And they wonder why we get all these migrants at our southern border. Maybe if they hadn’t destabilized the entire region to the south people wouldn’t be trying to escape those places.
I wanna quibble with this just a little bit. People work. Left to their own devices, with their needs met, people will dedicate their energy toward generating value.
What no one wants to do is a job, which is an arrangement by which several of us have to do more in exchange for less so one of us can do nothing all day and then complain that “nobody wants to work anymore”.
When people say “nobody wants to work”, what they mean is nobody wants to work for them. People will work for themselves, for people they care about, or even humanity in general, but I think it’s fair to say nobody ever wanted to work just to make money for someone else.
Thanks! I’ve never let it bother me. I make funky stuff for my own amusement. I go by the horseshoe theory that priceless is the same as worthless on the ‘value’ scale. Maybe it’s more like an ouroboros than a horseshoe? Anyway, I’m not afraid of making things for the “art bin”, I make it to exercise the idea.
I always like to say that I love my job, but I hate my boss and my stupid colleagues because they always seem to be getting in the way OF DOING MY FUCKING JOB. In 2023 it seems like work is more like a highschool popularity contest rather than about giving value to the company.
So in practice, I hate working. But it was never about the job. The narcissists are the ones ruining it.
backed up by the threat of violence against anyone who doesn’t play along.
Every political ideology includes that. What good are rules without enforcement? Just because the enforcers are supposed to be random individuals in some ideologies doesn’t mean the threat of violence for not playing along is gone.
I’m an anarchist, and my take is that anarchism isn’t pacifism, and “no coercion” is a bad summary. It’s more about the absence of hierarchical coercion and instead distribution of power to all people and communities.
If you’re going around burning down houses, your anarchist neighbors are going to use force to take away your matches and gasoline if you don’t stop.
Yup, that is my understanding as well. Likewise, if you’re going around stealing, and someone happens to think that’s bad, they can use force to stop you because there’s no state telling them otherwise.
The idea that if there’s no state we’d automatically be living in communist utopia where everything is shared and nobody owns anything is flawed on its face. It’s certainly possible that there would be groups or tribes of people that choose to live that way, but other tribes would form around the idea that property rights should be protected and build a community around that.
You’re very much misrepresenting how anarchism is supposed to work with that “automatically” statement. No one thinks if will happen by itself, there’s a whole library on thought on how to go about making it the societal norm, with quite a lot of good points that humanity already largely acted like this for most of its two to three hundred thousand years of existence.
Supposedly, anyways. I suppose paleolithic man might well have been selling mammoth futures and executing debtors in the street.
But I also don’t really buy it in a urban society unless that society is largely run by the Culture’s Minds.
I only put that there because the thread starter seems to be an anarcho-communist who thinks that in absence of a state enforcing property rights, property rights simply won’t be enforced. That is not the case. They may or may not be enforced, either by the property owner themselves or their tribe/community.
Capitalism is primarily an economic system, not a political philosophy. And while it requires property rights in order to function, it is primarily concerned with solving problems in the absence of coercion, so it is absolutely compatible with anarchy.
You’re making a fundamental error when you think that property rights would not or do not exist in anarchy. What doesn’t exist in anarchy is the enforcement of such rights by a STATE. A property owner (or in this case, really anyone who lays claim to a property, since a state that could issue official deeds does not exist) still has the right to defend their property using violent means if necessary.
So yes, capitalism and anarchy are absolutely compatible.
Anarchy requires the absence of a state… And private property… Anarchy is to the left of “workers siezing the means of production”.
But anarcho-capitalists are, as you’ve said, only focusing on the economic system of their politics. If you ask them about the politics and government of their fantasy? Well, they all reveal a desire for a deeply coercive state. Anarchy, and also Libertarian, are words being co-opted.
Nope, anarchy is only the absence of a state. Like I said, it is still possible to enforce property rights in such a scenario… as long as you do it yourself.
This likely WOULD lead to less hoarding and more wealth distribution, because you cannot keep what you cannot defend. But it’s definitely wrong to assume all property would automatically become public and “free use” and everyone would share freely as in a communist utopia, because that requires agreement between people. And in the absence of a state, there is no authority that could enforce such an agreement.
