Breakthrough News

The Grayzone

Empire Files

Start there, follow everyone they interview

Exactly. They idolize the aristocracy.

So the Russian Federation, a republic, built in the aftermath of the dismantling of the largest bureaucratic democracy in the world built under the eye of the West for the purpose of liberty and freedom and economic capitalism, that Russian Federation is so different than the West that we can attribute nearly all bad things done by Russia to Putin, but in the West it's such a complex and nuanced situation that it's really the whole system to blame?

Keep buffing cope. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

LOL, unironically accusing me of authoritarian apologia because I am for the reintegration of a former British colonial holding with the country the British stole it from.

Yes, it's very slightly different energy from calling them orcs, but I guess that's because this event didn't kill any of your favorite Nazis.

You can't tell the difference between supporting Russia and making fun of you morons for being so predictably thirsty? No wonder you can't reason about the world.

Can we also remember that Russia is a country and Putin is it's head. You don't even know the name of the top leadership of NATO. You don't say this is Biden's proxy war but you imagine every single decision is Putin's.

And also, stop psychologizing world leaders as though you have a parasocial relationship with them.

One can reach twelve joints on a 4-fingered hand with the thumb. That's the basis of the base-12 counting system.

ITT: libs breathing a sigh of relief that they can mock their racial enemy for something accurately for once in the last 2 years

Specialist is too thin. The specialists only know what they know and they don't want to learn new things outside their speciality. So I had to hire a new person everytime we found a speciality gap because the specialists were like "not my job, I am an X specialist, go hire a Y specialist". Then, they held their work tightly, no cross training, so the specialists all became their own brand of bottleneck. Different work speeds and different levels of quality meant that ego came to defend against performance complaints, and I as a manager couldn't add more people to the problem areas because they weren't trained in that area and the specialist could do it faster than they could train others to help.

That being said, all my full-stack team members had specialities. That's what T-shaped means. I had frontend specialists who could work the whole stack, backend specialists who could work the whole stack. Dev tools specialists who could work the whole stack. Architects who could work the whole stack. Everyone we hired had something they were best at, and an alignment to learn the whole stack. Within a year they were able to work on all tech in the stack and anyone could bring in a new tech to solve a problem and everyone would learn it.

The idea that a single developer delivers an entire story is where your problem was situated. Stories aren't assigned, they are owned, and they aren't executed, they are delivered. One story can be worked on by 4 devs, all with different skills, but the story owner is the one who makes sure it gets the right people on it and is the one who makes sure the product owner sees the delivery.

Yes, I have built both types - specialist first and it was a fiasco. Cross-functional was consistently the best

Think about the alternatives - either you divide the stack into separate teams or you have non-overlapping experts in the same team. Both are horribly worse.

With the multi-team architecture, no one can deliver anything on their own. They all have to hand off their work to someone else and receive handoffs from someone else. Rework becomes huge as downstream teams with expertise not present upstream identify flaws and send work product back for revision.

With non-overlapping experts, you have a team of N with N bus factors of 1. No one can get sick or take vacation. If someone quits, dies, or wins the lottery, the whole team shuts down while they try to find a replacement. You can fix this by hiring 2 or even 3 experts per area. So now your team is full of redundant experts that fight for expert recognition. The handoff problem remains but is somewhat lessened.

A full-stack team is not a team of pure generalists. A full stack team is a cross-functional team that owns the entire value stream (design to production) and cross-trains internally. Hiring people with specialized knowledge is predicated on their willingness to learn all other areas and teach their area. Only T-shaped professionals (depth in one area, breadth across the stack) inhabit the team and only people with the humility to learn need apply.

Over time, a full stack team outperforms every other team. The team is internally redundant on all tech, so bus factors are lowest when new people are added and bus factors continuously get larger over time as people cross-train. New hires have built in training because the team is always training. New tech can be added regularly because everyone is always training and learning.

Full stack teams are the best form of software team hands down.

Abuse. Abuse. You are worried about abuse? How about the occupation of Hong Kong, the attempt to extend occupation, and then, upon determining that the occupation could not be extended, doing everything in your power to create strife, division, conditions for counter-revolution and secessionary movements, and maintaining as much political and economic influence over the territory as possible?

Do you think that might be open to abuse? How would you solve that problem? What sorts of solutions exist in the imperial world for resolving this sort of problem?

What you don't seem to grasp is that One Country, Two Systems entails One National Defense. Collaboration with Western imperialists who have subjugated China for centuries is going to be handled by the One Country, not the Two Systems. Unlike the imperial holdings of the West, however, Hong Kong is actually democratically integrated into China. Ask Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc how democracy is working out for them?

You also aren't actually analyzing the bureaucratic workings of China's legal system and aren't steeped in their history, traditions, and precedent. You are reading a Western spin on what's actually happening. You can't read Chinese, so you can't read Chinese law. You can't actually engage with Chinese events at the same level of detail and analysis that you can of English, American, Canadian, and Australian events. So, forgive me if I don't find your arguments compelling, since they amount to accusing Xi of being an autocrat in what is demonstrably a democratic institution operating a rules-based bureaucratic system that has a decade-long 95% national approval while simultaneously operating the most complex multi-ethnic country in the history of the world including autonomous regions wherein ethnic nations experience a greater degree of cultural self-expression and self-governance than anything the West has ever produced. Clearly, if China worked the way you think it does Xi would be calling all the shots and people would be discontent and the governing of 1.4 billion people of 57 ethnicities would be coming apart at the seams. Instead we see that it is France, UK, and USA that is falling apart dealing with far fewer people and with far less ethnic diversity and with far less ethnic autonomy. Something in your analysis is fundamentally flawed.

