one day, y-combinator will give a shit about disability. There is not enough money in the game for the powers to be to care yet.

Power is able to manipulate consensus, but ultimately it exists despite consensus. Its existence is relative by definition.

> Capitalism has uses other than consensus as well.

False

> Ah. I think I was talking past you by hyper focusing on just the "capitalist" and "consensus" parts of what you wrote. I was taking it to mean that there was a special connection between capitalism and consensus, and not just that capitalism is one means by which consensus is created

There are of course other means of consensus. For whatever reason these means are not available to us now, allegedly.

This is trivially false. How are you acting like this person can be taken seriously? At best, they're wildly hyperbolic in their statements. At worst, they're funded to push a polemic.

You're responding to a quote that is trivially false with a quick google. Ok.

While this is in fact an important sample, this doesn't imply much about how humans develop after 19 months, much less how they develop before 19 months.

> At this age, a child's brain has already locked in the sounds for their native language and lost the ability to learn non-native sounds (hell, research suggests that unborn infants can recognise the difference between their mothers native language and foreign languages before they even leave the womb).

We have nearly zero clue how the child's brain recognizes their "native language". We know they react differently at different stages of their development to the same stimulus, which is occasionally linguistic. We have nearly zero clue what the mechanism is that corresponds input to measurable output. This is a very disingenuous characterization of the data.

It's also worth mentioning that the root of this question is trivially false—people obviously learn language after the age of five. Such haphazard presentation (at best) should not be taken seriously.

I agree with you fwiw, but your argument needs to acknowledge the above statement.

We are all chained to reality. We must all accept reality or kill ourselves trying to.

What does this mean? Genuinely confused what you think a state is in the modern age if not the infrastructure necessary to support a market.

This falls apart pretty rapidly when you move beyond one person—groups of people don't tend to act collectively rationally. Hell, the entire reason "capitalism" is a thing at all is it provides some consensus in the face of byzantine faults even if it fails to represent our collective needs with any accuracy.

What? Is this some kind of confusing reference to lambda and competing providers? As far as I know most of computing is serverless.

Of course, there isn't much money in teaching a bot that only knows english chinese.

EDIT, Wikipedia page for context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Veneration is enormously culturally subjective. There are many, many, many cultures that would have seen placing the skull of an ancestor in a prominent place as a very, very, very obvious sign of respect and power.

But, my people don't engage in ancestor worship. I come from sad stock and I'd rather be forgotten after I die.

Given that virtually all political theories stem from the structuralist assumptions being questioned, I'm not sure where that leaves us with respect to political labels.

Personally I read Graeber because he's persuasive and argues well. He represents his own political views far more genuinely and forthrightly than the vast majority of people who put a lot of weight in labeling per se.