I’ve always wanted someone to explain how you eliminate capitalism or the symbolic exchange of value to achieve a socialist/ anarchist state without violence.
The nice part about anarchism is both systems are free to coexist in the absense of the state. That cannot be said under communism and socialism.
If you think about it, such communities probably already exist: most families, even in capitalism, are communist internally: the parents contribute far more to the household than the children do, who tend to consume far more than they produce. From each according to their ability to each according to their need.
This likely also explains the continued popularity of communism as a political philosophy, especially among young people. Going out into the world, where there is competition and conflict is jarring, and the wish for society to be organized more like a family unit is understandable, although it is far more difficult to organize a large country in this way than a household of no more than, say, a dozen people.
Communism is a classless stateless society, parents within our society literally own their children as property.
This likely also explains the continued popularity of communism as a political philosophy, especially among young people. Going out into the world, where there is competition and conflict is jarring, and the wish for society to be organized more like a family unit is understandable, although it is far more difficult to organize a large country in this way than a household of no more than, say, a dozen people.
Remind me again, what is the political ideology of the new world superpower? The one with 1.4 billion people? You know, now that the capitalist US empire is in obvious terminal decline.
Are you talking about China? If so, I’m afraid they’re communist in name only. They realized many years ago that Marxist economic theory doesn’t work and began to integrate capitalist principles into their economy. There are banks, there is a stock market, and there is private ownership of the means of production, although all of these are tightly regulated by the state and can be rescinded at any time or for any reason (such as not paying enough bribes).
De facto, China is a capitalist-fascist state more comparable to WW2 Germany than anything Marx ever came up with.
Are you talking about China? If so, I’m afraid they’re communist in name only. They realized many years ago that Marxist economic theory doesn’t work and began to integrate capitalist principles into their economy.
You’re kind of incredibly ignorant on China. They’re a mostly publicly controlled economy.
The reasoning for a private sector is to prevent economic and technological siege.
Also marxist economic theory is literally just a structured critique of capitalism. It doesn’t have anything to say about socialism or communism, that is marx’s other works.
De facto, China is a capitalist-fascist state more comparable to WW2 Germany than anything Marx ever came up with.
I would really suggest reading “Economy and class structure of german fascism” and comparing it to the political and economic situation of China. (And actually understand those situations, not just passively absorb ideas from anglophone media) This isn’t meant to be a dig, but this level of political illiteracy is embarrassing.
than anything Marx ever came up with.
Have you literally read any book that Marx wrote? (The manifesto is a manifesto, it doesn’t count, but I’d also be interested in knowing if you’ve read that)
I’m not convinced about the second paragraph. How do you think we ended up where we are? In the stone age there was no government either, and yet some people became royalty and he and his friends became wealthy
Private Property cannot exist without a state. That which gives private property legitimacy is a monopoly of violence, otherwise you have a winner-takes-all might makes right system.
Collective ownership of property can be enforced via the collective itself, without a need for a governing body.
Anarchism is certainly idealistic, but Anarcho-Capitalism is pure fantasy.
I dont know, let’s ask Chinese feudal lords how their ability to enforce private property went after the CPC stopped enforcing their private property rights for them like the old government did.
I mean, first of all, have you taken a look at our current society, and second of all, this is just a thought experiment to prove that anarcho-communism is pure fantasy, or at the very least not inevitable.
Anarcho-Capitalism cannot exist, it would cease to exist the very second it did.
Anarcho-Communism is a lofty goal, but is fully capable of existing.
That’s the fundamental difference, what you consider to be Private Property simply wouldn’t be, it would either be personal property or you wouldn’t have it. It is only through threat of violence that one can own the products of tools despite not doing the labor.
Okay, as frustrating as it is to have you simply repeat your initial statements despite any arguments made to the contrary, it seems as though your point hinges on the distinction between personal and private property.
