The poor capitalists with all the money and power, making the decisions at the highest levels, guiding society's direction... can you imagine they might be responsible for the shittier and shittier turns our world is taking?
Class is the shape of power and exploitation under capitalism. Some own, others work to enrich those that own. That's all class is. Being frank about the real power differences in our society and our world isn't an ism.
It also harms US' Asian allies, which makes them more dependent on US energy, increasing US leverage to push them toward proxy war with China. Very similar to the situation in Europe!
Can you please describe this proxy war against China. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt but you seem to also be implying that the US made Putin invade Ukraine.
> Russia stated that Ukraine joining NATO would start a war. The US began that process knowing Russia's reaction. Russia did what it said it would do.
This has nothing to do with reality. Ukraine wanted to join NATO in 2008, but allies did not support it and that was the end of it. Yet, Russia still invaded in 2014, over the deepening EU-Ukraine economic relations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Ukraine...
Russia did not threaten anyone with war over the prospect of NATO membership. In the first years of the war, Russia did not even acknowledge that those were Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine. Russian government claimed that it was a civil war.
This is an intimidation tactic and not a real threat. If the vague threat is enough to prevent something from happening, then it has served its purpose. If not, then the vagueness gives an exit to do nothing.
Pretty much every country that has joined NATO since the end of the Cold War has seen a flood of such threats, Finland and Sweden most recently[1]:
"Finland's accession to Nato will cause serious damage to bilateral Russian-Finnish relations and the maintaining of stability and security in the Northern European region. Russia will be forced to take retaliatory steps, both of a military-technical and other nature, in order to neutralise the threats to its national security that arise from this."
Russia has attacked only Georgia and Ukraine, the two countries that did not end up joining NATO. There, the threats achieved their goal and shaped the battlefield in favor of Russia, which was then exploited. Elsewhere, the fake act of "We're soooo concerned with our national security" did not yield the desired results, and Russians moved on.
Burns and many other Western diplomats have been surprisingly ignorant of such games, treat Russians as primitive savages who are incapable of manipulating people (despite it being a deeply ingrained feature of their culture), and take their words at face value, which produces the kind of memos Burns wrote. The 2008 decision to deny Georgia and Ukraine entry into NATO is nowadays widely considered a mistake. The views Burns held and promoted in the memo made the war more likely instead of preventing it.
> Burns warned of serious consequences arising from NATO’s eastward expansion to include Ukraine and Georgia
And then Ukraine accession disappeared from the policy menu. Then Putin annexed Crimea. Pretending Putin invaded Ukraine with any more strategic coherence than Trump going into Iran reveals a reality-defying bias in a source.
Was Russia invading South Ossetia and Crimea also engineered by the United States to switch Europe to American energy? Or is it more reasonable to just conclude that Russia is expansionist and Ukraine has been seeking the protection of an organization that has never been attacked by a major power?
Whatever the case, I'd love to hear your Asian proxy war plan. Japan and Korea vs China?
Georgia acceding to NATO was viewed no differently than Ukraine by Russia and Russia clearly stated that this would cause a war, which it did. It's strange to me that you think that the US had nothing to do with expanding NATO to these countries despite Russia's threats of war if this happened. What do you think the US' role was?
Regarding Asia, look at US' vying to have unfettered access for its Air Force over the Strait of Malacca, despite popular disfavor by Indonesians, after a $15 billion energy deal with their government. The US having command over the South Korean military - in what world is that in South Korea's interest? Vietnam's new dependence on US LNG as a result of the attack on Iran. Look at the disputes in the South China Sea despite the disputants having China as their biggest trading partner, and the disputes rising exactly at the time of the US' pivot to Asia. Same pattern with Taiwan - a plan that has been in place for decades but which has become a political token coinciding with the pivot to Asia.
Japan and Korea vs China sounds absurd doesn't it? Why would they pick a fight with their biggest trading partner, who also appears much stronger than them militarily? Surely it's not in their interest right? Yet that's exactly what we've been seeing (belligerence from Japan's PM over Taiwan is a case in point). Does rising belligerence against a key trading partner/US geopolitical rival sound familiar?
Meanwhile Russia can't defeat Ukraine but Europe is convinced it has to arm itself and join the proxy war. This aligns with the 2026 National Defense Strategy - feeding proxies into wars against US rivals, what the US euphemistically refers to as "'burden sharing".
> Georgia acceding to NATO was viewed no differently than Ukraine by Russia and Russia clearly stated that this would cause a war
You put a lot of faith in Russian rhetoric. They've made many hollow declarations before and during the war, particularly around territorial integrity and western support. Meanwhile Putin has made all sorts of claims to contradict this casus belli you cling to, e.g. Russia has a historical right to Ukraine. And I won't even start with Medvedev.
