Pavlichenko_Fan_Club [comrade/them]

My god these people have lost the plot completely! Thinking this could be anything beyond fancy, stochastic document retrieval is ridiculous.

I was going to write a much longer comment going through the enormous amount of absurdities in this little article, but really this whole charade of techno-babble falls apart here:

“The graph, a carefully constructed analytical map rather than a dictionary, is built and maintained by GSI’s domain experts to reflect the actual structure of the tradition. This is where expert labour is most concentrated[.] […] The impact of this expert curation was evident when GSI tried to extract concepts from a given source document. When guided by a generic, default ontology, the extraction pipeline drew only a handful of concepts while the purpose-built Marxist ontology[?] helped draw several hundred concepts from the very same text.”

The siren song of anti-intellectual dilettantes: Marxists don’t have to know Marxism! Don’t worry your silly little head about such difficult questions, let us, the mighty all-knowing sages at the Global South Institute (WHO???), divine the truth from our sacred knowledge graph & ‘purpose-built ontology’ magik for you. We command & you follow.

I ended up writing a longer comment anyway

If, during the lead up to the October revolution the proletariat taught itself to read to gain its intellectual autonomy and traverse to the heights of what was the vanguard theory at the time, today we face an altogether different situation: the vanguard itself must be educated, it must become capable of constructing strategists of the revolution, solving the novel tasks of our time from a perspective of the whole. Today, this is the reconstitution of the Communist Party in general, and the ideological reconstitution of Marxism-Leninism in particular.

To know Marxism is really two things:

1. The textual corpus of Marxism
2. Its application as a science

To just know the words of Marx, et. al. is not Marxism, but ‘Marxology’–an academic exercise in conceptual provenance at best. But to exercise Marxism as a science requires you to know what it is in the first place, in conjunction with knowledge of the world as a condition for its transformation. Marxism-Leninism, as vanguard theory, must be capable of answering the demands, both theoretically and practically, of the movement without losing sight of the end goal of Communism. The permanent movement of reality demands from us a constant learning and a permanent individual intellectual effort. To say that education, or the self-formation in the proletarian worldview is fundamental for the vanguard militant is an understatement. There are no short-cuts here. When we say ‘the self-emancipation of the proletariat’ we really mean it, and what they are doing here by cordoning off the ideology away from the proletariat can only reproduce the division of intellectual and manual labor inherent in class society. If anyone is satisfied by the cliche answers given by the black-box of Marxism-GSIism might I suggest a magic 8-ball instead? The Bourgeoisie truly could not ask for better cadre!

Whoever wrote this is a moron. Not only is RF design not a dark art where wizards conjure up designs out of pure intuition, but machine-learning methods have been in use for years & years by engineers. Nothing new. https://www.ansys.com/simulation-topics/what-is-inverse-design

Not a law, that’s just how index funds work. It’s meant to be an un-managed investment fund that tracks some aspect of the market via predefined rules. The S&P500 for instance tracks the top 500 companies by market capitalization (among a bunch of other weird rules), and it does so by purchasing shares in these companies proportionately. So new company appears that meets the criteria -> purchase. The big part of the story here is the fact that all of these index funds changed their rules to include spacex, especially when spacex’s finances look terrible.