Nothing, I this person I know of just had FF and adblock set up already for other reasons, so all I they had to do was stop the youtube app hijacking its own links.
It works with the addon enabled, just like desktop firefox. But right now it’s a bitch to manually install addons on the android version, so it’s a lot of work. I just use newpipe-sponserblock. Or also LibreTube is also nice while also having sponserblock built in.
To install desktop add-ons you need to use nightly and create an add-on collection to sync. But sponsor block might have a mobile version that you can install from the settings section of the normal app.
They do not distribute any binaries to avoid copyright issues I believe. There are some telegram channels doing what you described, but I wouldn’t trust it enough to use it.
Mostly a windows issue there though, Linux and OSX have app stores to install that. Revanced is able to, and just doesn’t for some reason. It’s a massive security issue for many reasons, and this is a prime example of it. Especially given the app needs a ton of access on your device to operate. It’s mind-blowing to me that people recommend this at all, and why there’s no repo for it.
Revanced can’t exist as a standalone app to be installed like from a store. Google would nuke it. It has to be a patcher. Original Vanced was a standalone app and that is what allowed Google to nuke it from orbit. It’s arguable that Google ignored Vanced until the developers got money grubby and tried making NFTs, but the method they used for takedown was DMCA since it was their app just modified.
This is the same thing as ROM hacks, randomizers, etc and why they include a place to upload your own copy of the ROM rather than providing their own. Reverse engineering and modifying are legal, distributing copyright source, binaries, or blobs without the rightsholder permissions is not.
They also do have a repo for it, as well as the offshoot apps like Revanced manager, other app patches, etc. The fact it’s not at the top of Google results is a Google-and-SEO problem, not a Revanced problem.
If you want a one and done app install then something like Newpipe is what you want, which is built completely on its own. Revanced is explicitly not that, it’s the stock app hacked up. IMHO, Revanced is a nicer experience, but they are two very different experiences and approaches.
New lemmy user. New to the forum. Please excuse any errors in posting.
I (may) have for quite a long time (10+ years) ran a NAS system that automatically downloads TV shows, Movies, Music, and the like.
Usenet is the way to go. Hands down. I (may) have also torrented a lot in the past…
As many others have mentioned retention times (the time each USENET server “keeps” the file available) is huge these days. Around 5+ years. Was the file uploaded 5 years ago? Chances are you still get it from your server with no problems. Lots of “old” stuff is frequently re-uploaded to servers. General availability of stuff that is “new” or “popular” is very high.
As some others have mentioned USENET is usually ONE server that you pay for. A file is uploaded to server X, and is mirrored by (your) server Y (and all/most other servers). You are not actually downloading (in most cases, as is mine) from multiple servers simultaneously. Many servers do allow multiple connections to download the entire files parts at the same time, however. Bonus: Most/all reputable USENET servers also have SSL as an option (even with custom ports). Your ISP has no clue what your traffic is since it is encrypted with SSL (and perhaps even on a custom [non-standard] port). My USENET server peaks out at the ISP provided bandwidth on all downloads.
Someone else also mentioned indexers and equated them to the “google of USENET.” I agree. Indexers are absolutely required for a full USENET ease-of-use experience (and for all automation apps). Automation apps use this indexer to search for the applicable files (.nzb: .nzbs are kind of like a .zip file full of the references of the files on USENET to download an entire (big) file.)
I have had the same USENET provider for over a decade. I think it costs me <$100/year (and comes with a VPN and proxy). I purchased a lifetime membership with an indexer that has never left me wanting for like $100 years ago. Still works like a charm.
I saw someone mention some automation apps such as: sabNZBd, sonarr, raddar, and lidarr. These apps will cover 90% of what you are looking for unless it is somewhat niche. There are also automation apps for books, comics, anime, manga, and other stuff out there. Pretty easy to find. My automation programs automatically look for new TV shows, movies, and etc. that aired/released, downloads them, categorize them, rename the files, transfer them to my storage, download subtitles, have criteria (as someone mentioned before) as to which file type/region/size/bitrate that I want. It just works, now that I have it all setup, in the background. I spend 5 minutes a week on ensuring things have been downloaded and are in there place.
Typically if a new show was released (aired) on Tuesday, my rig would have it downloaded by the next day (by automation apps) when I was ready to watch TV. I have had several folks ask for specific things, and was able to find them with my automation apps (more below) in very short course.
Regarding torrent automation: It seems a bit harder. Torrents are slower to download and a “bit” harder to process/automate. Some torrent downloaders don’t natively support VPN or a proxy (I am speaking from the “I do it on Truenas perspective” as opposed to “I do it on Windows.”) I assume that most, if not all, Window’s torrent programs support both aforementioned methods of IP obfuscation.
I am not posting links or naming either my USENET provider or my indexer due to the fact that I don’t understand the subs rules, nor do I want to look like an advertising shill.
Please message me if you want anymore information or if there is anything I can do to help out.
– Have a fun time sailing the seas.
Edit: Small edit. Some misspellings and reorganizing paragraphs to better flow. Added another paragraph about torrent automation.
I think it is worth pointing out to those that don’t know that automation via the *arr apps is optional. Sure, it’s great, but it’s not like you need to learn that whole toolchain right away. With a good indexer, a good server, and a good download app you can get going really easily. You’re just doing manual searches and clicking to download nzb files.
I have also found that having more than one indexer helps. Part of the trick is finding a few that complement each other–and then getting an invitation to register. Everyone has their own opinion on what combos are good.
As I have said in the past, there are plenty of good free ones, and there are also spotweb (spotnab) sites that are great as long as your a fast (ie dcma).
Also the “arrrs” were designed with usenet first, its not an afterthought.
if you want to get access to good indexers, then yeah you may need to wait until you get am invite or an invite period opens, but you have to do this, its just how they operate.
you can do torrents and usenet in your arrr, at the same time. So nothing stops you from having both.
but the SPEED AND RELEASES youll see on usenet are unsurpassed and probably at least a week earlier than on your torrent sites.
Also you can run your own indexer for usenet (wont be as good as some because it wont deal with obfuscated posts, but as a backup it will be fine)
Id suggest you go down the rabbit hole and decide for yourself if you like it, you can always cancel.
oh and usenet is encrypted (if you enable it, ie port 563) so not much chance of knowing what your are doing. No more than a VPN company letting on to what a user was doing.