> It's strange to me that you think that the US had nothing to do with expanding NATO
I don't recall saying the US had nothing to do with it. But this wasn't the unilateral action by the US that you asserted. And Russia doesn't have veto power over NATO or Ukraine or Georgia. Their warmongering threats don't suddenly mean their neighbors are no longer sovereign. Nor does it mean "it's someone else's fault that they are forced to invade". And yes, the same also applies to Trump's stupid Monroe Doctrine 2.0.
> Japan and Korea vs China sounds absurd doesn't it?
Yes, it does. And brave rhetoric from politicians doesn't somehow equate to the US puppeteering them into a proxy war. You seem to think that US power is awful and should be resisted but when Russia tells its neighbors not to join a defensive alliance, the smaller countries should oblige. And that Japan has to walk on eggshells around China because of its military inferiority.
In any event, your only evidence of an impeding proxy war is Japanese "belligerence" and US influence. Unremarkable.
> And Russia doesn't have veto power over NATO or Ukraine or Georgia. Their warmongering threats don't suddenly mean their neighbors are no longer sovereign.
both can be true at the same time: russia does not have veto power and nobody can stop russia from invading ukraine if russia wants to keep ukraine from nato. unfortunately, being morally right does not protect you from a bully
In fact the commenter’s point is quite relevant. A central characteristic of the information war is to dismiss the “other side”’s POV as propaganda. This works to prop up one’s own propaganda.
The article makes this quite clear:
> Those words — foreign digital interference — are very important.
> The West has neglected to fight on the battlefield that has been right in front of them the entire time — the internet.
It’s remarkable that the author thinks this is true. The issue is the foreign source of the propaganda, not the propaganda itself, and in fact the solution is more propaganda, according to them.
By limiting our focus to pro-Russia edits, and refusing to acknowledge the larger context, we let ourselves become unwitting dupes, casualties in this information war.
The problem is this goodwill seemingly never works both ways.
When the western side of things does something bad or controversial, it's all about how the west is bad and any comment on other actors is deflecting.
When the eastern side of things does something bad though, we must never stop reflecting on how the west is also bad, and also be aware of how our biases might actually paint an unfairly worse picture of the east.
Which, funny enough, would be an ideal result of western propaganda.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for a more nuanced and substantial comment. It stands in stark difference from the one I responded to.
While I agree the author of the article is either ignorant of or conveniently ignoring the fact that the West has certainly done plenty to "...fight on the battlefield...[of] the internet", I also think it's a mistake to simply refer to Pravda-fr.com or Storm-1516 as merely "the other side". It's manifestly propaganda.
I have lots of energy for talking about all the messed up things the US government has and continues to do, esp. in the information space. I just don't know why we can't talk about Russian or Chinese imperialism or propaganda without doing so. It's not zero-sum; saying bad things about Russia is not saying great things about its enemies, and vice-versa.
I never said this was zero sum game. I just think its humorous when folks get spun up about russian or chinese propoganda, as if our own intelligence agencies aren't actively managing (to a far greater degree, I assume, due to their location in western datacenters) online sources like wikipedia.
It's all propaganda. They even wrote a book (the book) about it:
Why can't I get "spun up" about Russian or Chinese propaganda AND US propaganda?
Why is it that you are free to assume that the magnitude of US interference is far greater than that of Russian or Chinese interference, but we can't even suggest that Russia is perpetrating what you've characterized as a relatively small operation?
As I said, I'll spend all day talking about the crimes of the US government, but it won't stop me from similarly litanizing those of China or Russia. I don't factor the former in my judgement if the latter, and vice versa.
> Why can't I get "spun up" about Russian or Chinese propaganda AND US propaganda?
You absolutely can.
> Why is it that you are free to assume that the magnitude of US interference is far greater than that of Russian or Chinese interference, but we can't even suggest that Russia is perpetrating what you've characterized as a relatively small operation?
I gave my reasoning: the servers are hosted in western nations and I assume that western intelligence agencies have far more control over them. If we were talking yandex, I'd assume the russians had more influence. It's a reasonable assumption, but I'm not too wedded to it.
> As I said, I'll spend all day talking about the crimes of the US government, but it won't stop me from similarly litanizing those of China or Russia. I don't factor the former in my judgement if the latter, and vice versa.
Human rights are a pretext of US controlled media to advocate for expanding US imperial interests. Notice how US support of Israel, Gulf state dictatorships, South American dictatorships are glossed over whenever warmongering toward China or Iran is advocated with the thin excuse being human rights.
