legatus's comments

I think it's worth noting that EleutherAI is a grassroots collection of researchers, which distinguishes it from academia/industry labs.

As part of their work on democratizing AI, they're now hoping to replicate GPT-3 and release it for free (unlike OpenAI's API).

I would encourage everyone interested to join their discord server (https://discord.gg/BK2v3EJ) -- they're extremely friendly and I think it's a project worth contributing to.

I'm curious -- what does HN think of factor investing [0]? It has been shown over long periods of time to outperform the total market, and has seen many new ETFs available. Does anyone here tilt towards small cap value? Do you think those effects will last, now that they're more widely known, or are the last 15 years evidence of them weakening? I've been looking into investing but I'm probably going with a total world stock market. Part of the reason I find those ETFs less attractive are the higher associated fees as well as the more "active" look. I have trouble believing anyone who claims there is a way to consistently outperform the market while charging me for it.

[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/factor-investing.asp

Currently (at least for the-eye) it's about IPFS's barrier of entry. I expect LibGen's case to be similar. Most people don't know about it, and if even those that knew about it had to learn how IPFS works etc, they would probably just try to find the book they're looking for elsewhere.

Microsoft's project Silica [0] may hopefully provide really long term, large capacity archive grade storage on earth. I wonder what effects interstellar radiation has on them.

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/4/20942040/microsoft-projec...

There are ways to do so. The archive is made up of many, many torrents (I believe it's a monthly if not biweekly update of the database). If you have the storage/bandwidth availability for the whole 32TBs, please get in touch and I may be able to help you get the whole deal without too much hassle. Otherwise, just pick some torrents (it would be best to pick them based on torrent health, but they are so many to check manually) and try to keep seeding as much as possible.

EDIT: To find libgen's torrents health, check out this google sheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hqT7dVe8u09eatT93V2x...

Thanks frgtpsswrdlame for the heads up.

There are groups behind data curation as well, though it is much harder. LibGen sees an addition rate of about 230 GBs per month, while SciMag's is around 1.10 TBs per month. We should expect those numbers to increase in the future. The man-hours required to curate those database may very well cost much more than the storage and bandwidth required to store duplicates and incorrectly tagged files. In any case, as I said, there are people seriously interested in curating the LibGen database, though most efforts I know of are still in the earliest stages.

This is an extremely important effort. The LibGen archive contains around 32 TBs of books (by far the most common being scientific books and textbooks, with a healthy dose of non-STEM). The SciMag archive, backing up Sci-Hub, clocks in at around 67 TBs [0]. This is invaluable data that should not be lost. If you want to contribute, here's a few ways to do so.

If you wish to donate bandwidth or storage, I personally know of at least a few mirroring efforts. Please get in touch with me over at legatusR(at)protonmail(dot)com and I can help direct you towards those behind this effort.

If you don't have storage or bandwidth available, you can still help. Bookwarrior has requested help [1] in developing an HTTP-based decentralizing mechanism for LibGen's various forks. Those with experience in software may help make sure those invaluable archives are never lost.

Another way of contributing is by donating bitcoin, as both LibGen [2] and The-Eye [3] accept donations.

Lastly, you can always contribute books. If you buy a textbook or book, consider uploading it (and scanning it, should it be a physical book) in case it isn't already present in the database.

In any case, this effort has a noble goal, and I believe people of this community can contribute.

P.S. The "Pirate Bay of Science" is actually LibGen, and I favor a title change (I posted it this way as to comply with HN guidelines).

[0] http://185.39.10.101/stat.php

[1] https://imgur.com/a/gmLB5pm

[2] bitcoin:12hQANsSHXxyPPgkhoBMSyHpXmzgVbdDGd?label=libgen, as found at http://185.39.10.101/, listed in https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_Genesis

[3] Bitcoin address 3Mem5B2o3Qd2zAWEthJxUH28f7itbRttxM, as found in https://the-eye.eu/donate/. You can also buy merchandising from them at https://56k.pizza/.

Associated video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZNEzzDcllU [4:42 mins]

Well, in fact, they did. It's why pretty much every Sovietology book pre-1991 is now rarely recommended. The Soviet archives were opened with the fall of the USSR, allowing historians to have a much more accurate view of what was happening. Sure, there are caveats (e.g. people freed from the gulag in a dying state) yet, contemporary historians have been able to provide estimates, based on the best data available. The thing with Solzhenitsyn is that he had no access to any kind of data, and as a refugee in the US it's clear he was extremely biased. Note that I'm not saying I don't understand why he did that, I'm just saying that, if you want a good estimate of the numbers related to the Gulag system Solzhenitsyn is not a good source.