Agreed. Automation is optional. You can easily get started with many popular Windows apps that are readily available (my advice is to always go open-source).
Setting up automation was a laborious task for me. I set it all up on TrueNAS - so it was a bit harder that just using Windows apps and file systems. But, well worth the time!
My indexer has been darn rock solid for all the things I have ever looked for. Do you have any insight as to any other indexer that might benefit me? Got an invite to give out?
I will give you a quick overview of what I have found. No invitations are needed for the indexers I use. AFAIK we can name names here, right?
NZBPlanet has been good for me, and I bought lifetime there years ago. However, as time went on I noticed some holes in their coverage–mainly for older stuff. I still use it as my primary, though. I am not sure if they still sell the lifetime tier, but registration is open so you can take a look. I am not sure what the free tier gets you though, it isn’t listed in their tiers page. If you are interested primarily in current stuff, I feel like the lifetime membership still ain’t bad. Registration appears to be open.
I found that DrunkenSlug filled in a lot of the gaps that I found on NZBPlanet. I liked it enough that I recently bought a year. The free tier at 5 downloads per day is not generous, but it can definitely help if you are in a jam. They also have open registration, at least right now.
ABNZB is also in my rotation, but only at the free tier, which is also 5 downloads. (I think I am a “legacy” free member with 25 downloads.) My impression is that its coverage is similar to NZBPlanet but once in a while it helps me find something that I don’t find at Planet or Slug.
Lastly, the totally free and primitive looking binsearch.info is worth a bookmark as a site of last resort. It’s bailed me out before.
If I was starting over from scratch I might do Slug instead of Planet.
We’re all looking for different stuff and it’s hard to be definitive about coverage, but these are my impressions.
For a server I have been very happy with Eweka. I don’t even have a block account elsewhere for fills. Once in a blue moon there is something I can’t get at all, I just roll with it. I already have more Linux ISOs than I can use. :)
Is there any worry about your details leaking from the server you’re using? With Torrents I can use a VPN from a different country and I won’t worry. But for Usenet I have to pay and money always leaves a trail. I am probably worrying too much about that, but I just can’t shake it.
I used to think paying for defeats the purpose too. But the super fast, easy access to everything and not having to worry about maintaining a ratio anywhere, I am now happy to pay a little something, it’s nowhere near $100 per year for me. From what I understand with private trackers now, you’re going to need pay for a seedbox to keep a decent ratio or seed forever with a home connection. I don’t have the disk space to seed forever, so I pay for usenet.
And I would much rather pay what I am paying every year rather than spending the time to rent and rip the hundreds of hours of movies and tv I download.
When you rip your own you get to control the quality, which I think is the best part, but I suppose if you needed to rip 100s of movies a year it would become a chore. The thing is that the majority of new movies and TV can easily be found on BitTorrent, so I would only need to rent and rip a few obscure or older films in a year, and those could probably be found at the library.
$100/year is less than $9/month. You’re not going to get very many rentals with that. Whereas Usenet, you can get as much as you want. $9 a month is also less or the same as a single subscription to a streaming service. I’d gladly pay $9 for one place to have everything I want. I’ve never used usenet, just pointing out why it would be worth to some people to pay for it.
Do you know how much a library membership costs where you are? Are you unable to rent movies at your public library? BitTorrent covers the majority of my needs but when I can’t find that older movie online I can usually find it at my public library.
Okay you got me. I definitely was not remembering you can rent for free from public libraries. That is highly under utilized feature in my life (and many people’s) but I have, in the last five years, been using it a lot more for audio books.
You essentially pay for convenience. If there was a streaming service that had everything I would gladly pay good money for it, since there isn’t, I have to curate my own library instead.
Having good indexers/Usenet providers and automations takes away a lot, if not all the time needed to hunt down good releases. That saved time and hassle is what’s worth the ~100/year for me.
This is the indexer I use. I do not know if the information on the site linked is accurate or not, as I have paid for a lifetime subscription years ago.
I do not know of any USENET servers that offer lifetime subscriptions.
I’m interested. I haven’t torrented in years because of security issues. How would one go about utilizing this service. You pay for Usenet, but where? And how do you use it?
+1 for nzbgeek and may I suggest bundling it with nzb.su. If nzbgeek doesn’t have something you want, nzb.su probably will, and vice versa. I have not found another indexer to have something I could not get with those two. And I have not found a single indexer to have everything. So they compliment each other very well. Plus, they’re not too bad price wise compared to some other well known ones. And registration is public, so you don’t have to wait for an invite or for them to open registration.
You could use just one, and I’d suggest it be nzbgeek, but you will probably be missing some things that the other will have.
Can you name a country that has workplace democracy? No? Then there isn’t a socialist country out there.
Would I move to the social democracies of the world? I love norway and whatnot politically (as much as a communist can love the state of any country)… but I love having warm air and nature I can enjoy without a coat much more.
afaik, in cuba the means of production isn’t directly controlled by the workers but is controlled by the government which acts as a middle man between the workers and the means of production
That’s state capitalism, and has nothing to do with socialism.
The workers control the means of production under socialism, not the government, this makes it in no way socialist by any commonly used definition of socialism by philosophers.
Google is extremely insufficient for this due to the insane level of propaganda on BOTH sides of the issue. The only way to get this information is to read theory from the actual philosophers, IMHO, and that’s asking a lot.
And that’s not even getting into the terminology you have to learn just to understand the philosophers.
For example: most people are under the impression that private property is things that normal people own… but that’s not even a little bit what marx means when he says abolish private property, you’ll note, that would be insane.
Private property used by marxist philosophers refers to property that generates capital. An example would be a factory.
When marx said abolish private property, what he was really saying is, make it so that factories are owned by the people who work in them, rather than by some rando who has nothing to do with working in them. He was not saying that you shouldn’t have the right to own a toothbrush.
Your toothbrush, according to marx, would be PERSONAL property.
So, folowing your theory, if … I have a coat - it’s “PERSONAL” property; I wash my coat myself - it’s still “PERSONAL”; I rent my coat - it now becomes “PRIVATE” property; I ask someone to clean my coat for money - it’s “PRIVATE” property (remember I’m still renting it); Somebody wears my coat, whilst gathers mushrooms (uses my coat in process of making value) to sell them latter - it (the coat) is “PRIVATE” property;
Questions:
Why should we abolish my coat? Wheres logic in that? And how, at the same time, does it magicaly can be mine PERSONAL, mine PRIVATE, and (in sugested future) a collectives property?