However, I don’t see how private property couldn’t be maintained as long as you have the ability to defend it. Hiring guards for instance does not constitute a monopoly on violence, since others can do so as well. In an anarcho-communist scenario, for instance, if the workers want to maintain control of the means of production after ousting the owner, they would potentially have to post guards as well, or the property owner could hire a bunch of mercenaries to take the property back.
The long and short if this is, I don’t see how anarchy would favor either the creation of capitalist or communist structures of organization. Most likely, there would be both, and survival would be a matter of who is better at organizing.
There are numerous critical flaws of what you just said.
Why would Guards support you? If you become a robber-baron, hiring muscle to protect your factories from the Workers, you have to deal with the fact that either you don’t actually control and own your factories, the mercenaries do, or accept that you have become a micro-state.
What is preventing any of these micro-states from absorbing others and becoming a full state? Nothing.
Why would anyone willingly work for you, unless it already reached the point where you are essentially a state? They could make more money simply by working cooperatively.
Private Property cannot maintain itself unless you have a monopoly on violence and thus a state.
Cooperatively owned property, on the other hand, supports itself and is maintained cooperatively. There are no avenues to realistically overturn it.
I don’t think you’re wrong about the idea of micro-states forming, but I don’t see how a communist cooperative isn’t a micro-state by the same definition as well.
As far as cooperatives being naturally more efficient, I highly doubt that. Centralized structures are far more conducive to decision making. While your commune is still debating about whether both Marx’ and Engels’ birthdays should be a day off, the capitalists are already working.
Also, the idea that property somehow magically supports itself by virtue of being communally owned is complete fantasy. You clearly have no actual experience and are just spouting off a bunch of dogma you’ve read somewhere.
If everyone has equal power, there’s no statist component.
Cooperative structures are not inherently more efficient, but Cooperative work structures would result in higher paid workers. The strawman about a lack of decision making in the Cooperative could easily be flipped, while the Workers are already producing, the Capitalists are figuring out how to extort their customers and workers better.
Communally owned property supports itself by virtue of being communally owned. If nobody has an individual claim to it, someone who tries would be contested by the community, hence its communal ownership.
You only have strawmen and vibes, no actual points.
I really hope you get to fulfill your dream of living in a commune one day so you’ll have some actual first hand experience of what you are talking about.
I’d pay good money to see your face the first time you get outvoted on something you think you are absolutely right about.
A property owner (or in this case, really anyone who lays claim to a property, since a state that could issue official deeds does not exist) still has the right to defend their property using violent means if necessary.
Okay, but if there isn’t a state, who is to say the workers don’t have the right to protect their surplus labor value from theft by seizing the means of production, through violence if necessary?
This is one of the reasons why anarcho capitalism is an incoherent ideology. People who believe in it think that the right of private property is just something everyone agrees should be held sacred, when it only exists because of state violence.
Okay, but if there isn’t a state, who is to say the workers don’t have the right to protect their surplus labor value from theft by seizing the means of production, through violence if necessary?
Nobody. But conversely, if there isn’t a state, what’s to prevent property owners from banding together and protecting their property with violence?
Before you say “but there’s more workers than property owners”, keep in mind that given enough money or gold or whatever, they could also hire mercenaries to prevent workers from rebelling.
It really all comes down to who is better at organizing. So it’s possible that in one scenario, workers would seize the means of production successfully, and if they are good enough at keeping it running, they’d operate as a commune, while in another scenario, there’d be a more hierarchical, capitalist structure of organization.
You’re simply arguing from a standpoint of “but I like THIS approach better” when it’s a question of “but can you make it WORK?”
But conversely, if there isn’t a state, what’s to prevent property owners from banding together and protecting their property with violence?
That would literally be a capitalist state in every meaningful sense.
keep in mind that given enough money or gold or whatever, they could also hire mercenaries to prevent workers from rebelling.
Sorta like a police force of some kind?
It really all comes down to who is better at organizing. So it’s possible that in one scenario, workers would seize the means of production successfully, and if they are good enough at keeping it running, they’d operate as a commune, while in another scenario, there’d be a more hierarchical, capitalist structure of organization.
