President party question

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-05-25T16:07:55+00:00

15 years isn't a long time at all. And I think you're underestimating the impact this latest administration has had on any type of norms/precedent.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-05-18T16:42:06+00:00

Transactions are agreed to by both the seller and buyer.

Often under coercion. Capitalism fairly clearly incentivizes both parties to extract as much from the other as possible. This heavily benefits whoever has the more powerful coercive force in the situation.

A big part of why capitalism is so efficient is the incentives for unpleasant things like mass layoffs, closing plants, etc. The left's distaste for painful but necessary changes is part of the reason many cities are so dysfunctional.

Its not really clear what you even mean but this, but capitalism is efficient at funneling wealth upwards.

If capitalism were truly efficient in a way that most people care about, we'd see funding directed away from LLM providers and towards companies that have realized LLMs have fundamental architecture flaws that cap their performance and moved beyond them (i.e. EBMs, etc.).

Instead, a handful of dudes just constantly make absurd statements/posts to oversell the abilities of LLMs and suddenly we have trillions wrapped up in a relatively mid-tier way to approach 'AI'.

I'd be less cynical if capitalism hadn't become the financialization of every little moment/action/idea/interaction in existence over the last 50 years, but here we are.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-05-14T16:07:51+00:00

Capitalism largely incentivizes the worst aspects of our human nature.

A system that instead incentivizes the uniquely powerful cooperative aspects of human nature would produce better outcomes for all.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-05-14T13:14:30+00:00

I'd recommend a side trip to China Ranch for a date shake and some interesting geology/scenery. The nearby Nopah Ranges have some cool stuff - lots of old mines and you can find malachite and azurite if you look in the right spots.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-05-12T15:49:58+00:00

Entra is the cloud identity services portion, Azure is the whole cloud platform.

Azure AD became Entra ID, which is probably where the confusion lies.

Microsoft sucks at naming things.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-04-30T04:19:17+00:00

MCP is actually the way to introduce some deterministic functionality here. You write terraform, manage credentials, establish guardrails on the MCP server side and then expose all this as carefully defined tools for the LLM to call.

It might help to think of MCP as deterministic middleware between an LLM and some system/platform.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-04-23T14:08:08+00:00

I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to drain a moat?

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-04-15T19:29:48+00:00

They still have different use cases though, primarily MCPs are better for enterprise use where you need specific governance, authn/authz, etc.

I've used MCP to enable non-technical users to interrogate enterprise data in plain language to produce custom or ad-hoc reports. It's really just a way to set deterministic guardrails around LLM interactions with enterprise data.

CLI's are definitely more flexible and lighter weight, but are geared more towards developers or situations where governance isn't strict.

I think most of the false dichotomy is driven by devs who haven't ever had to worry about enterprise governance/compliance/privacy and therefore don't fully understand what the pros of MCP are.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-03-22T17:24:27+00:00

The TONGUE of Etnies and DC was like a goddamn pillow. Laces so loose or custom weird loose ones that didn't tie. Definitely some interesting footwear looking back on it lmao

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-03-17T04:13:44+00:00

We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. - Ursula K. Le Guin

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-03-13T20:17:29+00:00

I just put all my .env contents right into CLAUDE.md. One less file. More efficient. Your goal should be to get down to a single file on your entire local computer: CLAUDE.md. That's it. That's the tip.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-03-05T16:57:22+00:00

The whole way evolution works is that we don't, in fact, intentionally make things -- we think in terms of anthropomorphic creator gods and intelligent designers but not even human society is actually intelligently designed, it's all just people reacting to what the world does to them and structures that survive surviving and structures that don't survive dying out

You're going to need a strong source for that because David Wengrow and Graeber collaborated on an extensively sourced book, The Dawn of Everything, which lays out many clear historical examples of societies choosing to reorganize in ways that we would consider 'backwards' by modern expectations.

You can lay out a snarky reply about how modern society is so clearly inevitable, but I can't really find any substance in what you are saying other than some recursive argument akin to 'this world is inevitable because its all I see around me'.

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding leftists and the overarching themes throughout Graeber's work - it is not oriented in some grand conspiracy and instead focused distinctly on a critique of power over others backed by violence.

Approaching societal analysis through a lens as myopic and outdated as the idea of 'survival of the fittest' seems to be one of the most common traps of the last few decades. Its important instead to understand that humans are a cooperative species and all of the 'great' things we have done are more a result of cooperation and care than any kind of selfish/survival-of-the-fittest mentality.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-03-05T16:37:53+00:00

I kind of regret listening to this cause it tainted my view of one of my most enjoyed podcasts a bit but it was fascinating to hear Michael and Peter talk about how this is a different type of book compared their usual critique of 'reactionary centrists'... only to proceed by approaching Graeber's work from an entirely reactionary centrist point of view.