I mown someones lawn and they clean my coat (barter exchange) - my coat is PERSONAL or PRIVATE? How does that differ if money involved?
Now change the “coat” into the “factory” (a “garage”, a “hammer”, a “boat”), what’s the diference?
Not OP and not as educated in leftist theory, but the difference is nobody works inside the coat to produce that value. The purpose of that bit is to ensure one cannot profit from another’s labour by virtue of one owning the means of production, or at least that’s how I’ve always understood it.
Oh, but what if they work in my coat, in my barn, gather my mushrooms for a salary? He (worker/labourer) profits from my coat (it warms him, he saves expences not using his own), he doesn’t have to face elements and has an enviroment and a way of (having a job) earning in my barn, and his coleague sells my mushrooms gathered by team, to convert it into the money.
So the worker profits from me. Profits from my labour put into the earnign of the coat, buying it, cleaning it, me saving (debting) and building a barn, aranging a mashrooms farm, finding people, taking risks, etc … Are you (socialists/comunists) talking about abolishing “worker/labourer” now, cause he profits from capitalist farmer? :)
P.S. in scenario above, we would all earn our part, but if somebody wants to own any part more – of gear, buildings, organization, responsibility, risks – just buy shares, or vote by feet and build your own bussines.
This is a terrible gotcha and shows that you didn’t even read the theory before you thought you could debunk it.
A socialist system would mean that the worker is getting the full value of their labor… that includes your imaginary CEO, because that person is acting as a worker in much of your examples.
Once you recognize that you’re arbitrarily assigning this person as a non-worker, you realize the problem with your gotcha…
You’re basically saying “what if the ceo works really hard, then should he still get nothing?” the thing we’re trying to abolish is the people who DON’T work, the CEO’s who sit on their asses and collect would be the ones losing out in this system, same with landlords. The people actually working the land should own it. “passive” income is what socialists seek to abolish, because we actually value labor.
What is that “the full value” that worker should get? If for example I have worked my ass, building five garages, and now i rent four of them for someone doing busines in there with their own hammer and my multitool – what is the full value that the renter/worker should get? What is the full value if someone who rents my garage, bought his own tools, created workplace, found someone happy to make stools whole day for him and now only sells them? What is the full value if someone (garage owner, or renter with busines) decided, that 10 years of working (their ass) hard is enought and now they will live a bit slower, maybe even employing profesional manager to do their job. Where is the line?
I understand giving everybody as much equal oportunities as possible, enabling everybody equaly as much as possible – but that does not magicaly make them all work equaly hard, equaly skilled, equaly balance their work/life/family/free time, does not magicaly eaqualy balance them all taking same risks, responsibilities.
What’s fair to take, to share with less efective (or happy) ones – that is the question? Should we make it harder for the faster ones, working harder ones, healthier ones?
How the fck not alowing to gain from someones earned capital or someones labour (by delegation of some tasks) will create equal oportunities? Whats wrong in and with curent democratic/capitalistic (semi social share and care policies having) system of western countries? System curently alowing workers to own shares and voting with their hands (as coowners) in business or voting by their feet and going to other busineses to work and own them (or building them themselves). Go and do?
Imaginary value of own labour and effort versus exchange value in the eyes of other market players. Your afore mentioned “labour theory of value” apprises the first but ignores the second (both as a component of some global-whole value essence, or as a standalone thing). :)
Are you sugesting (by refering to that theory) that “fair value for a labourer to get is” only the first? What about other questions I’ve rised?
Could you just comment instead of refering “read the book” and leave guesing of what do you exactly think or imply as answers? I have my opinions, I have my questions – now I’m fishing for others – looking for discusion, opinions, questions (why would I comment otherwise). You are able to keep a discussion, if you know the topic, arn’t you? I mean without using an avoidance tool in style of “go read a bible or you have to have a belief and then you’ll understand”. Just talk, explain in your own words as you inderstand it, if you understand it, and if you have an opinion on questions asked at all.
Not gonna discuss anything w you because of the tone you’ve been using with me and others in this comment chain. You wanna learn, be nice or read about it yourself. Have a good day.
What is that “the full value” that worker should get? If for example I have worked my ass, building five garages, and now i rent four of them for someone doing busines in there with their own hammer and my multitool – what is the full value that the renter/worker should get? What is the full value if someone who rents my garage, bought his own tools, created workplace, found someone happy to make stools whole day for him and now only sells them? What is the full value if someone (garage owner, or renter with busines) decided, that 10 years of working (their ass) hard is enought and now they will live a bit slower, maybe even employing profesional manager to do their job. Where is the line?
Where the line is is debated among socialist all the time, and where you fall on that partially determines the type of socialist you are. Please read theory before assuming you have this incredible gotcha that nobody ever thought of.
The answer is quite simple, the full value is determined by the amount of profit they generate through their labor.
I understand giving everybody as much equal oportunities as possible, enabling everybody equaly as much as possible – but that does not magicaly make them all work equaly hard, equaly skilled, equaly balance their work/life/family/free time, does not magicaly eaqualy balance them all taking same risks, responsibilities.
Who cares? They’re getting the full value of their labor, even if that full value is less, i think you imagine socialists believe in absolute equality for some insane reason, this is why i’m saying you haven’t read the material.
What’s fair to take, to share with less efective (or happy) ones – that is the question? Should we make it harder for the faster ones, working harder ones, healthier ones?
This question doesn’t make sense when you factor in the things I just said, so, i’m just going to ignore it.
How the fck not alowing to gain from someones earned capital or someones labour (by delegation of some tasks) will create equal oportunities? Whats wrong in and with curent democratic/capitalistic (semi social share and care policies having) system of western countries? System curently alowing workers to own shares and voting with their hands (as coowners) in business or voting by their feet and going to other busineses to work and own them (or building them themselves). Go and do?
Nothing is wrong with some of those parts of it, in fact, socialists aren’t exactly anti-capitalist, they just recognize it’s a temporary thing. The problem with people who generate money from capital is that they don’t work, they make money from their money, and a class of people who simply makes money from their money are leeches on society, an unnecessary middleman between the people who actually do work, and the money they produce.
Furthermore, if you’re wondering why people would still have opportunities, the answer is that a union of workers can still form a business, this not only actually dramatically reduces risk, but also is much more doable when people actually get paid the full value of their labor rather than a tiny percentage.