You know what is really fucking organized? A state. It is almost like at the beginning of the country all the large landowners and capitalists got together and made one of those to protect their interests.
You’re simply arguing from a standpoint of “but I like THIS approach better” when it’s a question of “but can you make it WORK?”
Lol. I am literally asking how your hypothetical system would handle class antagonisms, the primary concern of politics. I am very directly asking “but can you make it work”
I’m certainly overly reductive of politics. When we’re talking ideology, though, yeah I’m going back to my ethics. A government can’t act on our behalf with more rights than us - we just end up creating our master. Pragmatic actions, in the real world, are different from ideological conversations, though.
I’m somewhat confused by your separation of ideology from practical actions. That sounds internally inconsistent.
I am willing to accept a state if it is necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and their toadies, so long as that continues to be necessary. I would prefer we lived in a communist society but we can’t get there overnight and socialism is how you transition to it.
It’s similar to your position. I just have a different path to a stateless, voluntary society. I also don’t really care what the economic system looks like, so long as human rights are recognized.
I consider freedom of the press to just be freedom of speech, which we all have.
As for the homeless chap, it depends on their situation. I’d live in a community that would try to help them. I think we’re ethically obligated to help people in need as best we can, but I’m not comfortable using violence to force you to help them.
I consider freedom of the press to just be freedom of speech, which we all have.
The thing is we don’t. There is no such thing as free speech, any speech that meaningfully threatens the government will be cracked down on. See Fred Hampton. Free speech is a legal fiction in our country.
But my point is that the limited bourgeois privileges you get don’t matter if you’re starving on the street. You can’t meaningfully have those privileges without economic security.
As for the homeless chap, it depends on their situation. I’d live in a community that would try to help them. I think we’re ethically obligated to help people in need as best we can, but I’m not comfortable using violence to force you to help them.
So it is more violent to take food from a grocery store because that hurts the owners bottom line than it is to prevent a starving man from taking bread from a grocery store by kicking his ass and throwing him in a box? Is that your perspective on this issue?
I meant that freedom of the press shouldn’t be limited to just people that work for CNN or whatever. I don’t think they’re separate rights. I didn’t mean to say they’re appropriately implemented.
Theft of small amounts of food isn’t really something I care about. I’m not a fan of police or jails/prisons. We can handle these sorts of crimes more ethically. Robberies are a bit different. If you’re someone that visits San Francisco to bip cars then goes back home, you could prolly use a good kick or two if you’re caught by your intended victim.
Regardless, I think we, as a society, should be there with the bread. It shouldn’t be an issue we have to face.
Regardless, I think we, as a society, should be there with the bread. It shouldn’t be an issue we have to face.
But you don’t think we should use violence to enforce the idea, so how do you enforce the idea in the transition when former small business tyrants chafe at the idea of sharing? What if they don’t submit to nonviolent methods of control?
They don’t have to submit? We do things the right way and don’t deal with those cunts. As a gradualist, though, I think we can build up our communities while removing the regulations that enable corporations to operate the way they do while staying profitable.
They don’t have to submit? We do things the right way and don’t deal with those cunts
Okay but they have the means of survival right now. Not seizing them means people will die while you develop your own.
Also, while developing your own, the movement is vulnerable to getting crushed by them. They historically haven’t had any compunctions with killing millions to protect themselves from communism.
As a gradualist, though, I think we can build up our communities while removing the regulations that enable corporations to operate the way they do while staying profitable.
How though? Do you think the capitalist state is going to just let you mess with its bosses?
Okay but they have the means of survival right now. Not seizing them means people will die while you develop your own.
When I help my sister pay her rent a small business owner isn’t being evicted. Economics aren’t zero sum.
Also, while developing your own, the movement is vulnerable to getting crushed by them. They historically haven’t had any compunctions with killing millions to protect themselves from communism.
I think ideas like collective ownership and mutual aid have power without challenging the ruling class. Instead we beg daddy to give us more rations.
How though? Do you think the capitalist state is going to just let you mess with its bosses?
