It says "RF module"... That would be one hint.

You shifted the definition of 'authoritarian'. I mean Germany today is a democracy, which is not a single-party state as the GDR de facto was, as the other bloc parties were subordinate to the SED via the National Front. They spied on their own people and suppressed dissenting thought. People that tried to flee were shot under standing order. It clearly was an authoritarian regime. Under your definition, any system with a ruling class, would be authoritarian, and that would also include the GDR.

The GDR was run by SED, which later formed into the PDS, with many of the same people, even before the unification. That party got votes and was and still is in form of 'Die Linke' an important political party. They weren't 'eradicated'... What happened in the unification to GDR that was bad was the de-industrialization. People were left behind, and the far-right stepped in. Now, I would say that the unification was still good for the people of the former GDR, because they gained more freedom, but that is subjective, of course.

In the early years the workers in the GDR were coerced by USSR to mine uranium for them. They were subservient to the USSR, not just run by the workers.

KPD and DKP are electorally negligible, so they aren't representative of Germany's left.

Ah.. I see you are from .ml...

First, currently whole Europe is shifting right, so its not only the dissolution of the GDR at play here. However, that the former GDR is a bit farther along can be explained partly by the older generation in the GDR having been socialized in an authoritarian regime, a neo-liberal shift in the last decade(s) afterwards and missing strong civil society, where they felt left behind which affected the youth. And the right was there to gain traction over all these years.

I don't agree to your framing as 'all organized socialists' getting 'purged and punished', because many individuals are still alive and well today. The PDS, now 'Die Linke' had or has a couple of them in their ranks. Many mistakes where done in the dissolution, but it has been a generally positive change for the people in east Germany.

BSW, the 'other left', and Putin sympathizer party, founded by an ex-SED politician, is actually closer to the far-right AfD in term of foreign policy, immigration and other topics, then other parties, supporting my point that the common thread is actually authoritarianism then actual social values.

AfD is bigger in east Germany.

If you are rich and powerful, everything you do becomes legal. Because rich and powerful people are all trustworthy and would never do something for only their own interests.

I don't think 'true free market libertarians' exist. They only want free market because it benefits them at the specific time or circumstances they want it.

I more and more think that there is just one dimension starting by authoritarian and ending with social.

Faschistst, Tankies, free market libertarians, autocrats and feudalists, are just authoritarians in with different origins. Their team should be in power, their team should be supported by everyone, while they profit from it.

While social people want nobody to suffer, everyone to be in power and have self a determination, etc.

And nobody really knows if numbers exist, if there is nobody there to count.

Usually sure, but as we see with drive assistants, getting more and more advanced, and potentially resist the control of the driver, then the manufacturer could become liable.

Question is: Who is the person controlling the AI?

The one that allowed the agent to do stuff on its own?

The one that wrote the sandbox, that didn't work?

The one that wrote the user prompt?

The one that wrote the system prompt?

The one that provides the tools to the AI agent to do stuff?

The one that hosts the model?

The one that fine-tuned or post trained the model?

The one that pretrained the model?

The people that provided the input data to the model?

Oh, you are another shot aircraft poster?

"Toupée fallacy"? Interesting, I only know that as survivorship or selection bias.