Please read some theory before you try online gotchas, or at least ask questions instead of being a butthole and assuming you know better. You’re not using facts and logic to argue with me, you’re using ignorance and guessing about what we believe.
You’re kinda arguing with somebody who has actually bothered to read the material we’re talking about, and assuming you can outwit it without even reading it, and it’s a little like telling a quantum physicist they’re wrong because quantum physics doesn’t make any sense, it’s painful to read. This is a set of philosophies with hundreds of years of history, they’ve thought of all the things you’ve said many times.
The man who bakes a loaf of bread in order to buy a slice is not truly free.
So you sugest that somebody living of money/ownership is a leach by definition. But what about someone who (lets simplify things, lets say he just) saved – money (by spending less), or time and resources (for example by efective barter exchange) and now has got plenty of it. By spending less now he got a bigger surpluss, you may even call it a profit comming from diferent (better or worse) priorities management of his. How’s that bad? Why these coul’d not be invested? Work as a capital? Why if he can buy labour or aditional value on market for less he shouldn’t do it? Why if somebody sells something at at a value he by himself doesn’t appreciate – somebody else has to be blamed, taxed more? Aren’t we trying to pray on more successful ones, and if it is so, then how is that diferent of them trying to pray on less risk taking ones, less rich ones?
P.S. I’m not suposing to abolish taxes or not keeping up available some social minimum (basic) services which are enabling people, giving them more oportunities to start. At the same time, I do not think we have to punish someone who is more efective or can make money out of the money, resources out of resources, or time out of his more efectively managed time. Someone who could exchange it into others resources or time, and even someone who automated this (or these proceses) by using his (or bought) mind on how to make it all work seamingly “without a further work” of his. I mean – invested.
So you sugest that somebody living of money/ownership is a leach by definition. But what about someone who (lets simplify things, lets say he just) saved – money (by spending less), or time and resources (for example by efective barter exchange) and now has got plenty of it. By spending less now he got a bigger surpluss, you may even call it a profit comming from diferent (better or worse) priorities management of his. How’s that bad?
It’s not bad. Nobody cares about this, I don’t know why you assume socialists do.
Why these coul’d not be invested? Work as a capital? Why if he can buy labour or aditional value on market for less he shouldn’t do it?
Because then he’d be generating money with money, which is not productivity, and that is leeching off of other peoples work.
Why if somebody sells something at at a value he by himself doesn’t appreciate – somebody else has to be blamed, taxed more?
This doesn’t make sense, I don’t even know what you’re trying to say.
Aren’t we trying to pray on more successful ones, and if it is so, then how is that diferent of them trying to pray on less risk taking ones, less rich ones?
No, we’re trying to get rid of people who don’t produce value, and have the most money while not doing anything.
P.S. I’m not suposing to abolish taxes or not keeping up available some social minimum (basic) services which are enabling people, giving them more oportunities to start.
This has nothing to do with socialism beyond that this is a popular thing for socialists, it is not socialist policy to do that.
At the same time, I do not think we have to punish someone who is more efective or can make money out of the money, resources out of resources, or time out of his more efectively managed time.
If they make money off of having money, then they aren’t doing anything, if they’re helping manage people, that’s labor that should be rewarded, non-productive labor is what we seek to extinguish, not productive labor.
I honestly can barely read what you’re writing, please proofread, that made very little sense to me, and is almost impossible to read.
// Well, forgive, if my (on a go) english is a bit less comprehensive for a native speaker than for the euringlish speaking one :) Lemmy android client does not have a proofreader, but it’s not a problem for me to rephrase then you point at problemic to comprehend sections.
Why if somebody sells something at at a value he by himself doesn’t appreciate – somebody else has to be blamed, taxed more?
This doesn’t make sense, I don’t even know what you’re trying to say.
I ment, if labourer is not hapy about (does not like) the compensation value he gets for his job, but still agrees to sell it for that value – whom we are to blame him or someone with capital for paying him less? But if I corectly understood you, that is not a problem in your socialism understanding (or interpretation), right?
I ment, if labourer is not hapy about (does not like) the compensation value he gets for his job, but still agrees to sell it for that value – whom we are to blame him or someone with capital for paying him less?
It is believed this will be mostly eliminated by workers receiving the full value of their labor. It’s impossible to offer a job where you don’t pay the full value if everybody else offers the full value, due to simple competition.
Isn’t that imaginary “full value” somewhere far far above or below – lets call it, “momentum optimum value”?
As I see it: too much concurency in place (lets say geographycaly) and workers will fight between themselves for work, vages will go down. Too few specialists and the value of them goes up for the team (company, organization, comunity, town, etc…) Such specialist, for several hours and his half day trip, can be overpayed so much, that 10 full time workers (spending their time creating value, puting effort) working 8 hours/day for a whole week would not get in total. Are socialist gonna to pay them all equal or maybe even more for the second ones, reasoning that technicaly they been putting more effort and time? Or are we just playing with words and an abstraction “full value” means nothing else than “how much that is worth as part of a product”. But if so, then your before mentioned, hipotetycaly ‘nothing doing’ CEO or Owner (living from investment of capital), alsow did their value part. First one, lets say, by making a 5 minutes call (or just playing a tenis with right client) which granted a begining of 6 milion contract arangements. Second one (I’ll take an extreme), by deciding to give his money to broker or banker for them to invest in some sucsessfull busines, or by spending it on to be able to do nothing, instead of keeping it under his pilow. Oh and by spending it he also somewhat does create a value – he buys cofee for 20$ instead of 2$, creating value oportunity for the restaurant and it’s labourers and further down the chain.
How do we measure that “full value” in your understanting of (post capitalism) socialism? Is it by labour hours, labour effort, or labour effect?
What about cases, then wisely doing nothing will create value too? :) E.g. not shipping right away, but delaying/waiting for more orders to combine, will optimise logistics and so it will create value.
From a socialist perspective, the concept of workers receiving the full value of their labor is about creating a fair and equitable economic system that minimizes exploitation and inequality. Let’s address your points one by one:
Concurrent Workers and Wage Competition:
Socialism aims to prevent workers from competing against each other for wages by promoting cooperation and solidarity. It advocates for collective ownership of the means of production, where workers collectively make decisions about their work conditions and compensation. The goal is to ensure that workers’ wages are determined democratically, rather than through cutthroat competition.
