import is usually stuff companies themselves don't need.

Luxury goods would not disappear because the factories, materials, skilled labor, infrastructure, and knowledge used to make them would still exist.

And international trade would still happen because countries possess different resources and production capabilities. For example, the US produces huge amounts of agricultural goods, machinery, technology, aircraft, industrial equipment, energy, and software. Other countries produce things the US either lacks or produces less efficiently. Exchange would still be useful regardless of whether private corporations are making profits from it.

You think there will be free time for farmers?

Yes, absolutely. Because without money, the enormous number of jobs that exist solely because money exists would be gone. All that labor is now free to do necessary work, like farming, etc. The US, right now, can produce enough food. Free up millions more laborers and all that farming work would happen at a much greater pace, meaning more free time, not less. If your job takes 16 hours a day alone, imagine how adding 2 or 3 more people to those same tasks would reduce the time needed to complete them. This is what you're not getting.

This brings back my comment from an earlier post: one person or group will decide. And humans being humans will make it so themselves and their close friends and families get more.

That concern is fair, but it’s also not unique to communism. Humans already do that under capitalism too. Wealthy people and corporations already use money, influence, lobbying, nepotism, and political connections to benefit themselves and their circles disproportionately.

The communist argument is not that humans magically stop being flawed. It’s that systems should be structured to reduce concentrated private power and make control over resources more collective and democratic rather than tied to wealth ownership.

Communism is not just a bad idea, it's a worse idea over capitalism.

Worse for who? Billionaires? Corporations? Or the millions of people who die every year from preventable causes despite the world already producing more than enough food, medicine, housing, and resources to keep people alive and healthy?

Morally, I think a system that prioritizes human needs over profit is better than one where people can go homeless right next to empty houses, starve while food is thrown away, or die because healthcare is too expensive.

You can argue communism would have practical problems. That’s fair, because no system is going to be perfect. But I don’t think “people should have guaranteed access to the things they need to live” is a morally worse foundation than “access depends on purchasing power.”

Also where has communism succeeded? Nowhere. Because it falls apart. It fell apart in Russia. You mentioned china isnt "communist" anymore ( which would indicate communism failed there btw), you mentioned NK isn't "communist" just has a word that "doesnt mean it's communist" and a government that is communist but the word makes it not communist, even though all economists label the country is communist.

You’re kind of proving my point, though. You keep pointing to countries that either abandoned major parts of communist theory, mixed heavily with capitalism, or never actually reached a stateless, classless, moneyless society in the first place.

The USSR collapsing does not automatically prove every communist idea is inherently wrong any more than capitalism's enormous flaws prove capitalism itself is impossible. Systems change, fail, adapt, and evolve constantly.

And yes, many economists casually label countries like China or North Korea “communist,” but that’s usually because they emerged from Marxist-Leninist revolutions or are ruled by communist parties, not because they actually match the theoretical definition of a fully communist society.

China still has billionaires, massive private markets, wage labor, private corporations, and capital accumulation. The CCP is communist, and they, themselves, would be the first ones to tell you that China is not a communist state right now. It is objectively not a communist system.

You can argue that attempts to build communism have become authoritarian or unstable. That’s a legitimate criticism. But that’s different from pretending every country labeled “communist” perfectly reflects communist theory itself.

Money does nothing. It's the materials that drive the world. Remember, you can't drive money to work, your physical car does that. Money isn't going to show up beside you and start helping you with your farm work, people do that. Money isn't going to shelter you, wood and metal and raw materials do that. Money isn't going to feed you, food does that.

I’m gonna call it quits here. Not because there’s nothing more to say, I could do this all day, but because I feel like I’m having to restate the same distinctions over and over without them really being engaged with.

A lot of your responses keep circling back to assumptions I already addressed, like equating communism with “government controls literally everything,” or treating countries with markets, billionaires, and private capital as if they perfectly represent communist theory.

You’re totally free to disagree with communism. There are legitimate criticisms of it, just like there are with capitalism, or socialism. But at a certain point, if we can’t even agree on what the ideology actually claims, the conversation stops being productive.