Back to your point about abuse, though, should you be worried about abuse of power in China? Is that where your energy should be going? Does China operate 600 military bases globally? Does China operate extrajudicial torture chambers all over the world? Does China launch new wars of aggression every few years? Does China deploy chemical and nuclear weapons that continue to kill thousands of babies the world over for decades? Does China suppress language and culture of people living in its borders in a continuously unbroken 600-year genocide?

As far as I can tell, all systems have corruption, all systems have abuse of power - it's the essence of governing systems that they are this way. What we should be worried about is actual abuses, not potential abuses. Worrying about potential abuses allows you to focus on China while the USA kills millions, tortures with impunity, trains terrorists and death squads, and sows death and destruction everywhere it goes. Focus on the problem. China's not the problem.

Hong Kong's common law tradition is entirely a colonialist imposition. Worse, common law doesn't apply to modern national security regimes. The US is a common law nation, but it has secret courts, enemy combatants designations, secret evidence, secret charges, and the federal court system has significant departures.

The idea that a national security proceeding in China should be constrained by thousand-year old precedent set in England is not just ridiculous it is a particular kind of white imperialist ridiculous.

Which is also the standard the world over

Clear Haitian debt immediately, rematriate stolen wealth to the country, evict all European and American land owners and seize their property, let the Haitians figure it out on their own. Ariel Henry is literally part of the plot to assassinate Moise so anything he asks the international community for is quite literally something that the international community fed to him as part of the program.

Just some initial research:

The Sakharov Center was created by the Public Commission to Protect the Legacy of Andrei Sakharov, which was an international NGO founded in 1990. An international NGO operating in Russia founded in 1990 is already a LOT to think about.

In 2014 Russia determined that the Center was operating as a foreign agent due to it's political work. What we can assume from this and the above is that this is a pro-Western, pro-capitalist organization that is operating well within the Western program and that Russia has long been observing it to see who it is connected to and how it is operating as an international NGO with anti-Russian alliances.

Sakharov himself was a political dissident in the USSR because he was a nuclear physicist working on weapons and wanted to see non-proliferation happening. He wrote a letter to the military asking them to "take the Americans at their word" that the Americans would not seek to build anti-ballistic missile defense, despite not having any access to military intelligence about whether the US was trustworthy at the time. He also sought to make this an issue for the public by publishing his opinions in the newspaper, again without the benefit of knowing what military intelligence knew about US intentions. As we can see, history has proven Sakharov wrong.

He spent 12 years on being wrong, openly criticizing the government in person and in writing, attempting to make ABM defense a topic that the public should rally around and force the government's hand, again without ever having access to what the USSR knew about American intentions regarding ABM. In 1980, when Reagan was elected president and would soon after be pumping up Star Wars, Sakharov was exiled (to a city in Central Russia). Then he got together with less than 8 people to make a committee on "human rights" and worked directly with Western organizations and governments and even supported the US Congress imposing sanctions on the USSR.

From then on he was used by the Western establishment constantly to push this idea that free market capitalism is equivalent to "human rights" and that communist movements violate human rights and therefore should be opposed. They gave him a bunch of awards for advocating for human rights. Granted, this was in the most revisionist period of the USSR when it was undergoing the transition from a communist movement to a capitalist movement rapidly and there was a TON of human rights violations as they worked hard to create a new bourgeoisie. But Sakharov's conclusions were fundamentally the same conclusions Western imperialist powers use as a pretext for wars of aggression and their own massive history of human rights violations.

So basically, this guy and the commission to protect his legacy were all fundamentally predicated on NOT DEVELOPING MISSILE DEFENSE CAPABILITIES which is what the entire NATO project has become, but because he was opposed to revisionist capitalist Soviet leadership and instead supported what would eventually become the liberal economic shock doctrine that killed millions of former soviet citizens, the West thinks he's a paragon of human rights.

Ugh what a mess.

It's not ridiculous. It's calling out the hypocrisy and racism inherent here. Do you see people saying we need to send UN peacekeeping forces to Japan because of the Yakuza? How about UN peacekeeping forces to stop white people lynching black people in America? No? You don't?

What are the conditions for the gangs to arise? Did the US train assassins and terrorists in the School of the Americas and did those people then go on to commit mass atrocities all throughout South America? Did a US-trained Colombian group assassinate the democratically elected president of Haiti? Is Haiti impoverished by the deliberate actions of the Western block, starting with France and then continuing with the US and their international financial institutions?

The gangs are only a problem because the US says they are a problem, and the story is believable because white people are indoctrinated to imagine black gangs as something that must be dealt with for the sake of saving black people from themselves. The reality is that Haiti has been abused by the West for centuries and the internal violence within Haiti emerges from the white European oppression and violence imposed on them. The gangs in Haiti might as well be fighting and purging Western-aligned interests for all we know. And if they were, it would be a great incentive for the West to send a peacekeeping force because they don't want Haiti run by a leader that will work for Haiti's interests.

This article just says "Did you know there are gangs in Haiti (implied, black people)? These gangs are violent and ruthless (implied, unlike civilized white people)? The UN should do something about this!"

FEWER WHITE PEOPLE INTERVENING