Anyone who claims a one sided information war has let themself become a casualty of that war.
Whether is a pretext or not is less important. I don’t mind if the U.S is overthrowing a dictatorship for his own interests while using democracy and human rights as a pretext if at least is trying to enforce a human rights and democracy agenda once the new gov and usually U.S does it with more or less success.
You can’t really expect people to go to war with no national interest. I think for a while democracy was more than a pretext as it helped the U.S keep away communism from its own shores.
> while using democracy and human rights as a pretext if at least is trying to enforce a human rights and democracy agenda once the new gov and usually U.S does it with more or less success.
You mean like in Chile and Indonesia where there were legitimately elected leaders who we got kicked out of power leading to mass killings?
I recommend a book called The Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins. It really knocked me back and was a pretty sad story.
The US installs dictatorships, overthrows democracies, supports genocide, mass targets civilians in its bombing campaigns. It doesn't care about human rights or democracy except as an excuse to start new wars which only harm the people it claims to want to help with its wars.
it does care about human rights but of course the national interest is first otherwise why they didn’t just support dictatorships in South Korea, West Germany, Japan, Taiwan etc ? The U.S is not great but is the best alternative. China, Russia and pretty bad because they don’t have freedom not even for their own people
The tech industry goes through investment phases to produce oligopolies it turns around and enshittifies, parasitizing income off what it has built. Venture capital, acquisitions, acquihires, circular investments - It’s been incestuous for years. The question is whether competition from China’s sophisticated tech sector, which already surpasses the US in many areas, will put a pin in these plans this time round.
I don't agree with the "full cynicism" POV, but I do agree that TechnoChina's existence is a potential paradigm shifter.
But generally speaking, AI is currently pretty competitive and robust. Straightforward business model where users pay money and select the best deal are central. Market power is relatively dispersed.
So... Idk. Nvidia doesn't have competition. But Intel didn't have much competition either, and they drive the Moore's law bus for a long time.
Hardware has been less prone to enshitification. Maybe it's because the demand curve for compute doesn't have natural limits. Drive down price, and demand grows by enough that the total market grows.
There is a giant capital outlay required to produce a competitive model. Joe Schmo can’t jump into this market. Best he could do would be to ingratiate himself to an existing funding cartel. The moat surrounding a handful of market participants is billions of dollars wide.
There’s competition now among the American companies (who have a head start in this space) as always happens as the professional oligopolists try to manufacture their footholds in the new market.
Nor is it cynical to objectively appraise the interests and economics at play. People aren’t playing circular financing games out of the goodness of their hearts.
> inflation adjusted wages are actually up over the long term
Inflation is a tool for monetary policy. It doesn't track cost of living. For example, if luxury items become more affordable, but housing prices rise, inflation-adjusted pay doesn't capture this kind of negative effect on the working class.
It doesn't track cost of living? The way it's calculated is all about cost of living!
In the US, the official inflation numbers are based on a "basket of goods" meant to be representative of a typical person's spending. Housing currently makes up about a third of the basket, while luxury items are a fairly small percentage. Here's a pretty well-written summary, albeit with numbers from 2022:
Changes in housing prices have a large effect on the BLS's inflation figures. Downward changes in the price of luxury goods have a small (and bounded) effect. Even if all luxury goods became free, the reduction in inflation wouldn't be all that much.
CPI is an aggregate measure which munges a bunch of things together under a single statistic.
In fact, the cost of necessities has overall risen faster than the cost of discretionary goods. This has been generally true since the mid-1990s; prior to that, inflation differences were much smaller across income groups despite lower income groups spending more of their income on necessities. In some periods like the post-COVID housing and energy price shocks, the differential effect of real inflation on basic necessities has been even greater.
Even "small" effects compound over time. For example, when someone in a low bracket loses 10% purchasing power after many years, the net economic stress they experience is much greater than for someone at a high bracket. Differential inflation of necessities vs discretionary goods magnifies this.
Housing is actually ~44% in 2024, but the subcategory of 'Shelter' is ~35% for CPI-U. 'Shelter' is further broken down into rent and owner's equivalent of rent. 'Owners' equivalent rent of residences' is ~26% for CPI-U and ~21% for CPI-W, 'Rent of primary residence' is around 7% and 10% respectively.
Depending on how one live their lifestyle, the 'inflation' calculation can greatly vary in relevance.
