real annoying to remember when you aren't using it every day, this stuff was only fresh for me when I was working on build process stuff. Just spreading the word that sparse checkout is complicated and `git checkout --` *does* do what you want if you can figure out the secret to passing a good path.
there's an alternate(? or expanded? idr?) path syntax in a setting somewhere which you might need to do it as a single path, too. it may be that the default path args expect you to list paths, grep it, and pass your filtered list of individual file paths as a space separated list to checkout.
git path syntax is uncanny, I always have to do a process that I can't recall step by step but feels in my brain like "jiggling the wires" to figure out how to correctly format and wildcard a path
Sparse checkout is for continually pulling/updating a repo without al of the files, which is a weird and complicated workflow.
If you want the files one time, should be able to to do `git clone --no-checkout` and then `git checkout <branch-name> -- <path/to/folder/>` where branch name is the remote branch/commit, like `origin/main` or whatever.
get their asses
Scrubbin' Trubble - a co-operative turn-based roguelike clean-em-up - is OUT NOW on Steam! Time to grab a friend and clean house!! (or just play solo that's fine too).
Grab your sponge and yellow gloves and battle through levels chock full of Nasties to take down the Four Filths of the Apocalypse!
hitting my breaking point with llm prompt generated text
not just the jobs, its like 'the idea of other people'
developing a fight or flight response when I hear 'dialectic'
Party Of Stupid Leftists, Fucking Revisionists Should be Obliterated
gritting my teeth and slogging through the "list the armed struggles I support in the style of 'how a magic the gathering deck works'" portion of a maoist blog post so I can get to the "funny parody acronyms for rival sects" part
I read the same book as you! I appreciate how thoughtfully you’re engaging but I promise that this is a (fairly subtle) disagreement, not a capital teachable moment
This is maybe the more fundamental key point of disagreement; the unrealized promise is that they pretend that exploitation is harmless. The economics works out just fine for capitalist utopia; what doesn't work is the idea of assigning political power only to those practicing an inhuman cruelty.
(Hyerexplotation of the third world? Yokel feudal racist primitive accumulation. Police and imperial military forces? inherent to capitalism. Advertising and waste devoted to competition over commodities? Inherent to capitalism. etc; you can make your own assessments, just explaining!)
My rubric is:
Could we fix an issue within ~10-20 years under world communism?
Is there anything in that process that *necessitates* the people working on it being free from wage labor?
Is there anything about the result which *necessarily* frees a large number of people from wage labor?
You and I don't have any disagreements about how the world operates; we disagree in terms of which cruelties and excesses are obligate of capitalism and which are local minimums or particular arbitrary decisions by some owners.
Historically fascism comes decades later; this is why this disagreement matters imo. You can (and we have before!) fix the economy and make worker's lives better. You can't fix the fundamental cruelties and dangers inherent in structuring a society around repression and exploitation, tho.
(except of course where misery is required to keep labor 'doubly free', but we manage that level of repression and humiliation just fine for the middle class)
Fundamentally disagree; marx didn't talk about regulation preventing the adulteration of bread as if it contradicted or undermined capitalism! Exploitaiton is required, and misery is certainly *compatible* with capitalism, but it is not obligated to choose misery over profit [caveat coming:]
But the point where we may have to agree to disagree is: much of that value it is still there for technocratic solutions to access too (locally and temporarily, at least), and capitalisms inability to so far is not inherent; we weaken our argument by clinging to a foggy model of economics.
there is an unfathomable amount of real capacity just laying around in all of the individuals living smaller, sicker, sadder lives than the richest of our proletariat. The only credible pathway to accessing all of that, I think we both agree, is communist revolution.
trpf is real (just like the downward sloping labor demand curve) only at a high rate of development and employment; which was a pre-supposed condition of capitalist growth all over Capital, but has never happened in our lifetimes. Credit to your argument, the only time we got close was a world war.
It is; Just to sum up, I think this is an accounting mistake. True in terms of Value; but owners aren't trying to maximize value, they're trying to maximise *money* (and non-economic things; power, pride, status, etc.) There is a lot of ceiling for both $ and material growth w flat value accum.
I don't think we really disagree here except in terms of terminology; I don't really have an issue calling it the socialist solution, but (with the right scheme of incentives and subsidies and inducements to move current owners off of it) it's one that (the clever of) our capitalist rivals endorse.
this bit is fully an aside, but: you cannot increase supply for fertile land but you can decrease demand for land *as an asset* and satisfy that desire for accumulation somewhere else; (the entire premise of this mode is that everything is fungible and washed away under money and value!)
I fully agree, but the key point is revolution is not the only way to return to huge advances; revolution fixes a far deeper problem, but I'm arguing that we should contend with the fact that this is a very premature, arbitrary, and (materially, if not politically) reversible decline.
Marx thought about it an awful lot, but with his goals and data, it must have seemed very relevant at the time! But we live in a world with different conditions, and try to force them onto his model of developed capital at our peril. (The core abt exloitation applies of course)
Thinking in terms of overproduction makes it seem like nothing is really in play to change with these technocratic policy debates. However, materially, 'what if we changed the winners and losers in pursuit of developing production' is a massive difference! It's not productive to downplay imo.
Interest sure; rent as in rent seeking absolutely not. "Develop the forces of produtction" as a phrase had been eluding me, thanks; it's central to what I'm arguing, but in the other direction. Im contending that capitalist development is *much* slower than marx supposed, essentially standstill