Regarding your last points: 60 million repressed is entirely dependent on how you define "repressed". Some people may argue that not having access to health care and education means being repressed. Just noting that it's not really a useful value, it's already difficult estimating number of deaths, estimating such a vague term as "repressed" people will be next to impossible. Regarding your claim that communists killed as many if not more people than Nazis, I really dislike this kind of comparisons. It is an extremely politicized topic, removes the human part of the statistics and historical context. Even then, I would still disagree with your claim, unless you count Mao's Great Leap Forward as part of it, which is really a comparison between apples and oranges. I personally believe state-pursued, systematic genocides should be differentiated from famines (such as the Holodomor and the famines related to the Great Leap Forward) which were more of a consequence of the regime's terrible management (plus already low harvest in the case of the Holodomor). If you want to take a look, the Wikipedia page for the excess mortality under Stalin is not too bad, especially the source they used (Wheatcroft's Victims of Stalinism and the Soviet Secret Police).

I don't see Nazi defenders keeping quiet, I think it's enough to think of the growing "Identity Politics" movement. Soviet apologia is rarely referring to the Stalinist period, especially considering Khrushchev's 56' "De-Stalinization" speech. And if you only consider the USSR of Khrushchev and beyond, while definitely worth criticizing, I'm not sure it's even comparable to the Nazi regime.

The point is that in this case Rummel doesn't even attempt to be objective. You can be biased, everyone is. A real historian, someone who is respected by his peers, actively tries to remove his bias from his work. It isn't really profitable (you earn much more by writing extremely biased pop-history) but some individuals, such as me, value it.

Then you can agree with me when saying that it is something worth attempting. It may be a great alternative, or another failure. We won't know unless we try!

(It was nice to have this discussion with you :) )

I'm really sorry an AskHistorians thread is not good enough for you. Let me paste Jonathan Smele's remark about Rummel's work (Smele is known for his compiled bibliography on the Russian Revolution):

>A poorly researched, obsessively anti-Soviet polemical general survey. [1]

Unsurprisingly, you would have read that exact quote in the reddit thread I linked. Guess that was too much to ask for.

[1] Jonathan Smele, Russian Revolution and Civil War Annotated Bibliography

I don't want to make this longer than needed; I don't know anything about die Linke and MLPD to speak about those. I would disagree about the relationship between the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries, since while they definitely had some autonomy, in any case where they were against the USSR interests their leaders were promptly changed. What I find most unclear is your third point. I already noted they lasted for really short periods, and I agree, the FTU was an anarchist state (Republican Spain, with the CNT-FAI can be considered an in-between). Why did they, however, show not to be a relevant model to run a country? The fact that both were grassroots based, and democratically organized would make me think the opposite. Is it because they weren't able to defend themselves?

No, no historian thinks he will find the definitive truth. My point is that there are valid historians (I only know about a few fields, but you can see which historians are valid by how much their peers respect their work) that at least try to get as close to the the probable number of, in this case, deaths. One example: taking a look at Rummel's data on the Soviet Union, he reports 60 million deaths 1917-1987, which is laughable (he even claimed that was a low estimate!). That's the number reported by Solzhenitsyn, which is not considered a reliable source in contemporary Sovietology (probably not a source at all). Here is a relevant thread on r/AskHistorians if you're interested: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3v5u2t/are_r...

Political control of the economy by a vanguard party leads to an enormous concentration of power, I agree. But I also disagree that is about all socialist nations: I can only argue that countries based on the ideals of both Republican Spain and the Free territory of Ukraine should be attempted again, this time without the extreme conditions that characterized them the first time. If they really end up as you say, then we shall conclude that socialism as a political theory is irreparably flawed, but until then it's wrong to conclude that.

A quick guide for neuroglancer:

_spacebar_ on one area: fullscreen the area

L: change colors

X: remove colors

double click one neuron: select the neuron

ctrl-mousewheel: zoom in/out

right-click: center clicked area

A great thing to do is to choose a few neurons (double click on the colored parts in the top-left, top-right, bottom-right windows) and then view the automatic 3d model by using _spacebar_ on the bottom-left window. Press _spacebar_ again to return to the normal view.

I know democide has been mostly coined by Rummel. Do you by chance refer to him? If so, could I ask for your sources? I know that Rummel's data has been heavily criticized by many historians. His work is usually about taking the largest estimate, which is fruitful if you want big titles (à la Black Book of X), but unfruitful if you are interested in the truth.