Specialists and High Wages:
In a socialist system, the value of specialized work is indeed recognized. Socialists typically argue for a wage structure that takes into account factors like skill, effort, and time spent on a task. Specialists may receive higher compensation, but it would be subject to democratic decision-making and not driven solely by profit motives. The goal is to ensure that everyone’s work is fairly rewarded based on the principle of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”
CEOs and Owners:
In socialism, the compensation of CEOs and owners is subject to scrutiny. Socialists often advocate for limiting excessive income disparities and ensuring that wealth is distributed more equitably. Compensation for CEOs and owners may be determined democratically, and mechanisms would be in place to prevent exploitation and wealth accumulation at the expense of workers.
Measuring “Full Value”:
The measurement of “full value” can take into account various factors, including labor hours, labor effort, and the effect of one’s work. It is not just about the abstract value of a product, but also the social and human elements involved in its creation. Socialists typically support systems where these factors are collectively assessed and where decisions on compensation are made democratically to ensure fairness.
Value in Doing Nothing:
Socialists recognize that there are cases where strategic inaction or delayed action can create value, such as optimizing logistics. In a socialist system, these decisions would be made collectively, taking into account the best interests of society as a whole, rather than being driven solely by profit motives. The goal is to prioritize the common good over individual profit.
In summary, the socialist ideal of workers receiving the full value of their labor is rooted in principles of fairness, cooperation, and democratic decision-making. It seeks to create an economic system where wealth and value are distributed more equitably, and where decisions about compensation and resource allocation are made with the well-being of all members of society in mind.
P.S. answering to your: “This is a terrible gotcha and shows that you didn’t even read the theory before you thought you could debunk it.” Let’s not fall so low as to the personal attacks ;) or conclusions about a person. You don’t know what I have red and what not, to judge. A question is a question – it can be anounced even by a parrot. If you are to philosophize and a question is of current topic, and you are not a parrot yourself, then it should not be a problem to discuss it with logic and arguments by both sides. You see ;) I can do it also, well of course unless you are a parrot :)))
It’s not really a personal attack, it’s a statement of fact, you’re clearly approaching this assuming it’s stupid even though you obviously haven’t read the material needed to argue against it, if you had you wouldn’t be making the arguments you are.
Your arguments aren’t logical, they’re being petty with definitions, you’re squabbling about things that don’t matter to the socialist argument and can be answered hundreds of ways by the different philosophers, and if you had read any of the material you would understand why your arguments are meaningless.
:) beeing not a young person, beeing born in one of the soviet block countries (forced in to that block by force), having to learn commies litterature almost from zero grade and during the whole education system, later having finished bussines and economy studies in capitalism, now having a small IT bussiness, even your nickname (as it sounds) for me is behind the borderline of my tolerance. ;) Yet, I’m not trying to call you someone or even atack your beliefs by presumptions. The questions were just the questions, simply out of interest of how would someone who presents himself (socialist or comunist) would answer them. P.S. your comment (before this one) where you replyed my question by question, was quite good as for a discusion, even if you fall time to time into some magic asumptions about person behind questions. Anyway, I thank you for you effort when you answered the questions and presented your point of view on the subject. :)))
The Soviet block countries were extremely anti-socialist. They were lying and pretending to be socialist to acquire power, they were actually authoritarian hellholes that never implemented even one socialist policy. I have no doubt that being raised there is why you aren’t familiar with the theory.
If you need evidence of this, look at how they treated Yugoslavia when they implemented workplace democracy, an actually socialist policy. Lenin himself even called it “state capitalism”
Well we are getting away from the topic of “profit from capital”, but I have to mention it – Yugoslavia was a shithole too although somewhat a bit less than sssr. But lets not expand here both.
Why should we abolish my coat? Wheres logic in that? And how, at the same time, does it magicaly can be mine PERSONAL, mine PRIVATE, and (in sugested future) a collectives property?
Nobody gives a fuck about your coat, do you honestly think that’s the problem marxists have with private property? that someone might… rent out their coat? that’s not the kind of thing we’re trying to solve here, it’s also something literally nobody does in the real world.
If you worked in a coat factory, and you make 100 coats a day, how much should you be paid for that? I believe profit is the stolen value of labor, so, the worker should make the value of 100 coats if they make 100 coats, that’s the injustice we’re trying to solve.
I own someones lawn and they clean my coat (barter exchange) - my coat is PERSONAL or PRIVATE? How does that differ if money involved?
I’d say that’s personal, if you’re paying them to clean your coat, i’d say they have a coat cleaning business and the coat cloaners should own that business… which it sounds like in this example they already do, so, nothing needs to change.
Now change the “coat” into the “factory” (a “garage”, a “hammer”, a “boat”), what’s the diference?
Whether you’re one of the workers or not changes. If it’s a coat factory, you just own the factory, and make money off the stolen labor value, while contributing nothing. In your examples, you actually are contributing, which makes you a worker, and someone who should get the full value of your labor.
Okay, first, to lay some groundwork, there have been many modes of production throughout history
first, there was hunter/gatherer societies, then feudalism, then capitalism
Then we have theories as to what could come next, according to the marxist viewpoint, the next thing will be socialism, and then after that, communism.
So, communism is a post-socialist ideology, the only requirement for it to be socialism is that instead of a bourgeois class and a worker class, they will become unified (doesn’t matter how for the purposes of explaining this, but usually through violent revolution)
So, a socialist place would have the workers self-manage, people who work in a place would also have democratic control over that place in some way.
After that happens, for various reasons outside of the scope of an eli5, communism comes, communism is a post-socialist society in which the workers own the means of production (hence the socialist prerequisite), currency has been abolished, the state has been abolished (but not government, these are two distinct entities in socialist thought), and there are no class divisions whatsoever.
Part of the problems with discussions about these topics is that communist philosophers of old used terms in very different ways than the colloquial ways we use them today. I can expand upon this if you have any followup questions!
In the spirit of knowledge, I’ve tried to understand them by reading some sources but I never could get around it. It’s like me, a non-physicist, trying to understand quantum theory and theory of relativity. Anyway, your explanation is good enough for me to be able to different between the two terms. Thanks.
It’s quite simple, right now businesses are structured in a totalitarian manner, socialism seeks to overthrow that totalitarian regime within your workplace, there’s a number of ways to do this, nobody is suggesting the janitor should decide how a surgeon does his job, we just want to eliminate the useless position of CEO, and replace it with democratic systems managed by the people who work the jobs.
An easy to understand version of this would be if every company was transformed into a worker co-op, but that of course is only one of many models for socialism.
