Yeah, Science does have scientific articles behind what I referred to in a simplified way as "human nature" - the entire domains of Psychology and Sociology deal with that and beyond that, even Behavioral Economics concerns itself with how Humans act though in a more restricted set of conditions.

Then there is History, which concerns itself with how Humans have acted in the past.

In fact "How humans act" seems to be a rather important subject for Humans which gets reflected in how quite a lot of Science being done about it.

Those being such massive domains, you can find those articles you are clearly so interested in yourself, in places like arXiv.

I suggest you start by looking into Sociopathy, Psychopathy, Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Megalomania from the domain of Psychology - people with such personality disorders are the kind that tend to seek power and have not much in the way of limits about getting it and keeping it.

Have fun!

Two points:

• Methinks you're fighting a battle against somebody else other than me and the point I was making.
• "Human nature" is just a short way of referring to the complex subject of certain behaviors present in some individuals and how they interact with human group dynamics, similarly to how "Theory of Evolution" is a short way of referring to the complex subject of how genetic traits that provide small advantages with reproductive success consequences can through time and the law of large number spread to alter an entire population or even create new species. In fact both those things are correlated.

Call it whatever you want: you can't logically deny that some behavioral traits present in some humans cause them to seek or even create positions were they have power over others, structures which they then defend, preserve and extend whilst they extract personal upsides from their positions in it, and that group systems were there is already a single power pole with little or no effective independent oversight are way easier to take over by such people than systems with multiple power poles which keep each other in check.

(In summary people who lust after power will do whatever it takes to keep it going once they get it)

And yeah, this applies just as much to the dictatorships calling themselves "Communist" as it does to "Capitalist" systems - we've been seeing in the last 3 or 4 decades in Neoliberal so called "Democracies" Money subverting the supposedly independent Pillars of Democracy (though in some countries, not really: for example in many countries those at the top of the Political Pillar choose who heads the Judicial Pillar hence the latter is not independent of the former) to make itself THE power above all others, all this driven by individuals with those very behavioral traits I mentioned above, just starting from further behind (having to first undermine multi-polar power systems) than similar people trying to take over autocratic systems were power is already concentrated in a single pole that answers to nobody else.

(The path to unchallenged supreme power is a lot shorter in autocratic regimes)

Are you denying that amongst humans there are people with the behavioral trait of seeking power at any cost? Are you denying once such people get said power they will do whatever it takes to keep it going, including preserving the societal and political structures that maintain said situation even whilst telling everybody else "this is only temporary"? Are you denying that it's easier to capture power in that way in systems where its already concentrated in a single place which is not kept in check by independent entities which can overthrow it?

And I'm not even going it other human behavioral traits involved in things like groupthink and "yes men" and how such elements in human groups can pervert ever the most honest holders of power.

Battling against the expression "human nature" doesn't change the fact that these traits exists in many humans and the dynamics of their interaction with human social structures as shown again and again in millennia of History.

Surely the "capital investment" mixed in with the supplies should be accounted via depreciation rather than directly as an expense.

👍

Re-read my post.

I was not making any human nature claims about Communism, I was making them about what happens when a dictatorial system is created, no matter how good the original intentions stated as the reason to create it.

The viability or not of actual Communism (as in, a classless system were everybody is equal) is a whole different subject. My point is entirely around the good old "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" effect and how that tends to turns supposedly transitional dictatorial stages into something permanent.

my point is that Stalin didn’t represent communism, as is widely claimed

Well, we're totally in agreement then.

nobody claims that criticism of nazis is a criticism of the german people.

... nowadays.

Back then, the Nazis themselves did (more specifically that criticism of Nazism was criticism of the Germanic People or even of the Aryan Race), similarly to how the Zionists do it now for the people they claim to represent.

Those regimes are the ones doing such associations and then their supporters abroad as well as various useful idiots pick it up and parrot it.

The point I was trying to make was that Stalin and his followers claimed to represent Communism when they in fact did not (not even close). I know that's not quite the same as claiming to represent a race, ethnic group or religion as the ethno-Fascists do, but I think claiming to represent an ideology it's a similar technique and similar you see mindless supporters and useful idiots pick it up and parrot it.