I don’t really have all the answers. I know what I consider ethical and try to work within that, but I’m no genius. I know it’s easy to say your answer is violence and we’ll sort it out later, but there’re a lot of missing steps there. I don’t think there’s a lot of difference between the class consciousness necessary to achieve a gradualist result vs revolution. Gradualism has time to show people the benefit without lining them up against the wall, tho.
We also live in a world that has a habit of fucking up collectivism. Trade is technology and in a free society we can test the tech and find what works instead of fucking shit up with bullets and famine.
When I help my sister pay her rent a small business owner isn’t being evicted. Economics aren’t zero sum.
Can you prevent a landlord from evicting a single mom, when that landlord is willing to use violence to do it, without using violence? Is the idea just "we will pay them all off, using money we definitely have in order to do it?
I think ideas like collective ownership and mutual aid have power without challenging the ruling class.
Then, bluntly, you are ignorant of history. I’m not calling you stupid, I’m just saying you need to actually learn about this stuff before trying to come up with a belief system about it.
Instead we beg daddy to give us more rations.
I dont know what you mean here
I don’t really have all the answers. I know what I consider ethical and try to work within that, but I’m no genius.
You need to consider the impact of your actions in morality, which means understanding what the outcomes of actions have been historically.
know it’s easy to say your answer is violence and we’ll sort it out later, but there’re a lot of missing steps there
That would be an easy and incorrect way of describing my beliefs, yes.
I don’t think there’s a lot of difference between the class consciousness necessary to achieve a gradualist result vs revolution. Gradualism has time to show people the benefit without lining them up against the wall, tho.
I think you haven’t thought about the material implications of this. Giving white supremacists and landlords and capitalists time to come around isnt nonviolent, it is permitting violence to continue for a while because you don’t want to commit violence on the people doing the violence. It is a statement that you dont want to help the oppressed if it is at the expense of the oppressor.
We also live in a world that has a habit of fucking up collectivism. Trade is technology and in a free society we can test the tech and find what works instead of fucking shit up with bullets and famine
Honestly, I think you’ve bought into a capitalist framing on the history of transitional states. The USSR had famines during: a bloody Civil War, collectivization, and right after ww2. It notably did not have any periodic famines that the Russian empire previously had. Communist China had a famine after the Civil War before relations were normalized. They notably ended the periodic famines, especially along the yellow river.
Ok I should preface by saying I think ancap is dumb and having a slight disagreement with what you’ve said does not mean I’m not defending them. They’re asshats.
But: imo, anarchist thought escapes definition. There’s no such thing as anarchism (in the sense of an agreed-upon political philosophy), only anarchists.
Readers of Rene Girard might describe coersion (insofar as it’s a natural result of hegemony), as a sort of force of nature, like violence, that, if society doesn’t find a healthy way to express, will come out sideways, in ways that are anti-social.
Anarchism can only exist when there’s a single individual not interacting with any other person, period. Every human interaction immediately breaks any sort of anarchism, there will always be some agreed upon behavior, whether implicit or explicit, violently enforced or not.
I suppose most ancaps are actually minarchists, or “minimal state” proponents, because capitalism fails terribly without laws and some way to enforce them. Without a state (even as small as a group’s leadership), “ownership” doesn’t exist, whoever’s stronger owns the thing. You blink, you lose. You die, it’s first dibs. Fell for a scam? Too bad, you should’ve been smarter. Got captured and sold into slave labor? Too bad, you should’ve seen that coming. Someone stole your stuff? Too bad, you should’ve secured it better.
Im using Jerboa, and one of the functionalities that RiF had that I would love they implement is that everytime you clicked a link a pop-up come up with the address of the link and options to copy, open in default app, share to app or cancel. Saved me a lot of redirects that I didn’t wanted.
I don’t like pop ups, I want as few clicks/taps as possible. If I tap the text it should take me to the comments, if I tap the picture it should take me to the picture/link, and then from either one I should be able to go directly to the other without pressing back first.
The functionality you describe should be found under a long press, imo.