It is important to note that the government is not the worker, and therefore government control over the means of production DOES NOT COUNT.
So…what if they decide their duties are brain surgery?
Like the nonsense a peer post to yours is spewing. From a person who’s handle is “communist”.
They could have reasonable points, but if your philosophy suggests that brain surgeons can get told what to do by janitors, that’s a problem. I wouldn’t call that “totalitarian”. I would call that sane.
Now, what do we do about brain surgeons and the cost of healthcare (which is and will always be phenomenal, no matter who is paying and how it is being paid for)?
Are you being outrageous and arguing in bad faith on purpose?
I genuinely can’t tell, in the event that you’re not, nobody has ever suggested that janitors should be allowed to do the duties of brain surgeons. Furthermore, even if a single absolutely insane janitor decided he should be allowed to do the duties of a brain surgeon… nobody else would agree with them, because we live in a society with vaguely reasonable humans… and that janitor would likely be democratically FIRED for suggesting something so outrageous, or put in a mental institution.
Or are you worried about the janitor uprising in which janitors decide they can do all jobs known to man? Perhaps nothing can stop the janitor uprising, and we are all doomed.
What kind of idiot workplace would allow that? Perhaps if you don’t assume the people you talk to are literally brain-dead, you might understand what they’re saying.
Do you know any janitor that are willing to take the risk of killing someone and face the consequences of that? If so, I would recommend to keep your distance of that person.
Workplace democracy would most likely and most broadly refer to all employees of a company having a say in how the company is run. Either by voting on policies and changes, or by electing people to various executive/representative roles, much the same way that current Western democracies work.
An example of the janitor voting on where the surgeon makes a cut makes about as much sense as us voting on where the president flies in his helicopter. At best, it doesn’t pass the make sense test, and at worst is a bad faith interpretation of what people mean when they say “workplace democracy”
hat’s a bad faith interpretation of “the people control the means of production”.
I want you to consider the difference between the work needed to complete a task, and the work needed to manage a workplace: for one of those tasks, only the experts in that task can meaningfully contribute to the outcome, whereas for the other, everybody who is part of the workplace has meaningful input.
I don’t know about your experience, but everywhere I’ve worked there have been people “on the ground” who get to see the inefficiencies in the logistics of their day to day jobs; in a good job a manager will listen and implement changes, but why should the workers be beholden to this middleman who doesn’t know how the job works?
I’ve also had plenty of roles where management have been “telling me where to cut”.
To begin with, there wouldn’t be an unspoken agreement between companies to keep wages as low as they can be because more than half of the companies in that market agree that the best they can do is starvation wages.
You think a co-op only has a tiny amount of democracy? I think it’s the best form of workers owning the means of production - the definition of socialism.
I believe they meant that worker cooperatives are a small, almost insignificant part of the overall economy in every country that has them. Often co-ops end up serving a small niche market because they really can’t compete with the anti-competitive nature of capitalist big business.
That’s not what I said, my point is that co-ops make up a tiny fraction of a percentage of the economy. If they made up all of it, that would be socialism.
Yeah, they’re really indoctrinated by chinese propaganda, I can’t stand them, and I’m a damn communist.
Workplace democracy can work a vast number of ways, and I can’t claim to have figured out what the best way of doing it is, and this is one of the most contentious areas in socialist theory, but I’ll give a relatively easy to understand example:
A business running democratically, instead of having a CEO who decides everything, could have weekly meetings where everyone gets together and decides what is needed, pay structure, schedules, etc, building decisions through consensus, and then falling back to a vote if people disagree, they could also work like a modern democratic republic and have the workers elect people to various positions, and then maintain heirarchy, if the business is far too large for consensus building to work.
The way a business works currently, under capitalism, is often with a CEO at the top, who controls a group of people directly below him, and so forth, this results in bad divergent incentives, due to the keys to power problem (if you’re not familiar, watch this: invidious.asir.dev/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs ). One such example is if i’m a walmart employee, do I give a fuck if walmart does well? No. As long as they don’t go out of business, i’ll be paid the same, who gives a fuck how well the business does if I’m not a partial owner and have no say?
“Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!).”
The main issue I have with FDR’s second bill of rights is that it does nothing to fix late stage capitalism. Generational wealth will continue to accrue and those without it will be punished by no fault of their own. Sure it will make poverty less common and less impactful but people will only have bargaining power in employment via unions while not enshrining unions with more protections.
Just get rid of the concept of corporations, funds, foundations, etc all the ways rich people have sheltered their assets from the state. Wealth may only be held by individuals plus a 100% death tax on wealth above some level. Maybe 10million, whatever.
Since they’re talking about a bill of rights they likely mean the right to education. Probably includes not having paywalled higher education institutes?
Plenty of men can deal with this, and plenty of women can’t. It’s not helpful to see this as a gender thing, you’ll only feel more alienated. You might want to seek out some new social connections?
Ignoring strong correlations because “not all” is less helpful.
Most men, in western society, have issues with expressing emotions other than anger. I’m certain I could find studies as proof, but don’t we all already know this to be true?
I picked the first three results from your search and they don’t support your argument at all. They even call it out as a stereotype (which it is).
Male leaders received lower effectiveness ratings when expressing sadness compared to neutrality, while female leaders received lower ratings when expressing either sadness or anger.
So sadness for leaders is neither ok for women or men.
The analysis of emoticon (emotional icon) use in online newsgroups appears to reinforce the stereotype of the emotional female and the inexpressive male until further examination suggests otherwise. The most interesting finding of this study is illustrated by the pattern of change that develops for both genders when they move from a predominantly same gender newsgroup to a mixed-gender newsgroup. The changes that take place in emoticon use when moving from same-gender to mixed-gender newsgroups indicate that rather than the emotional expression of females being silenced or muted by male encoding of emoticons, males adopt the female standard of expressing more emotion. Furthermore, women have added dimensions including solidarity, support, assertion of positive feelings, and thanks, which were absent from the male-created definition of emoticons and their use.
I may come back and review some more of the literature, because it really is an interesting topic.
Your last citation there actually seems relevant to OP, since they’re asking about this difference in how they feel around other men vs in mixed groups.
It would be useful to know if there are indeed more studies like this that maybe show that the stereotype (which aren’t inherently wrong or negative) is too vague, and i would like to know the specifics, maybe the stereotype only holds in male-dominant spaces. Or (and I think I’ve read this) when males are primed to act more masculine.
Forgive my ramblings, but here’s the main differences I see, from a community perspective:
Bluesky’s for people who loved twitter circa 2015
Mastodon’s for people who loved the format but hated the way the platform made use of it. The community is FOSS-focused and anti-corporate.
Bluesky folks are anti-corporate, but they still want their social media to be on a single platform and tend to dislike federation
Mastodon folks tend to be in smaller circles and more tech enthused
Features-wise, Mastodon kills the algorithm in favour of chronological timelines and lists, while Bluesky embraces algorithms, allowing people to even make their own algorithms for the platform. Bluesky’s AT Proto uses “DIDs” to identify users, which are associated directly with a domain^[or subdomain]. This means that when federation does eventually happen, usernames will just be @my.domain.com instead of ActivityPub’s @actor.
Federation’s still not enabled so I have no clue how things will look and feel on that front, nor am I familiar enough with the protocol to make any claim about how versatile it is. ActivityPub is flexible enough to be a Twitter clone, a reddit clone, a blogging platform, a youtube clone, a twitch clone, a goodreads clone, or several other formats. AT Proto’s currently only proven to work for a Twitter clone.
Oh ya, no, 100%. The company is still a for-profit corporation that needs to make ends meet come the 31st. The userbase is what I’m talking about there, and specifically their unprincipled stance wrt corporate control, in paying lip-service to hating corpos, yet wanting everything to be structured around a centralized entity and team who makes it easy to blame someone (1) for anything that goes wrong.
Technically yes, people keep dieing on the windmills.
This is not me saying we need to build less solar or wind. We still need to build more and we also need small modular reactors to provide base load. If we had the battery capacity to store renewables at scale I would be for it however we do not.
it’s all fun and games if you just compare the deaths and ignore the fact that there is still a 2600km² area in Ukraine that is so toxic that no one can live in it, and that almost 40 years later.
and that will be that way for thousands of years to come.
Just so we are on the same page the original starting point of this entire conversation was somebody asking if nuclear is safer than solar and wind.
I responded that yes technically there are more deaths per capita with solar and wind because the installation procedures are hazardous people keep falling to death and getting crushed. My entire point by bringing up those deaths. It that they are edge case worst case scenarios. However I am still an advocate for renewables such as solar and wind power and offshore sea power. I just realized the reality of the situation that is grid scale storage and how it is currently not feasible to maintain a grid scale storage with out base load power stations such as coal natural gas and nuclear. I would like to remove the coal and natural gas power plants and upgrade them to nuclear plants. Just like a meltdown would be a worst case scenario.
The facts are that meltdowns are exceedingly rare, and we have learned from and improved upon the design of the reactors in use over the last century. Yes nuclear power is 90 years old at this point.
People get crushed and fall to death all the time. Furthermore if it’s a modern containment style reactor design then there is basically no risk of long-term contamination.
Tell me more about my opinions and what they are. I don’t think you understand what the word nuanced means. Especially if you are proponent of a nuclear scary and scary is bad mindset. Are there potential risks Yes are there potential rewards also yes weighing the pros and the cons. I am pro nuclear.
Nope. The starting point of your and my interaction was you making a snarky meme containing 0 facts that implied anyone who thinks nuclear reactors are scary or have risks are so dumb they can’t tell the difference between 2 copies of the same picture.
Then when I called you out on your juvenile behavior and the emotional nature of your argument, you implied I had no reading comprehension and told me to read your other comments.
To use your phrase, “the facts are” that it only takes one bad-enough meltdown to potentially obliterate life on the planet, and that makes nuclear power of any kind a VERY complicated topic. Nuclear power CAN be very useful, but it can also be very dangerous.
Pretending like its a magic bullet is infantile and only harms your cause.
Don’t like my ad-hominem attacks against you? You’re getting treated the way you treated all of Lemmy when you posted that dumb meme. Now you know how you made everyone else feel first.
My entire point is that idiots like you are comparing modern reactors which can’t melt down to catastrophic levels like a Chernobyl event to a f****** RBMK Soviet reactor. A design thought up 80 years ago a design that was out of date when it was constructed. A design that had no fail safes. A design that had no containment vessel. Totally the same thing though. The meme is for you
Tell me more about my opinions and what they are. I don’t think you understand what the word nuanced means. Especially if you are proponent of a nuclear scary and scary is bad mindset.
Just as an illustration, you just told me you didn’t like me putting words in your mouth, then 2 sentences later put words in my mouth. I think you need to reevaluate how you interact with others, and try to treat people the way you want to be treated.
IMO, it is if you factor in the fact that it’s currently the fastest way of actually replacing the energy generated by fossil fuels before the earth becomes totally incompatible with human life. Nope, I’m wrong, see replies.
Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for looking into this further and being brave to admit when you’re wrong. That’s a really admirable quality which is way too uncommon these days!
For the safety aspect, I don’t think deaths is the most helpful comparison - considering for nuclear that many, many thousands of people will have to deal with health problems caused by radiation exposure over decades. Lots of people argue that the Chernobyl death toll should include people who die from the effects of that radiation, which would push the numbers from ~300 dead to tens of thousands.
In Australia, nuclear is being used as a propaganda tool by the coal lobby to defend their interests against renewables because the build time is so long (and I suspect because the miners are more or less the same).
Large scale solar with batteries is 1/6th the cost, 5x faster to build, better for the environment, better for energy independence, and doesn’t carry the risk of an event that’ll render an entire country uninhabitable. I’m yet to hear a decent argument for nuclear.
the build time is so long (and I suspect because the miners are more or less the same).
Correct. It takes a long time to build a miner. Regressive politicians are hard at work to rectify that though, by once again allowing minor miners to mind the mines.
Just saying anyone who disagrees with you is a shill is the absolute most pathetic argument, it’s what conspiracy loons do.
No one is saying use coal or gas that’s a red herring all the nuclear proponents love to try and throw in there, nuclear is hugely expensive and very slow to build with lots of complex supply chain, waste management issues, and security issues where as renewables are able to be installed far faster, cheaper and safer.
It’s either waste huge sums on building nuclear reactors while we continue to burn gas and oil for the ten to twenty years it takes to get a reactor online OR invest in renewables and get off fossil fuels quicker, cheaper and safer.
I love how people will blindly support nuclear power plants so strongly that any argument made against them is automatically called propaganda.
