• 1 Post
  • 73 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 10th, 2026

help-circle

  • Sulphuric Acid acts on trousers and carpets. Wooden desks seem remarkably immune.

    Found out after getting an actual chemical and chemistry set from a deceased relative. Parents didn’t check what was in it, just “chemistry is educational, good he’s learning”.

    I was either dropping magnesium or potassium into a beaker of sulphuric acid as both of them were in the set too. And I was either a butterfingered lummox, or the act of dropping the metal into unbalanced the beaker knocked it over and the sulphuric acid cascaded onto my jeans eating through them and making my leg itchy, and bubbling the carpet into a stinky white then grey foam. I can still picture-ish that sight; and I’m normally not very visually minded, a testament to the deep impression the experience left on me.

    Was much more sensible after that: just burning magnesium and chucking potassium into tub of water in the garden like you do in Chemistry class from time to time.













  • Your are indeed technically correct (but I maintain that as the worst kind of correct, who trusts bureaucrats?), but the added information that that section details as once/if women married, their finances, assets, bank accounts became their husbands.

    So while unmarried and widowed women could do banking, meaning that women could - social pressure and expectations made it difficult to impossible for the majority of most women’s lives.

    You are correct in the bar of “a certain subset of >1 women could open bank accounts” was true for, potentially the entire history of banking in the US/thirteen colonies. (When was the first settler bank set up in N. America? Probably a Spanish one in the Caribbean, but British people probably didn’t use that one.)

    We are mostly in agreement, just drawing the line either when first crossed (fair and valid) or when all could cross (racial discrimination aside (and that’s a big aside)).

    Salutations and respect to a fellow lover and encourager of persnicketiness.



  • If you’re using “Tragedy of the Commons” as a synonym of Holocene Extinction, and are not talking about the way common land (i.e. The Commons) in Medieval and Early Modern Europe was managed, then sure I’ll concede the point.

    But that was pre-Captialist, and similar things can be seen when we look and the surviving indigenous societies in the world. It would, indeed, be harder in areas that have been living under capitalism for the last five to six hundred years.

    You seem to be analysing from a fairly traditional Marxist-Leninist lens, albiet with a novel definition of state. No bad thing, but there are other Left wing frameworks that bring interesting, alternate understandings.




  • I think the first runs afoul of the Tragedy of the Commons.

    The real “Tragedy of the Commons” is that it’s a myth made up by Capitalists to justify their enclosure of common land and divesting those without land from their rights to self-sufficientcy and access to resources.

    The Commons were generally well managed for hundreds of years by convention and local communities.

    If you don’t have a state, or local proto-capitalists, with the violence to take possession of the commons, they remain well shared and not over-exploitated.


  • Better than the US is not a high bar to clear.

    The PRC has gotten better in the last 15 years, but was also pretty poor before that, and still enacts environmentally catastrophic colonial extractavist projects in South East Asia, similar to Europe and North America in Africa and South America. (Though none as catastrophic as my homeland has been in West Africa.)

    I hope that the PRC can keep to it’s trajectory, while reducing the harm done in South East Asia, and then in a few years can be better environmentally than all 1st World Nations.


  • Denigration of the lumpenproleteriat… Those most excluded from the system are best able to imagine life beyond and outside it and build support networks not based in capitalism.

    Putting (some) of the workers in charge of the means of production doesn’t solve the problems, it merely ameliorates them for a while a new ruling class emerges from the revolutionary vanguard while switches places with the previous ruling class.