u/TraditionalDepth6924

Title edit: How are you sure if socialism is NOT ~~~

How do you know you’re being truly radical and thinking outside the given system?

How do you know you’re exceeding/surpassing the intricate plans of capitalism that would devour any antithetical position and often even guarantee it a perfectly legal, compatible market within it?

Radical emancipatory thoughts like communism, decolonialism, etc. which talk about the outside of capitalism

How are we sure in the first place that all this radical activity is within a position under capitalism’s benevolence (e.g. “queer” often occupying just another gender category) and truly disruptive?

Would one need some more essential ontology for such a ground, like the metaphysical validity of free will, in order to be sure of the marginal freedom that capitalism can’t infringe upon and devour from thinkers?

Cooking simultaneously with oil vs. cooking no-oil then adding oil like a dressing, letting it sit like pickling

(For both cases, I cut and crush tomatoes/carrots into pieces for better absorption of fat into the cells, and I know ghee butter is mostly saturated fat so relatively safer from rancidity by heat)

Is there scientifically a difference or a caveat please?

Cooking simultaneously with oil vs. cooking no-oil then adding oil like a dressing, letting it sit like pickling

(For both cases, I cut and crush tomatoes/carrots into pieces for better absorption of fat into the cells, and I know ghee butter is mostly saturated fat so relatively safer from rancidity by heat)

Is there scientifically a difference or a caveat please?

Cooking simultaneously with oil vs. cooking no-oil then adding oil like a dressing, letting it sit like pickling

(For both cases, I cut and crush tomatoes/carrots into pieces for better absorption of fat into the cells, and I know ghee butter is mostly saturated fat so relatively safer from rancidity by heat)

Is there scientifically a difference or a caveat please?

As basic etymology, agence in French refers to agency, like advertising, employment, real estate agencies with tiny offices.

Now think of a stadium or a megachurch chapel, in contrast: they’re perfectly “assemblages” on the surface (podiums, seats, lights…), yet if you take a close look, everything is arranged according to a vertical hierarchy, meant to house thousands or tens of thousands of people within their massive unit.

So, assemblage is still molar, while agencement is fully molecular - and I think this is a crucial difference.

Agencies are interfaces, rather than containers. They don’t need big spaces to accommodate a lot of crowds at once. They’re usually only about 100 squares with minimal equipments in them, reminding you the distinction of personal property vs. private property in Marx.

By being smaller yourself as a unit, or by giving yourself out in a “kenosis/relinquishment” way in Hegelian terms, you get to connect to bigger worlds. A megachurch can’t do this: it is completely self-contained within its specific religious streak, by which there’s no room for flexible transformations from secular encounters. It will only insist on expanding its current logic and eventually either explode or fossilize as the result.

What about Hollywood movies, obsessed with scales and spectacles, despite the colorful assemblages of characters/universes? What about social media, which look like grassroots assemblages but often end up conforming (metrics, trends, bait…) through and through? What about students using the agencement potentials of LLMs for mere assemblage functions? What about countries/governments as the most “universal” container assemblages?

As shown in these examples, what I find problematic is how the English translation ‘assemblage’ can be often perfectly compatible with capitalist drives, because assemblage is what already happens in neoliberal capitalism all the time, under the fake disguise of diversity celebration.

In my view, agencement signals communitarian and solidaritarian infinity, via international and even inter-planetary body-without-organs.

Sometimes what’s at stake can be precisely about which assemblage you decide to detach off in order to remain faithful as an agency or agencement that never belongs in the first place, because belonging sucks and becoming rules - and this is why I think the distinction matters.

Why is it that you can decompose a computer then reassemble it later to make it work again but you can’t with a human being? Because life is the entire flow each second: if the specific intensity of each synaptic connection changes, the whole system irreversibly breaks down.

But at the atomic or quantum level, cells are always already part of the outside ecosystem, entropically ready to disassemble in their potentiality. Life seems to be kind of an impossible dream of struggling towards a permanent assemblage, or what folks like to call an “identity.”

Should we take a more continuity-based view on death, given our scientific knowledge of molecular realities?

Businesses and consumers not reacting or resisting against their enforcement?

Cooking simultaneously with oil vs. cooking no-oil then adding oil like a dressing, letting it sit like pickling

(For both cases, I cut and crush tomatoes/carrots into pieces for better absorption of fat into the cells)

Is there scientifically a difference or a caveat please?

(“Post-title” as in Reddit posts, sorry, e.g. this post’s title is also a prompt in a question form)

I know that the dictionary says ‘prompt’ is ‘something that triggers’ and especially ‘words spoken to an actor’ in a theater context, from which the computer term probably originated in the beginning, but a lot of us are a computer-native generation and internet posts are kind of a new thing with the mixed nature of computer language plus human language

So when native speakers hear “prompt” in this context, how do they receive its image: as an IT-age neologism or just a traditional word?

If anyone’s been forgetting, it’s a whole buzzing universe out there: history, arts, physics, biology, poetry, novels, philosophy, technology…

Come to think about it, dating sucks all the time and energy (left after work) you need to calmly explore and focus on these worlds, so how is it not shit, seen from this perspective?

And unlike most dates, books last, both content-wise and body-wise !

Reminder for anyone feeling lonely that there are always heaps of books waiting you should be reading next, and don’t underestimate the intimate sentimental values of owning and touching good-old paper books - they will stick by your side!

As an ontological challenge for the sake of fun, from a radical progressive standpoint, how would you respond to “can Deleuze’s multiplicity think colors qua colors, not as numbers?”

Because philosophy has operated transcendentally by means of abstract concepts that “bleach” things off their intrinsic colors (e.g. a human being could be not only female, Black, gay, but also unexpectedly talented in a myriad of areas) then grant them numerical values: Spinoza’s single substance representing 1 over 2 (mind-body dualism) and all possible modes.

But color neither automatically emerges from a numerical manifold however dense it is, nor is it reducible to the effects of numbers intensifying. Yet we recognize this quality-over-quantity in non-philosophical, non-conceptual settings of daily life all the time.

So how do colors get to be colors in the immanent plane of consistency? Can it, or does it already, embrace a polychromatic ontology?

Adult 19–50 years required calcium 1,000 mg / day (Source: NIH fact sheet)

Equivalent to milk whopping 900ml (entire large carton) (110-130mg per 100ml)

But even if you drink that amount, bioavailability is only 30-40% and rest is flushed out, so technically you’ll need to drink three large cartons (2700ml)

So why not pills? Cool, I have taken them for years, but recent research suggests cardiovascular issus (“increased risk of CVD and CHD by 15%” - Seung-Kwon Myung, 2021)

Given you’re aware of this, how are you practically managing to, because it doesn’t seem like an easy sector of nutrition?