Not really, and I say this being a communist myself. Capitalism just requires to extract the maximum profit from the capital investment, sometimes it leads to what you said, sometimes it leads to the opposite (e.g. no difference between i5 1st gen and i5 8th gen)

Funnily enough, I’m Spanish and the meme is somehow also accurate here?

“Grassroots organization raises $500k for the establishment”

Yeah, in my opinion you were clear about that in your comment, so I guess people are just being outraged assuming that “they’re not supporting solar!!!”

I really don’t know why people are downvoting you. The internet is full of journalistic coverage of new developments in the field of photovoltaic and electric batteries, and journalistic coverage of science is generally… poor. They overstate the importance of everything because they wanna make clickbait, and the result is that it feels like there’s a nonstop of development, of new battery technologies that are gonna change the world… It’s frankly exhausting, like, give me real data as you say, such as capacity installed per year, trends in battery capacities and prices and the reasons for that, and so on and so forth.

I hope solar eventually beats ICE engines for efficiency

I’m not sure your comment makes a lot of sense. The problem with solar isn’t that it’s not as efficient as internal combustion engines, it’s that you can’t generate electricity on-demand. But it’s already a cheaper form of energy than burning fossil fuels in many countries.

Please tell us how environmentally friendly bringing infrastructure like internet, roads, electricity, water or garbage disposal to low-population density areas is, and how resource-efficient single family houses are. Go off living your happiest life, mate, just don’t preach about the sustainability of it when your eco-footprint is twice that of a city dweller.

As advice: for solar panels to charge an EV, you’re gonna need a fuckton of them. An EV battery is easily 50kWh, which means a 10kW solar installation producing full energy for 5 hours (assuming perfect efficiency on conversion). So be ready to buy a lot of panels.

56% of humans live in cities, and this is increasing over time. It’s cool that you’re the exception who lives kilometers away from the nearest store (poor planning in your village though), but the reality is that by proper city-planning and good public transit investment, most people wouldn’t even need to have cars at all.

Wow, 1 megameter for a vehicle weighing 2 megagrams. That’s some serious efficiency

Because carrying a 2-ton metal box around you for every single trip you want to do is the least efficient possible way of doing so. Walk places, ride bikes, take trains, minimize car trips and promote carsharing for the occasional trips where cars are actually necessary.

Little nitpick to you:

Nyquist will ensure that you preserve artifacts that indicate primary frequency(ies) of interest, but you’ll lose nuance for signal analysis.

When we’re analyzing a signal more deeply we tend to use something like 40x expected max signal frequency, it’ll give you a much better look at the signal of interest.

This is because your signal of interest, unless purely sinusoidal, has higher frequency features such as harmonics, so if you sample at Nyquist you’d lose all of that. Nyquist theorem still stands, it’s just you wanna look at higher frequency than you realize because you wanna see higher frequency components of your signal.

No gambling though

If you don’t wanna be insulted, don’t simp for the oppressors. I’d insult you if you said “I love absolutist monarchy!”

Blood is an ingredient in many other countries. We have blood sausages (morcilla) in Spain, and they’re common in many other places too

Why no mention to the democratic participation in Cuba in your response?

Who do you think makes such decisions in a capitalist context?

Markets make those decisions in a capitalist context, surely not a committee of experts consulting the unions.

According to Worshiping Power by Peter Gelderloos, decentralized structures have an advantage in self-defense but a disadvantage beyond their base territory. That’s why both the Spanish Civil War and the Makhnovshchina were lost once the popular front strategy were implemented.

I’d have to read that book to give an actual answer to why that analysis is made. My point is that the coup was allowed to happen to that degree in the first place due to the failure of anarchists of arming the working class and stewarding it against the increasing threat of fascism.

Once everything belongs to the state, it really belongs to those who rule the state.

Again, not that easy. Khruschev didn’t decide that the iron in the factory #3 would be used in the steel beam factory #7. The planning of the productive forces was an incredibly complex process in which thousands of bureaucrats union members were involved. Calling that amalgam of workers an “owning class”, especially when they’re not extracting surplus value at all from the workers seems a big stretch to me.

Centralism is never democratic.

The fact that the USSR wasn’t as democratic as ideal, doesn’t mean that the existence of a state can’t be democratic. “Centralism” is an umbrella term covering many different possibilities of governance, and a single party ruled by elected leaders of worker councils is a recipe of some sort of centralism that can provide a very reasonable degree of democracy. I’m not arguing this was the case for the USSR. If you want to read on a practical case of the existence of democracy within a Marxist-Leninist single-party regime, I recommend you have a look at a book called “How the worker’s parliaments saved the Cuban revolution”, from Pedro Ross, which describes this exact form of functioning of back and forth between the central government and the worker councils in which millions of Cubans participated to overcome the worst consequences of the “periodo especial” after the illegal and antidemocratic dissolution of the USSR.

I myself am from a country with a rich history of anarchism in the 20th century: Spain. By the 1930s, the CNT, a union of workers which proposed some sort of anarcho-syndicalism (which I bet you’d be happy to agree is a good method of governance), had more than a million members, which for the population of the country at the time was absolutely huge. The lack of centralization of sorts initially among the leftists, and their consequent weakness to respond to threats, is actually the very reason why fascism could trump the democratic government in many places of the country and destroy this anarchist movement and all social progress for the following 40 years. Funnily enough, the dictatorial USSR was the only country which assisted the republicans in their civil war against fascism, other than the admittedly heroic volunteer corps from the brigadas internacionales.

Nobody in their sane minds argues that there wasn’t overbureaucratisation in the USSR. That’s a well established truth. The question is, if people aren’t only allowed but encouraged to join the party, and if there’s no exploitation of the working class, what’s the argument to suggest that the “bureaucrats were the new owning class”

Id rather wait for you to answer my comment instead of deflecting

Ok, so in the USSR, the country with no exploitation of labor and which promoted membership of party and unions, the owning class was the working class, right? Or are you gonna do some mental gymnastics to say it was the politician class?

I wouldn’t say that an American mainstream economist from the mid 20th century is part of the pipeline to radicalization, but sure