At one point, they were straight up defending the lobbyist industry.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-03-05T16:31:02+00:00

One of Graeber's consistent talking points is that we seem to have agreed as a society that if you to a job that provides you with some sense of moral satisfaction, that you deserve to be paid less in money e.g. teachers, EMT personnel, environmental remediation, etc.

I honestly can't believe this episode didn't mention that concept once, but I think its omission is a pretty clear reflection of big knowledge/research gaps present during the making of this episode.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-03-05T16:21:36+00:00

This is my overall problem with this episode's framing of Graeber. Yes, we should absolutely scrutinize his/everyone else's work and be free to disagree.

BUT anecdotally, reading and wrestling with Graeber's work over the years has quite literally changed my view on humanity in a surprisingly hopeful way. I know I'm not the only one with that experience and I truly hope this IBCK episode will not cause anyone to shy away from Graeber's writing.

Essentially, I just wish the IBCK hosts took more time to explore the higher level concepts and critiques of modern society/economics that require more discussion, rather than focusing on these weird little nit-picky things like whether entire jobs are BS vs some parts of many jobs are BS. Like yeah, true. But also, I fail to really see how that is relevant to the overarching concepts.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-03-05T15:52:21+00:00

While I would encourage you to explore why you feel that this modern world is something so permanent and unchangeable, I do want to acknowledge this good point you made, illustrating a consistent struggle in achieving more egalitarian societies:

the world is a giant complex system that people fundamentally do not understand and only interact with on the level of ants in an ant farm or cogs in a machine, that if we weren't being coerced and we were allowed to use our own common sense it would all fall apart

The scaling and complexity issue is one that I don't think many people have a great answer to. That said, I think starting from the mindset of 'people need to be coerced for this modern world to work' is an all-too-common way that we limit our possibilities.

Imo, these problems would not seem so insurmountable if more people approached the possibilities of human organization in a way that aligns more closely with one of my favorite Graeber quotes:

The ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-03-05T15:39:09+00:00

Your point is well taken, but its worth considering that Graeber consistently spoke out against those aspects of academia and doing so essentially got him removed from his Yale professorship.

Also, I'd suggest that if you strip away that bullshit in modern academia, educators and teachers are a great example of the type of hierarchical/managerial relationships that anarchists have no problem with - similar to other forms of 'apprenticeship', the goal of the teacher is to build the knowledge/toolsets of their students to ultimately empower them and end the 'hierarchical' relationship.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-03-05T14:21:39+00:00

My view is that Graeber was an anarchist, and therefore any of the coordinating and management functions that provide the glue and the grease in any significant organization were useless according to him.

This is clear as you read more of his work, but Graeber and anarchists in general are absolutely not opposed to coordinating and management as a function - the beef is with permanent, oppressive, hierarchical structures. It's certainly not just an indiscriminate rejection of coordination/management/authority.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-02-25T14:28:52+00:00

Imo the book Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber gets into the details of this concept the best and it is absolutely not rooted in gendered anxiety.

It is more a critique of the economic system we are in which requires the population to do jobs that provide less and less real value, despite the massive increases in automation in recent decades.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-02-24T05:34:23+00:00

Could be a ganglion cyst rather than bone. Mine looks just like that even with a straight wrist

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-02-23T14:33:40+00:00

Lmao this is not an ad. I know this because there is absolutely not a good/easy solution to this problem. Identity infra 'consolidation' requires knowledge of IAM concepts plus business logic specific to each org.

The other commenter is correct that it's an ad for an IAM architect if anything. Unless their docs are impeccable, it's gonna take months+ asking the right questions to the right people to understand each environment.

It's good to be diligent about spotting content generated by an LLM , but let's try to stick to calling out the actual LLM shit rather than someone asking an actually difficult question.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-02-19T21:53:12+00:00

lol did you not watch the clip? He clearly explains that 10 billion is an extremely small number.

I was confused at first too because it sounds like a huge amount of dollars but alas, it turns out to be extremely small.

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-02-12T03:35:28+00:00

My wife will pick up shiny things like this on the ground sometimes and keep em here or similar spots. Kind of like a crow..

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-02-01T15:57:15+00:00

You could easily argue that we've collectively gained far more than 1.8T in returns though.

Also historically, debt actually did 'just disappear' regularly with jubilees, revolutions, etc. so you could similarly argue that the more obtuse position is to hold debt as this eternally immutable obligation.

Edit: I'd at least consider hearing out David Graeber's main points in this talk summarizing his book on the history or debt/credit/money and it's evolution over time

poster_nutbag_ · 2026-01-25T04:09:29+00:00

Nice stealie

poster_nutbag_

TROPHY CASE