• Folstar@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 day ago

    A great explanation of why the rugged individual mythology is perpetuated by the knights.

    • bstix@feddit.dkOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I’m all for self-reliance, but only if it’s realistic.

      If your opponent in a negotiation is not self-reliant, then you shouldn’t be either.

      • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Humanity wouldn’t be where it is without MUTUAL AID. There is no such thing as rugged individualism in nature, it’s only in capitalism.

    • Albbi@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Some would say you’ve lost before you even began.

      But there is an interesting chess variant called horde where Black must capture all of White’s pieces to win.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      You can stalemate it if you have no valid moves, or lose via time. I think you can technically lose to the repeated moves rule too? But then again that’s applying tournament rules to this scenario so…

  • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Keep in mind this is anecdotal but at the same time I don’t think it’s unique.

    I understand the value of unions and I think the world is better off with them than without them.

    But

    Having worked in them as a teen I will say the union leadership is to not be trusted as much as the business owners. Birds of a feather. The problem is power and hierarchies.

    What I also did not appreciate as a union member was being told by people who have been there longer “stop working so hard the quotas will go up and we will be expected to make more” like wtf?

    I love unions in theory. In practice they’re just as corrupt because they don’t address the underlying problem if anything they put lipstick on the underlying problem.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      “stop working so hard the quotas will go up and we will be expected to make more”

      They were right.

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The problem is that the workers have allowed themselves to be attached to the labor, and be responsible for the output, without having any connection to the benefit of the additional output. If the labor force creates more product, and the company earns more as a result, the workers should also earn more as a result, but they don’t. They just work harder for the same pay, so those at the top benefit by their increased labor.

        Management should incentivize increased output. Otherwise, why bother?

    • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      They are corrupt and don’t address the problem because much of the union leadership are reactionaries opposed to people having real power. Unions used to literally fight the police and national guard, radical unions have been dismantled and co-opted continually for the last century. It’s not just about holding power, it’s about the underlying worldview of the groups in power as well, and any unions that meaningfully challenged the normal capitalist status quo have been crushed by the US security apparatus.

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’ll never forget when I transitioned from an internship to a full hire and the initial offer was lower than the pay range on the posting. Funny how they took the ranges off all future postings after I pointed that out.

  • ceoofanarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 days ago

    Unfortunately modern day some of the pawns are not so secretly working for the black team (class collaborationist union management) and the judge (government) is ready to interfere to smack down the pawns if they start winning.

  • we are all@crazypeople.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    so the king just has to expend a few horses and the rest of us will block each other and never reach him.

    it’s hopeless. got it.

    • plutopos@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      Black can only take eight pawns before losing all their knights. After that it’s just a matter of laddering white pawns until they queen up

      • we are all@crazypeople.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        you guys alllll think that the only king on the board, protected by knights all around, is going to play by your poor people chess rules? well guess what, Not pictured all around the pawns… are McDonald’s, Starbucks, NASCAR, pop music stars, snipers, cameras, and a gun to all those pawns family members.

        where is your god now

        • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          21 hours ago

          That is scenario 1, where the single pawn can’t see all the other pawns, blinded by all the frivolous stuff.

          Scenario 2 is checkmate in one move, take a horse with any pawn and it’s smothered mate - the king dies, suffocated by the sycophants around him that are powerless to defend him from the pawn avalanche.

          A really good metaphor.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    Okay, but now I want to see what the end state looks like for optimal (or near-optimal) play between both participants in this fucked-up chess variant.

    • bstix@feddit.dkOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s pretty straight forward I think. Each side loses one piece every round. If white somehow runs out of pawns that can check the black king, or if the black king manages to get behind the pawns, white can still promote some of them and win.

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        What? In the bottom board, assuming white to move, any capture is a checkmate - black king cannot escape check, and cannot capture because the pawn is supported.

        White wins in 1 move.

      • exu@feditown.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        Wouldn’t promoted pawns join the other side? Like a manager getting a payrise

    • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s pretty clearly a win for white, unless black forces a stalemate. Those knights won’t last and that’s a fuckton of pawns, even ignoring promotion.

      It would be tricksy trying to get checkmate without promoting any, but one or two promotions is all it would take to make it a sinch.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        It would be tricksy trying to get checkmate without promoting any

        So what you’re saying is, the strategy of e.g. Occupy Wall Street, avoiding creating leaders, made it less effective than it could’ve been.

        • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Not sure, I was just analyzing the chess board.

          Although I will say that decentralized movements may tend to shoot themselves in the foot by failing to coalesce around any solid leadership.

          There’s good ways to do leadership and bad ways to do leadership. A movement can be grassroots and decentralized while still having leaders.