According to the article:

Anti-recommendations:

SimpleX Chat – Many suggested this and I will explicitly recommend against it due to the founder's positions on various topics. This includes being anti-vaxx, believing COVID-19 was a hoax, trans- and homophobia, climate denial; In the SimpleX Groupchat he's also been seen basically bootlicking trump a couple times, but I've lost receipts to that.

The privatization and budget cuts of NOAA will affect truck drivers who depend on the service to know about the forecast in order to stay safe on American roads. The radio has been going off air during certain periods recently for the first time in history. I predict a lot more fatal accidents. Everyone please be safe on the road.

I didn't even know who Pirate Software is. Looked him up, and in his streams he sounds like V**sh, and I can't stand that pretentious voice. Turns out, he artificially deepens his voice on streams and has a much higher pitch voice as proven on videos off-stream, lmao. What an insecure dick.

They need to step away from the lathe.

https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=7Md1hkBeCkE (NSFW)

I'm angry every day I live in a world where we consider live leaks of genocide as NSFW/L. Nothing against Evilphd666 or the comment, but to even remotely consider this as NSFW and not solely NSFL just saddens me. We live in a world with a livestreamed genocide for nearly 2 years. Horrific pictures, videos, and stories that no human should ever have to experience, while these sick monsters in power make a game out of it. Death to Zionism. Death to Amerikkka. Death to the West.

::: spoiler Any innovation under capitalism is purely accidental.

In a 'pure capitalist system' (one in which there were only workers and capitalists, all other classes having been destroyed, and in which the capitalists were forced by competition to behave as the pure embodiment of capital by investing all their surplus value), the mass of surplus value would increase with every cycle of production ad infinitum. The capitalist class would have ever greater quantities of surplus value at its disposal and would be under competitive pressure to invest this in an ever-larger scale of production.

As Michael Kidron has put it, Marx's argument assumed that '... All output flows back into the system as productive consumption. In a closed system like this, allocation would swing progressively in favour of investment.' [24]

That in itself does not automatically mean a rise in the ratio of 'dead labour' to 'living labour'. The investment may be 'capital-saving'. If scientific knowledge is progressing and being applied as new technologies, then some of these technologies may employ less machinery and raw materials per worker than old technologies. To give a relatively recent example, the production of newspapers using phototypesetting and lithopresses is less capital-intensive than the old method using linotype machines and letterpresses.

But that is not the end of the argument. It shows only that at any one time there will be some new technologies that are capital-saving. The important point, however, is: what will be the average result of new technologies? Will they save capital or increase it?

If we take the argument one stage further, it can in fact be shown that if there is a massive amount of profit-seeking investment in the hands of rival capitalists, then the overall tendency will be for the average investment to increase capital, to be capital-intensive.

Firstly, the most competitive capitalists in each line of business will be those who introduce most innovations. At any given level of scientific and technical knowledge some of these may indeed be capital-saving. But when all these have been employed, there will still be other innovations (or at least capitalists will suspect there are other innovations) to be obtained only by increasing the level of investment in means of production.

Secondly, the fact that some technical progress can take place without any rise in the ratio of capital to labour does not mean that all the advantages of technical progress can be gained without such a rise.

The point can be simply illustrated by assuming, for a moment, a state of affairs in which in a given field of production new scientific knowledge is not emerging, and in which all existing techniques possible at a given ratio of capital to labour have been exhausted. In this situation, a capitalist who uses more means of production per worker can expect to get access to improved techniques of production which may have been known about in the past but could not then be used because the ratio of means of production to labour was too small – the capital was not available to develop them. By contrast, a capitalist who does not increase his means of production per worker will be stuck with the existing techniques.

Thirdly, if an individual capitalist can increase the ratio of capital to workers he will be able to invest in innovations that need more capital as well as those that need more labour. If he cannot increase this ratio then he will benefit only from those innovations that need more labour – and he will lose out in competition with those who can.

In the real world, every operating capitalist takes it for granted that the way to gain access to the most advanced technical change is to increase the level of investment in means of production or 'dead labour' (including the 'dead labour' accumulated in the results of past research and development). It is only in the pages of the most esoteric journals of political economy that anyone imagines that the way for the Ford Motor Company to meet competition from General Motors or Toyota is to cut the level of physical investment per worker. The capitalist usually recognises that you cannot get the benefits of innovation without paying for it. His firm may by accident stumble upon a particular innovation that requires less capital per worker, but the only way he can guarantee getting such innovations is to increase his level of investment.

If the capitalist cuts the amount of investment in means of production per worker, he might still stumble upon some innovation unknown to his competitors. But luck such as this is also available to the capitalist who increases his investment in means of production per worker, while he can also match the innovations stumbled on by his competitors and obtain technical advances unreachable by those who cannot afford his 'capital-intensity'. Since, in theory at least, there is no limit to the possible increase in the ratio of means of production to workers, there is no theoretical limit to possible innovation based on this method of competition.

For these reasons, other things being equal, we can expect there to be always more innovations calling for increased capital than those calling for less. The average amount of means of production per worker – Marx's 'technical composition of capital' – will rise.

Only one thing could stop the pressure for this rise: if for some reason there was a shortage of profit-seeking investment. In such a case the capitalists would be forced to forego hopes of achieving the innovations possible through greater investment and settle for those they might stumble upon by accident.

---

~24. Michael Kidron, Western Capitalism since the War (London 1968), p. 46.~

https://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1984/explain/01-marx.html

Also the "revisionist" one

t.me/zoka200

The Telegraph: Chinese Boeing 747 cargo aircraft disappear from radar as they approach Iran.

China has probably supplied something to Iran and may continue to do so.

Boeing 747 cargo aircraft flying from China do not exactly disappear intentionally from radars, as suggested by The Telegraph.

Based on our findings, they land at the airport in the city of Ashgabat, the capital of Turkmenistan. Although the city itself is close to the border with Iran, that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. From there, they continue on to the European Union.

The media are obviously just creating a story out of regular stopovers.

https://archive.ph/xAf9y

https://aje.io/gn5i1t?update=3780366

Israelis in ‘shock’ as Iranian missiles hit their targets

Bernard Smith ~Reporting from Amman, Jordan~

Al Jazeera is reporting from Jordan because it has been banned from Israel and the occupied West Bank.

The Israeli broadcasting authority is saying that several missiles fell in open areas injuring several Israelis who fled to shelters.

We are waiting on some more details on that. The most significant damage so far has been to Haifa port where refinery operations have been halted because of severe damage to the refinery. This is one of two refineries. Israel refines a large chunk of petrol, diesel and jet fuel, and it will be considerably inconveniencing and difficult for Israel to manage.

Israelis have never experienced anything like this in the last 40 or 50 years. So it’s come as a bit of a shock to a lot of Israelis.

Israelis are beginning to realise that this is a very, very dangerous situation that they are in. Nevertheless, Israelis always rally around the flag. They may not like Benjamin Netanyahu or his extreme right-wing government – he personally remains unpopular – but Israelis will rally around the flag when the country is under attack.

~Smoke and fire rise after an Iranian missile attack on Israel, at Haifa port, on June 15, 2025 [Rami Shlush/Reuters]~

I'm at a loss of words. I seriously wonder what this is supposed to achieve. Death to Amerikkka.

I hope the enshittification of TikTok incentivizes people to stay on Xiaohongshu. Heck, the fact that Xiaohongshu makes it easy to enjoy the platform without getting addicted to it should hopefully encourage people who approved the TikTok ban because they didn't approve of its addictive algorithm of slop to go on this platform instead and never look back.