Well, the problem is that to get to the utopia called Communism were everybody is equal, a Society has to first go through the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat after the Workers Seize The Means Of Production and, curiously (or maybe not so curiously if one understands at least a bit of Human Nature, especially that of the kind of people who seek power) none of the nations which went into the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat (i.e. all the ones which call or called themselves "Communist") ever actually reached Communism and they all got stuck in Dictatorial regimes (and I believe in not a single one of those is the Proletariat actually in charge: for example in China Labour Unions are illegal),

So whilst it is indeed not possible for Communism to exist in an authoritarian context, according to Marxism-Leninism to get to Communism one must first go through an authoritarian context and eventually from there reach Communism, hence why all those nations that tried to reach Communism never got past the authoritarian stage that precedes Communist.

Clearly Israel only ever used special bombs, rockets, artilery shells and bullets which, when they detected a gay person, would change trajectory to avoid harming that person.

Believing that is the only way to possibly believe that Israel wasn't harming gay people when arbitrarily bombing Gaza and even targetting refugee camps.

Ditto for "opposition people" or whatever other subset of the Palestinian population you can think of: Israel was literally targetting refugee camps and appartment buildings thus killing all kinds of people without exception.

Compared to what Israel did to Palestinian opposition and gay people, what even the most extremist of Hamas did to them is nothing.

You don’t need an advanced AI for this. You just need to be able to see orders and make trades faster than anyone else in the market.

Which they do by literally having their server machines physically in the same building as the Exchanges.

The system is rigged and has been rigged like this (not counting all the other ways it's rigged, such as the tons of insider trading) for over 2 decades.

PS: The book "Flash Boys" is a great read about HFT.

Even then, and as I wrote in another post, a custom trading NN might be working a strategy which is fine under normal market conditions whilst leading to massive losses if those conditions change (i.e. "picking nickels in front of a steamroller") and because of the black-box nature of how Neural Networks work and their tendency to end up with the outputs being very convoluted derivations of the inputs (I expect even more so in Markets, were the obvious strategies that humans can easilly spot have long been arbitraged away, so any patterns such an NN spots during training will be so convoluted as to not be detectable by most humans), nobody will spot the risky nature of that strategy until getting splattered.

Neural Networks working in predicting market movements are, unlike a predictive text keyboard or even an automated train driver, not operating in a straightforward mainly non-adversarial enviroment.

My own experience of being, within a large transnational company, technical lead of a small team based in India for a cross-border software development project, is that their own management structures over there were spectacularly incompetent (and I come from a country - Portugal - were management practices are, IMHO, shit compared to the rest of Europe).

Amongst other things, they still had ancient management practices such as "managers must always earn more than technical personnel" which meant that even a junior manager earned more than a senior developer, in turn directly leading to bright young developers moving to management (were they were invariably shit) within maybe 5 years purelly because it was the only way to earn more money, so as a result the broader team (so, not just my project) there had no good senior developers - it was either "senior" in the sense of lots of years working there rather than senior-level expertise or a handful of junior and mid-level devs who were good at that level and could turn into competente senior techies, but were bound to transition to management as even a junior manager earned more than a senior techie.

Other "funny" things were how nobody there would never, ever, ever admit not to have fully understood something or needing more clarification during an open call about the project next-steps with the rest of the team, so I had to do "special handling" for my remote team of talking to each one individually and carefully tease away their questions with some kind of "it's on me" excuse, for example, saying that "I want to make sure I explained things correctly and didn't miss anything important". Notice that my Indian colleagues who were not based in India but rather sat with the rest in London, did not have that peculiar behaviour.

Unsurprisingly, that outsourced team which existed as part of an outsourcing division the senior management of the company had decided to set up in India to cut development costs, didn't actually add significant value because of the overhead of dealing with them and the need to check and correct their work, mean that the vastly more senior - and costly, as half of us were contractors - team in London (of which I was part) ended up losing almost as much time dealing with them and the side-effects of the low quality of their work as was gained from having that India-based team doing part of the development work.

Once in a while Sony reconfirms my choice to boycott them since the rootkit CD scandal in the 00s.