Nope. CPI is an excellent differential indicator -- "how much did a typical person's cost of living rise this year" -- but it's a terrible integral indicator if you compound it because it's blind to the difference between forced and voluntary substitution. If essentials inflate faster than wages, money_in=money_out drives a reduction in nonessentials -- forced substitution -- and the CPI basket adjustments launder the forced substitution into voluntary substitution.
Well, "launder" is a strong word that the hardworking bureaucrats at BLS do not deserve, but the people who use CPI as a deflater so that they can wave around graphs "proving" that things have never been better absolutely deserve it, so I'll keep it in.
Bonus meme: the American Dream was not to Owner Imputed Rent a house.
Yes, it also takes into account rising quality. For an example, in 2010 I rented a rat hole apartment for $x from a fisherman who had inherited the building. He never did maintenance (he was out to sea most of the year) and he never raised rent.
A large company bought the building after I moved out. Ten years later, the same apartment with a fresh coat of paint and new countertops was back on the market for a rent of about three times $x.
The CPI can say that apartment, since it was refurbished, increased in quality and so it wasn't really a price increase of the same good from $x to $3x. This offers a "degree of freedom" to adjust the CPI itself (since quality is inherently subjective), and may be a big part of why CPI does not reflect the lived experience.
I didn't care one bit about paint or countertops when I rented that apartment and I assume broke young adults today don't either. At the time I wanted the cheapest place to live in the area and this was it. It still is one of the cheapest places, but you need three times as much money to rent it.
They are not dumb restrictions. They just don't have the compute. That is the dumb part. Dario did not secure the compute they need so now they are obviously struggling.
The restrictions are dumb not because they're lower than any of us want them to be, but because they're unclear. Every time Claude comes up on Hacker News, someone asks this question. And every time people chime in to agree that they also are unclear or someone weighs in saying, no, it's totally clear, while proceeding not to point at any official resource and/or to "explain" the rules in a that is incompatible with official documentation.
There's another part that's bullshit: If you've paid for an annual subscription, for a given number of tokens, welp, now you're getting fewer tokens. They've decreased the limits mid-subscription. How is it not bait-and-switch to pay for something for a year only to have something else delivered?
You are arguing something different. My point is that they must apply these restrictions. Do I think they could have calculated their growth a little better? Yes, of course, but hindsight is 20/20.
We might be talking past each other, I promise I'm not just trying to argue.
> My point is that they must apply these restrictions.
I fully understand and respect they need restrictions on how you can use your subscription (or any of their offerings). My issue is not there there _are_ restrictions but that the restrictions themselves are unclear which leads to people being unsure where the line is (that they are trying not to cross).
Put simply: At what point is `claude -p` usage not allowed on a subscription:
- Running `claude -p` from the CLI?
- Running `claude -p` on a Cron?
- Running `claude -p` as a response to some external event? (GH action, webhook, etc?)
- Running `claude -p` when I receive a Telegram/Discord/etc message (from myself)?
Different people will draw the line in different places and Anthropic is not forthcoming about what is or is not allowed. Essentially, there is a spectrum between "Running claude by hand on the command line" and "OpenClaw" [0] and we don't know where they draw the line. Because of that, and because the banning process is draconian and final with no appeals, it leads to a lot of frustration.
[0] I do not use OpenClaw nor am I arguing it should be allowed on the subscription. It would be nice if it was but I'm not saying it should be. I'm just saying that OpenClaw clearly is _not_ allowed but `claude -p` wouldn't be usable at all with a subscription if it was completely banned so what can it (safely) be used for?
Their growth over the past months has been more than insane. It’s completely expected they don’t have the compute. You don’t have infinite data centers around
Or that they were more likely to take risks. It’s not clear to me that what anthropic did is a mistake, they didn’t have the same level of capital and OpenAI is taking extreme risks with their compute commitment. It’s really not obvious that won’t backfire
It’s dumb to piss off their customers with confusing rule changes instead of just raising their prices to deal with high demand. They might even make a profit
Who is going to lobby to make it illegal? Our system is broken and won’t fix itself.
Inequality is going to continue to increase until society collapses. If we want a better world we need to prepare for this eventuality by building avenues of popular action to return power to the people. Once the oligarchs have fucked up enough people’s lives, popular action becomes a realistic way out of this mess.
Friend, they choose our legislators. They control the political process. They own the mass media and the social media companies. Denial isn’t a strategy.
You say this literally minutes after Hungarians elected them selves out of a dictatorship.
I know many democracies around the world are in critical failure modes at the moment (particularly in the USA). But there is still hope. With enough pressure democracy can be reformed.
Class is the shape of power and exploitation under capitalism. Some own, others work to enrich those that own. That's all class is. Being frank about the real power differences in our society and our world isn't an ism.
reply