Castro led a revolution that abolished an essentially colonial regime of sugar plantation labor. Under Batista "most of the sugar industry was in U.S. hands, and foreigners owned 70% of the arable land"[^0]. Rural men endured hard labor in poor conditions, for extremely low wages for half the year for the harvest and were left to languish without work for the rest of the year. Rural women were bound to their homes as domestic servants. There was no hope of a life beyond this for either. The revolution abolished this precarious existence, provided universal free healthcare, and gave everyone the opportunity to education through university. And that's just the effect of the revolution on rural life.
Cheney was a war profiteer who engineered wars that killed at least hundreds of thousands and probably over a million people.
Capital class won and then convinced labor class that capital is more important for functioning economy even though you could create capital out of thin air in fiat era. then went on to divide, restrict and conquer labor. to me that about sums it up.
Consumers are not part of the problem. There is literally no action a consumer can take to ameliorate this situation because there are no tires produced that don't have this problem, and many consumers need to have a car to live.
Public transit doesn't exist for most folks (in the US), walking isn't feasible (for most in the US), and driving less is not feasible (in the US).
The only options to buy smaller cars which means you're now at eye level with a giant truck that doesn't give a single fuck about anyone on the road.
We need robust public transit and pedestrian focused infrastructure with samn multi-purpose zoning. None of these are happening in the next five years at least so it's on manufacturers to eat the cost which they won't do. This means we all get even more micro plastics in our testicles, ovaries, and/or brains.
It’s not remotely true that prices are capable of transmitting all the information required to reproduce society.
This is for the simple reason that prices more or less only communicate information about the amount of labor required to produce a thing[0].
Therefore prices on their own are, for example, incapable of transmitting information about what action needs to be taken to correct the relationship to the biosphere. Information about the state of the biosphere will only enter into prices to the extent that things start taking more labor to produce. But there’s no market mechanism that would then cause that to direct action towards stabilizing the climate.
[0]: This is because cost resolves into business owner’s cut + labor cost + cost of inputs, and the inputs can recursively be split into the same until you’re left with the amount owners take, the amount paid to workers, and the amount paid to owners of natural resources.
The business owner’s cut and the amount paid to owners of natural resources are socially determined and bear almost no relationship to the physical world or reproduction of society.
Is this an intuitive conclusion you’ve arrived at or do you have a source for it? It seems it can trivially be shown to be false under a number of circumstances: supply and demand, secondary markets, etc.
I think there are a few errors here. First there is afaict no reason the image of phi has to break up into power-of-two cyclic groups.
Second and more importantly, it seems very difficult to start with the decomposition into cyclic groups and then choose a map from the multiset group into the permutation group that corresponds to the given decomposition in a good way.
Relatedly, the isomorphism between the image of phi (i.e., the action of accumulating hashes) and the decomposition into cyclic groups may be difficult to compute, which can make finding collisions infeasible for an attacker when they could do it easily if given the explicit representation.
So overall the conclusion that “you might as well make this forced structure explicit, and just pick the block structure you want to use in advance” seems incorrect.
The blog post someone linked on multiset hashing with elliptic curves proves the foregoing points. The cyclic groups do not have power-of-two orders and the group action is very complicated even though the description in terms of elliptic curve addition is quite simple.
Restated, if abelian G acts transitively on a set X, X and G have the same size. There's a tacit assumption, then, that you want as many possible states as possible, which the group action result immediately belies.
I'm not sure the author of TFA really thought through the implications of the "block" stuff, all of the conclusions feel pretty uninspiring. The elliptic curve solution is just taking G to be cyclic with prime order (smaller than 2^n). This avoids some pathological behavior that power-of-two abelian groups give you for the multi-set use case - collision probabilities are sort of bunched up around power-of-two multiples, with some unlucky hashes having extremely low order and e.g. adding two of an element doubling the number of potential collisions.
The set of sequences of length n ending in HH (and with no earlier HH) and beginning with a T are in bijection with the set of sequences of length n-1 ending in HH (and with no earlier HH) by the bijection
Also the bijection between sequence of length n ending in HH (and no earlier HH) and beginning with an H are a bijection with the set of sequences of length n-2 ending in HH (with no earlier HH) by the bijection:
def f(s):
assert(s[0] == 'H')
assert(s[1] == 'T') # can't be another H!
def f_inverse(s):
return 'HT' + s
Therefore, since sequences either begin with a T or an H, for n>=2 we see f(n) = f(n-1) + f(n-2).
Cheney was a war profiteer who engineered wars that killed at least hundreds of thousands and probably over a million people.
I'd say the assessments are accurate. [^0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista