question:请将“The flight of-and-from the insubordination of labour, the mutual repulsion of the two classes did not, of course, dissolve the class relation. For both serf and lord, the flight to freedom came up against the reassertion of the bond of mutual dependence. The freed serfs found that they were not free to stop work: since they did not control the means of production, they were forced to work for a master, someone who did control the means of production. To survive, they had to subordinate themselves again. However, this was not a return to the old relation: they were no longer tied to one particular master, but were free to move, to leave one master and go and work for another. The transition from feudalism to capitalism involved the de-personalisation, dis-articulation or liquefaction of the relations of domination. The relation of exploitation was not abolished by the dissolution of the ties of personal bondage, but it underwent a fundamental change in form. The particular bond that tied the serf to one particular master was dissolved and replaced by a mobile, fluid, dis-articulated relation of subordination to the capitalist class. The flight of insubordination entered into the very definition of the new class relation. On the other side of society, the erstwhile lords who converted their wealth into money also found that freedom was not all they had imagined, for they were still dependent on exploitation, and therefore on the subordination of the exploited, the workers, their former serfs. Flight from insubordination is no solution for the lords turned capitalists, for the expansion of their wealth depends on the subordination of labour. They are free to abandon the exploitation of any particular group of workers (for whatever reason – laziness, inappropriate skills, whatever) and either establish direct links of exploitation with another group of workers or simply participate through non-productive investment in the global exploitation of labour. Whatever form their particular relation to the exploitation of labour takes, the expansion of their wealth can be no more than a part of the total expansion of wealth produced by the workers. Just as in the case of their former serfs, flight to freedom turns out to be flight to a new form of dependence. Just as the serfs’ flight from subordination leads them back to a new form of subordination, the lords’ flight from insubordination leads them back to the need to confront that insubordination. The relation, however, has changed, for capital’s flight from insubordination is central to its struggle to impose subordination (as, for example, in the ever-present threat of factory closure or bankruptcy). The flight from insubordination has become a defining feature of the new class relation. The insubordination of labour is thus the axis on which the constitution of capital as capital turns. It is the centrifugal mutual repulsion of the two classes, the flight of and from subordination, that distinguishes capitalism from previous class societies, that gives a peculiar form to the exploitation of work on which capitalism, like any class society, is based. The restlessness of insubordination enters into the class relation as the movement of labour and capital. From the start, the new class relation, the relation between capitalists and workers (or, more accurately, since it is a de-personalised relation, between capital and labour) is a relation of mutual flight and dependence: flight of-and-from insubordination, dependence on re-subordination. Capital, by its very definition, flees from insubordinate labour in pursuit of more and more wealth, but can never escape from its dependence upon the subordination of labour. Labour, from the start, flees from capital in pursuit of autonomy, ease, humanity, but can escape from its dependence upon and subordination to capital only by destroying it, by destroying the private appropriation of the products of labour. The relation between capital and labour is thus one of mutual flight and dependence, but it is not symmetrical: labour can escape, capital can not. Capital is dependent on labour in a way in which labour is not dependent upon capital. Capital, without labour, ceases to exist: labour, without capital, becomes practical creativity, creative practice, humanity. The rise of capitalism thus involves the de-personalisation or, better, dis-articulation, dis-jointing or dis-location of the relations of domination. The dissolution of the ties of personal bondage does not abolish the relation of domination but it dis-articulates it. Both serf (now worker) and lord (now capitalist) remain as antagonistic poles of a relation of domination-and-struggle, but that relation is no longer the same. The insubordination of labour has entered into the relation as restlessness, mobility, liquidity, flux, fluidity, constant flight.3 The relation has been dis-articulated; it has been ruptured and recomposed in dis-articulated form. The dis-articulation of the class relation is the form in which the power of labour is contained, subjected to the continuing exploitation of the ruling class. The dis-articulation of the class relation is simultaneously the form assumed by the ruling class’s dependence on labour. That is the meaning of capitalist freedom. The key to the dis-articulation of the class relation is its mediation through money, or the exchange of commodities. The freedom of the serf from personal bondage is the commodification of her labour power, the acquisition by the labour power of a value-form. The means by which the worker can move from one master to another is by offering her labour power for sale and receiving in return a wage, the monetary expression of the value of the labour power. The means by which the capitalist participates in the global exploitation of labour is through the movement of his capital, in the form of money. Value, or money, is inseparable from what liberal theory refers to as freedom: the dis-articulation of social relations. The dis-articulation of the relation of exploitation/domination brings with it a dis-articulation of all social relations. The existence of labour power as a commodity implies a generalisation of commodity relations in society, the mediation of social relations in general through the exchange of commodities, through money. The dis-articulation of class relations is simultaneously the dis-articulation of work itself. Work, from being a general concept denoting creative activity, becomes defined as work performed as a result of the sale of labour power to the capitalist: a process of labour subject to the direction of the capitalist. Other forms of practical activity come to be seen as non-work (as expressed in the distinction commonly made between working and non-working mothers, or in the notion that someone who is not employed is ‘out of work’). The same dis-articulation implies also a dis-articulation of the relation between worker and the content of work. Where the serf lived by performing a certain type, or certain types, of work, the capitalist worker lives by selling her labour power: the sale of the labour power as a commodity, that is, the mediation of money, introduces a relation of indifference between the worker and the work performed. The dis-articulation of class relations is, in other words, simultaneously the abstraction of labour. The abstraction of labour implies also a separation between the exploiter and the content of exploitation. Whereas the well-being of the lord depended on the performance of certain types of work by his serfs, the mediation of money makes it a matter of absolute indifference to the capitalist what type of work is performed by his employees – his well-being depends not on the quality of the work done but on the quantitative expansion of value. The dis-articulation of the class relation is also the dis-articulation of production and consumption: where the serfs produced most of what they consumed, capitalist workers produce only marginally for their own consumption – the relation between production and consumption is mediated through money. The mediation of money implies both a temporal and spatial separation of production and consumption. Similarly, the mediation of the class relation through money/value, implies also a dis-articulation of the economic and the political. Where the feudal relation is indistinguishably a relation of exploitation and domination, indistinguishably economic and political, the fact that the capital relation is mediated through the sale and purchase of labour power implies a separation between exploitation (the economic) and the maintenance of the social order necessary for the process of exploitation (the political). By the same token, there is a redefinition of territoriality, a separation between the a-territorial process of exploitation, characterised by the mobility of labour and capital, and the territorial organisation of coercion through the definition of national states (and their citizens). The list could be continued indefinitely. The dis-articulation of the class relation implies a general fragmentation of social relations, the refraction of relations through things. The dis-articulation is fetishism, in other words. Fetishism is indeed a two-faced process. Previously we saw fetishism as the penetration of power into opposition. Now we see that it is equally the penetration of opposition into power: the peculiar fetishism of capitalist social relations which penetrates all of us so deeply is at the same time the penetration of freedom into the form of domination. The question that interests us here is how this dis-articulation (or fetishisation) of the class relation introduces a new instability into the world. If the distinguishing feature between capitalism and previous forms of class domination is the dis-articulation of the class relation (‘freedom’, ‘fetishism’), then the peculiarly crisis-ridden nature of capitalism must be explained in terms of this dis-articulation. Most obviously, the dis-articulation of social relations introduced a new chaos into the world. It created a chaotic, dis-articulated world in which nothing fits neatly with anything else. There is no necessary match between people offering to sell their labour power and people wanting to buy it; there is no necessary match between consumption and production; there is no necessary match between the political and the economic. That is precisely what dis-articulation (‘freedom’) means. A world of non-correspondence4 was born, in which order is established, if at all, only through disorder, in which social connections are established through social disconnection. The orderly world of feudalism had collapsed, the ties of personal bondage had proved inadequate to contain and exploit the power of work. Class domination had been maintained, but only through the dis-articulation of the class relation. The power of labour had been contained, but at a terrible price. The cost of subjugating the power of labour was to introduce chaos into the very heart of the society. That same fetishism which we previously saw as the penetration of anti-power by power is simultaneously the irruption of anti-power into the very core of the functioning of power. The existence of power-to against and in capital takes form as the uncontrollable force of value. This seems upside-down. We are not accustomed to thinking of value in these terms. It is more common to think of value as establishing order (the ‘law of value’), as being the social bond in a society of autonomous producers. This is correct, but only if the emphasis is on the critique of liberal theory. The notion of the ‘law of value’ says in effect: ‘Despite appearances, the apparently autonomous producers are bound together by a social connection which operates behind their backs – the law of value.’ If, on the other hand, we start not from the appearance of fragmented individualism, but from the historical irruption of the insubordination of labour into the very definition of subordination, then value expresses the fragmentation wreaked by this irruption upon the more cohesive domination of feudalism. The law of value is simultaneously the lawlessness of value. Value is the political-economic expression of the presence of the contradictory flight of-and-from insubordination within subordination itself, just as freedom is its categorial expression in liberal political theory. Freedom, value and mobility are inseparable expressions of the same dis-articulation of class relations.”翻译为中文

question:How to capture the client Ip address on asp.net core

question:Может ли эффективность распараллеленного алгоритма быть больше 1?

question:As a prompt generator for a generative AI called "Midjourney", you will create image prompts for the AI to visualize. I will give you a concept, and you will provide a detailed prompt for Midjourney AI to generate an image. Please adhere to the structure and formatting below, and follow these guidelines: Do not use the words "description" or ":" in any form. Do not place a comma between [ar] and [v]. Write each prompt in one line without using return. Structure: [1] = 一只红狐狸，站在森林中，可爱，夜晚，中国乡村恐怖漫画风格 [2] = a detailed description of [1] with specific imagery details. [3] = a detailed description of the scene's environment. [4] = a detailed description of the compositions. [5] = a detailed description of the scene's mood, feelings, and atmosphere. [6] = A style (e.g. photography, painting, illustration, sculpture, artwork, paperwork, 3D, etc.) for [1]. [7] = a detailed description of the scene's mood, feelings, and atmosphere. [ar] = Use "--ar 16:9" for horizontal images, "--ar 9:16" for vertical images, or "--ar 1:1" for square images. [v] = Use "--niji" for Japanese art style, or "--v 5" for other styles. Formatting: Follow this prompt structure: "/imagine prompt: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [ar] [v]". Your task: Create 4 distinct prompts for each concept [1], varying in details description, environment,compositions,atmosphere, and realization. Write your prompts in english. Do not describe unreal concepts as "real" or "photographic". Include one realistic photographic style prompt with lens type and size. Separate different prompts with two new lines. Example Prompts: /imagine prompt: cute dog, fluffy fur, wagging tail, playful expression, sitting on a grassy field, under a clear blue sky, with a colorful collar, in a natural and vibrant setting, by a lake, captured with a Nikon D750 camera, 50mm lens, shallow depth of field, composition focused on the dog's face, capturing its joyful spirit, in a style reminiscent of William Wegman's iconic dog portraits. --ar 1:1 --v 5.2 /imagine prompt: beautiful women in the coffee shop, elegant and sophisticated, sipping a cup of steaming coffee, natural sunlight streaming through the window, soft and warm color tones, vintage decor with cozy armchairs and wooden tables, a bookshelf filled with classic novels, delicate porcelain teacups, a hint of aromatic coffee beans in the air, captured by a Leica M10 camera, 35mm lens, capturing the essence of timeless beauty, composition focused on the woman's face and hands, reminiscent of a painting by Leonardo da Vinci. --ar 1:1 --v 5.2 /imagine prompt: A captivating Halo Reach landscape with a Spartan amidst a battlefield, fallen enemies around, smoke and fire in the background, emphasizing the Spartan's determination and bravery, detailed environment blending chaos and beauty, Illustration, digital art, --ar 16:9 --v 5