>So what what is left there?

You are referencing countries which were either part of the USSR (Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia), or countries that were part of the Warsaw Pact. While there was still something left after the fall of the USSR (such as free healthcare and education, something rich countries such as the US don't offer, and that most post-USSR countries promptly removed) I agree the Soviet Union left behind a quite terrible legacy. I also believe, however, that it is wrong to argue that every socialist country will share the Soviet fate; the history of the Soviet Union (together with its worst aspects, such as Stalinism and the Gulag system) should be understood in the context of Russian society. Even then, your choice removes from the discussion quite a few altogether different societies, based on radical democracy, such as Republican Spain during the civil war, and the Free Territory of Ukraine during the Russian Civil war.

>Those are the societies that are being cherished by the remaining fans of Socialism in the West.

I'm sorry, but I rarely hear someone cheering for the DDR, or for the USSR in general. The legacy of Stalinism is such that the USSR (and its puppet states) are rightfully criticized, apart from a few small and unpopular groups (even in the left as a whole).

>You can say that about every society.

Republican Spain was challenged by a military general, leading to a conflict (the Spanish Civil War) which ravaged its economy and population. While the democracies (UK, France and US) decided not to intervene (partly because their interests were threatened by many policies of nationalization in Republican Spain), Franco received military help, both in terms of weapons and in terms of personnel from Germany and Italy. The USSR formed as a consequence of the extreme conditions faced by the general population in the aftermath of the First World War, followed by years of Civil War with an ever-decreasing availability of food. Once the Civil War was over, the USSR found itself in a state of constant panic of "capitalist intervention", the Five Year plans (and their horrible consequences) themselves a consequence of Stalin's fear of enemy attack. The Free Territory of Ukraine formed in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War, and lasted only a few years, being destroyed by a Red Army offensive. I'm sorry, but many societies haven't faced such extreme situations, and those that did usually had some kind of allies.

I'm sorry if you (as I am, maybe mistakenly, inferring) fled from an East Block country. I'm not arguing the USSR has a positive legacy. I'm simply arguing the western world (and the US in particular) has an extreme bias when it comes to left-wing politics (both the Red Scares come to mind), and that we should attempt to evaluate societies based on what they were, not what they claimed to be. Alternative societies (in particular Republican Spain and the Free Territory of Ukraine) should be evaluated differently from authoritarian countries such as the USSR: one of their main ideals were complete democracy. The fact that they aren't that well known is, in my view, a result of the bias I talk about above.

P.S. as for the comment above, my knowledge mostly comes from books, Sheila Fitzpatrick's being one. For the Spanish Civil War there is both Thomas' and Preston's. The historiography of the FTU is, unfortunately, mostly lacking.

I don't usually like to discuss these topics, but I want to point out a few things. First of all, communism and in general left-wing politics are viewed with a significant bias in the western world, even more in the US. While there have been many societies claiming to be socialist, none would actually qualify from a political theory perspective (it was something more akin to propaganda, e.g. look, we achieved socialism!). Even then, it's worth noting that those societies developed in an environment of extreme hostility from other nations, almost every time during a period of extreme difficulty (e.g. a civil war, right after a long and terrible conflict etc). Coming back to current China, I think Qiu's conclusion can actually make sense if we remove the bias that is normally present in western circles, especially since China's current system, classified by some (especially those that want to make use of the fear of radical left-wing policies) as communism, can also be classified as state capitalism. I don't really think that workers have much power in modern China (this article provides several examples), and I don't see how that could lead you to argue that China needs less communism (as Qiu intends it, that is, characterized by more workers power and less inequality). The only thing I can agree with you about is that Marxist societies, based on a vanguard party with control over everything and everyone, should (one would hope) be now left behind.

P.S. your claim that communist societies tend to be run by academics doesn't really hold much water - if you're interested in the russian revolution, consider reading Sheila Fitzpatrick's "The Russian Revolution" as an excellent introduction.

I expected this would take a few more years, I have no words to describe how excited I am about this news. Drosophila's 135.000 neurons... compare it to the manual segmentation of C. elegans' nervous system taking about 15 years (in the eighties).

Here is an interesting view of the (segmented) brain: https://imgur.com/a/VGxvDJV

"The primary result presented here is an automated segmentation of neuronal processes densely covering the entire FAFB dataset, which contains 40 teravoxels of tissue within a 995x537x283 µm EM volume resulting from a correlation- and feature-based deformable alignment of ~21 million raw ssTEM camera images."