My power electronics professor told us the same thing you did, that nuclear power plants are dead because they’re too complex and expensive to maintain in the long run, and that renewables are the better choice at this point. Maybe this will change as fusion reactors improve, but we’re probably decades out before industrial fusion plants start showing up, if they ever do.
Two issues here. The fear of nuclear energy was astroturfed by Oil and Gas. This means any irrational arguments against nuclear are propaganda which 99% are.
The second is there is no reason nuclear projects have to be big and complex. We could easily have small reactors to power towns and remote location. The reason we don’t has a lot to do with fear.
Simply put we are foolish not to be utilizing more nuclear power.
Monopolies aren’t defined by the availability of alternatives. It’s based on the market share captured by a single entity. We’d need to see statistics to determine if it’s a total monopoly, but I’m not aware of many other hosting platforms for game wikis. Maybe fextralife?
Yeah I think hosting is the thing that they’ve captured, far more than the notion of a domain-specific wiki. Of course, there’s nothing stopping an aspiring wiki admin from hosting on a platform that isn’t targeted at game wikis.
Fextralife is utter shit. Always giving you the most unrelated information in the longest amount of time all while being forced to watch a stream you don’t care about.
Preach. They are doing shit like pasting ads on top of the pitcher’s mound during baseball games and playing commercials on gasoline pump screens. It’s pathological.
It varies. At one place I used to go to, you could mute them. But they disabled the mute button, so I stopped going there.
At a different place, I accidentally went into an admin menu (by pressing several buttons at once) and that made me nervous, so I stopped screwing with the buttons. While it’s very tempting to try and hack them, everything is on CCTV now. It’s probably a crime here in the United States of Corporatism.
Fortunately there are still gas stations close to my job where I can fuel the vehicle in relative peace. I’d rather give those places my business.
Are you really going to sit there and try to tell me that Patrick Mahomes eating wings doesn’t make you want to immediately drop what you’re doing and go to wing stop!?
OK hear me out: Minecraft in survival. For real. Nothing jump scares like a creeper going “psshht” in your back, telegraphing that you’re about to die in a destructive explosion. As you walk a narrow path over a chasm of lava in the Nether, the wail of the Ghast might make you fall out of sheer panic before it even shoots at you. The Warden is a special kind of scary too, as it’s nearly unkillable and will detect you by the noise you make. It sounds kind of silly but there’s plenty of players making the remark that Minecraft survival is basically horror.
And it’s all in a child friendly, non gory, voxel style.
Yeah that shit scared me when I played it at 40 years old. It kind of wears you down when you walk around in dark caves for hours on end.
Another alternative might be Subnautica. It has some jump scares but mostly it’s just the Deep Unknown that gives you chills. Few things in that game are actually dangerous.
Aw man, preparing for the nether and writing down my coordinates, terrified of ghasts and facing blazes for as long as I could stand it. I still prepare for any excursion from my base like a packrat.
While we’re at it with non-horror games: the level that introduced the flood in Halo CE really gave me a scare. I don’t know what it says about me, but I invited a friend over to play that level with me, lol. It’s a bit of a reach not being a horror game, but a great game with some tension here and there.
I understand the need for some subscriptions and their benefits when there is ongoing content added to a platform.
However i’m not paying a subscription for software I could just buy and own forever, i’m not paying a £6.99 subscription to get some shitty cloud features in an app that is costing several cents a month to host. I get hundreds of gigabytes a month for less than that with Backblaze.
I’m not paying a subscription to read every second news website. I’m not paying a sub to access remote features of my car. I’m not paying a subscription to remove ads in an app, just let me pay once.
Same here. I’m subscriptioned out. Can hardly even graciously donate to something anymore without them expecting me to sign up to have money drawn from my account every single month. I’m so done with that.
Back in the day I sailed the seven seas with the best of em. It started with Napster. Then Netflix and Hulu had most of the things I wanted and I stopped. Now I have a dozen subscription services that come free as credit card perks, cell phone perks, internet service perks, or whatever. I don’t even know what all I have for free. So I don’t pirate because I have loads of perks. But the day that stops I’ll likely be back unless I’m too old and my mind is too far gone to figure it out.
I’ve pirated two movies in the last several years. Neither were available from any service at all. They’re just gone from the civilized world.
With all that being said, I’ll still pay for Shudder. It’s got content I want and they always have a sale when it’s time for me to re-up. Maybe instead of pirating I’ll only watch bad horror forever. There are way worse things for me to live out my life.
Probably need to be client side tbh but when someone mass posts the same article across multiple communities and instances I only see it once with a list of where its posted if you go into it.
Or the comment sections could just be merged together in the client view. Each thread of comments would belong to one (and only one) instance, so it shouldn’t be difficult to merge those lists together when presenting the aggregate view to the user.
Generally, they're not. I'd say it's an inclusive crowd that likes to backbite each other. I don't particularly love burners, but this level of distain is ridiculous. A lot of art collective types and their patrons.
I don’t take joy in suffering of anyone. My only experience of the Burning man festival is on the hilarious episode of “Malcom in the Middle.” Also, rain in the desert is often a mixed blessing
Some yes, some no. There is definitely a large swath of tech bros and influencers, but there are also plenty of working-class people there too. My burner group is just a bunch of kink folks from every income bracket, having a good time. It is very art and music heavy, so normally it is a lot of fun seeing the art and mutant vehicles, then hitting up whatever music happened to be nearby. I prefer smaller regional burns, but there is still something to be said about doing Burning Man. It’s on a whole different scale.
I think - correctly or incorrectly - a lot of people perceive the typical Burning Man attendee nowadays as being a rich and/or famous person who is somewhere between indifferent to + amused by the suffering of other people less fortunate than they. And - again, not saying this is correct - they perceive this as being more of an annoying/inconvenient/uncomfortable thing (lots of wallowing in filth, but only 1 death AFAIK) than a bona fide natural disaster; totally different order of magnitude from what just happened in Florida, for example, or Hawaii.
So it's less serious than a hurricane or flood or whatever in a populated area, and affects much more deserving people; if, heaven forbid, a bomb went off and hundreds of Burning Man attendees died it would be a very different story, and certainly in that case I don't think any decent person would laugh about it, but a bunch of rich assholes stuck in the mud playing "Survivor" for a week is much more farce than tragedy.
No it was because we started before federation was in the codebase, and it took a lot of development work before we were able to federate due to the forks diverging. But ok genius.
kbin.life
Top