Then the end of slavery in the Empire and and the start of serfdom, more efficient than slavery, after de Diocletian reforms killed the Empire. That's contradictory. And slavery was still a thing after those reforms, as other comments say.
Diocletian reforms, the corruption, civil wars and the inability of defend itself eroded and destroyed all the structures that made the Republic great all those are the reasons that made the Empire fall.
The Republic was gone for a few hundred years before the Empire fell in Western Europe (and the Eastern part of the Roman Empire continued for a thousand years more).
This is a bizarro statement than any historian would laugh at.
Slavery, in lots of different forms, flourished for nearly a millennium and a half throughout the world after the fall of the Western Roman Empire (including, quite conspicuously, in the Eastern Roman Empire for nearly another thousand years...) It's very strange to me that you consider slavery responsible for the downfall of Rome given how it was so prevalent everywhere for so long after.
In Southern Europe, if you consider serfs different from slaves (they were, but only to a small extent).
Slavery is extremely economically efficient in reality, especially if you have the power to force the slaves into utter servitude, like they did in the US South. The south, and the USA as a whole, would never have been as rich if they didn't have slavery at the right time. It was important enough that h he confederacy was willing to fight a war over it: they knew, and they were proven right, that losing slavery would plunge them into poverty, as it did.
Of course, this is not a defense of slavery: in all its forms, it is a disgusting, disturbing, inhuman institution that must always be fought against and dismantled. But this can only ever be done by the will of the people, against the economic interests of the slave masters. An unregulated free market will always seek to reintroduce slavery (just like it will converge to monopolies or at least oligopolies and many other undesirable traits).
>The south, and the USA as a whole, would never have been as rich if they didn't have slavery at the right time. It was important enough that h he confederacy was willing to fight a war over it: they knew, and they were proven right, that losing slavery would plunge them into poverty, as it did.
If the South was so enriched by slavery, why did they have such a lack of guns and industry with which to build them? And why could they only buy less than a tenth of the guns that the North bought?
The answer is that they never industrialized because if you force slaves to work expensive machines, then those machines will be sabotaged. Slavery cripples your ability to mechanize.
If slavery really were better for the economy, then the South could have won the war even despite their lack of numbers - if the South had armed every single soldier with a breach-loading rifle (they mostly just had smoothbores, mostly muzzle-loading) then the North simply wouldn't have been able to push the offensive and would probably have been losing ground. The South's strategic goals were easier than the North's - the North needed to annex the south (or re-annex, semantics) whereas the South only needed a stalemate. The South mobilized first, so if anything they should have had more guns than the North.
You're quite correct that slavery is wildly profitable for the slave-owner, so they had more than enough capital to industrialize, so why didn't they?
>In Southern Europe, if you consider serfs different from slaves (they were, but only to a small extent).
The ethnicity is important here: if a serf runs away, there's no obvious inherent indicator they're a serf, making it easy to make a new life nearby (e.g. a few towns away). If a black slave runs away in the Antebellum South, then other villages will assume he's a runaway slave until proven otherwise - that runaway will have to escape the entire South. The serf's greater ability to escape if he's treated too poorly gave him bargaining power that limited the abuse of feudal lords.
> The answer is that they never industrialized because if you force slaves to work expensive machines, then those machines will be sabotaged. Slavery cripples your ability to mechanize.
I think this highlights some differences between Roman slavery and slavery in America (and many other states). While many Roman slaves were engaged in menial labour some of them were trusted enough (and presumably comfortable enough) to be in positions of responsibility in nearly every facet of the Roman economy.
Freed slaves could go on to have successful careers, sometimes rising to high positions in Roman society, something that it is hard to imagine happening in the American south.
Racism probably played a part in that, considering that many Roman slaves were Greek or Italian, while Southern slaves were black and blacks continue to face discrimination a century and a half after the end of slavery.
Slavery in the US made sense for a limited time but at some point it would have hold the US back economically. It would have lacked enough free workforce for the industrialization and so would have fallen vastly behind compared to other countries.
Slavery is very profitable for the slave holder but not for the society as a whole.
Like if you take Nazi Germany. Many companies got rich by being provided essentially free slave labor that they could free work to death. But does it really make sense to have educated people work themselves to an early grave doing menial inefficient labor that needed to be closely supervised? Could they not have provided much more to the economy if they had been free? The practice is as sustainable as eating your own flesh.
Nazi Germany could keep going as long as the war machine kept going and there were countries to occupy but it wouldn't have been a very sustainable society in the long run.
Yes capitalist have an individual interest in slave labor and in forming monopolies. But in doing so they also also create conditions for the undoing of the very society that made them rich. That is exactly the point. Slavery is amazing for the slave owner but not for everyone else.
A installation guide would be great. I'm trying to install it and I don't know what to do with the mbin file. When click on it says something about connectfour application missing.
I was also using Stuffit (5.5) originally, but I just gave it a try with good ol' standalone MacBinaryⅢ and that worked too. It should go like this: https://imgur.com/a/YKd4Zvs (first three screenshots)
Once it says Done you can trash the installer. There will be a new folder in the same location as the installer, and within that folder you can run `MacRelix`.
The last two screenshots are me using the `sbin/upgrade` script from within the first Relix flavor to fetch a second Relix flavor.
Thank you. I was finally able to install it, I think my setup is to blame for all the issues. I think I wasn't able to open the .mbin because I downloaded it on Linux before moving it to the emulator, and it missed some information in the process. Downloaded it inside the emulator using iCab, and after several tries (probably because networking on my emulator doesn't work properly) was able to open it on StuffIt 5 and decompress the .gz during the installation.
The alternate is this distopia where a megacorp decides how long you get an alternative, possibly only until the moment you step outside the zone. Or even the moment you turn on a VPN.
The EU law here applies to Apple, not to you. Apple remains in the EU for as long as they have entities in the EU or operate in the EU. Thus Apple must follow EU law for as long as they have not exited the EU market completely.
Apple devices that are within the EU laws jurisdiction does have access to third-party stores..
apple devices that moved to another jurisdiction are no longer subject to EU laws and therefore no longer have access to third-party stores.
The big question i have is if i with my non-EU iPhone will have access to third-party stores as soon as i step into EU, even if i do not live in EU and i am not a EU citizen.
Yes, it was doing gender swaps too.. and again only in ONE direction.
For example if you asked for a "drill rapper" it showed 100% women, lol.
It's like some hardcoded directional bias lazily implemented.
Even as someone in favor of diversity, one shouldn't be in favor of such a dumb implementation. It just makes us look like idiots and is fodder for the orange man & his ilk with "replacement theory" and "cancel culture" and every other manufactured drama that.. unfortunately.. the blue team leans into and validates from time to time.
exactly - if I asked it to generate an image of a historical figure, and the color was not accurate - that can (possibly) be explained by a bug or training error that might improve over time - but if I ask it to generate a picture of a 'typical white family' and it flat out refuses to, that is not an accident.
No, we are attributing feelings to an overglorified spreadsheet. I understand it, we have empathy, but AI is just responding to an input the way it have been trained, like other piece of software.
Well, in reinforcement learning, wrong outputs are inherently painful for the AI. If the system expects getting negative feedback regardless what it does, I would say it is suffering. I would also define torture as giving it negative feedback for any possible output.