Part of that, the “do you want to continue to this url?” part, is enabled by default in Connect. Ever since switching from Jerboa I’ve only been rickrolled when I wanted to! 😁
You don’t. If you live where cars are not needed, e.g. Tokyo, you’ll just walk to your nearest small grocer and get the ingredients you need. That’s what I did when I stayed in Japan for work.
And that really worries me. The government should offer free options for people like that. Uber Eats and Instacart exploits the hell out of people like that.
See, I knew one of you motherfuckers was going to come in here and make it obvious you just don’t care about the actual facts, you’ve already made up your minds and seek to make up everyone else’s minds for them.
Maybe instead of treating every single discussion of anything like an epic shitfight, you all should just pool your money together, buy your own land, incorporate it as a separate county, and build your own walkable cities and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
Because you all are doing nothing but demonstrating for us once again the negativity and childish banality of the human condition, and I’m tired of it.
The immaturity, the short-sightedness, the complete lack of empathy or consideration for anyone who disagrees with you – you all are attacking people, not just me, who are calling out walkable cities for being unviable for disabled people. One stupid motherfucker here even suggested people like that use delivery services to get their groceries instead of being able to drive, knowing Instacart and Uber Eats exploits the disabled and isn’t available everywhere. No consideration that it’s unfair for disabled people who can’t walk far regardless. No consideration that what you want isn’t completely viable because different people with different needs exist, nothing.
Y’all are just angry other people are opposing you because you think us chucklefucks online disagreeing with you is a barrier to what you want and I’m tired of putting up with it.
So until you change, I’m going to be angry at you, and if you don’t like me being angry at you for your own behavior, that’s a you problem. I don’t need you to listen to me or even like me, but you apparently need my approval for your stupid policies and ill-thought-out ideas, and therefore you need me a whole lot more than I need you. The only one hurt by my anger is you. You’re the one complaining about it.
You’re fucking political parasites and I’m tired of it.
Now let’s watch your dumb ass prove my point and do nothing but address my anger and my emotions while not addressing the needs of the disabled people who would be thrown under the bus with car bans at all. 🙄
There are people who need more aid than the busses are equipped for and the bus line runs specially equipped shuttles out to them on request at no cost (back when the busses had fares it cost the same as a bus ride).
It’s not that way in most other cities on the planet and you and I both know this.
And it doesn’t address one of the many serious problems with car bans – denying the disabled the right to travel on their own terms and not the bus services.
What happens when they cut routes or service?
Or refuse service for political reasons like during the lockdowns?
Or otherwise dictate when and where you get rides, or who can go with you, or how you travel, or how much stuff you can bring with you?
Or if the service becomes overwhelmed and they simply can’t provide rides to everybody?
It’s terrible and fucked up to expect the disabled to put up with it just so the c/FuckCars chucklefucks can get rid of what they deem as eyesores.
i don’t know how it is in most cities on the planet because i don’t live in them and haven’t looked into their public transit.
part of having a common good is defending and upholding it. usually when there’s a problem with the routes people show up and yell loud enough that something gets done. I don’t think they’ve cut a route and not replaced it with one that has more stops or split it into two that provide more coverage in like 20 years.
during covid here there were fewer busses running, but it was because of reduced ridership and they ran more on demand shuttles to make up the difference. they started installing big crazy air filters on the top of the busses too, so now you can’t even smell a fart on one.
when there’s more people than the route can handle you gotta wait, same as when there’s more traffic than the road can handle. here when that unexpectedly happens they redirect people to other routes when possible.
a lot of what youre talking about is disabled people getting equal access to what car drivers have, which is good when the disabled person lives in a place that expects everyone to have a car. if a place were to ban cars, expect people to use public transport and operate public transport with enough volume and coverage to replace them, it would be better for the disabled than expecting each individual disabled person to own a car with expensive modifications to accommodate them and become licensed to operate it or hire a driver or service in the case they cannot become licensed.
serving the disabled and elderly is what’s driven the expansion of bus routes and accessibility here. we don’t even have car bans and it’s a benefit for so many people!
You accuse others of childish banality yet the only condescending jackass in this discussion is you as you lob insults and talk down to people.
News flash, walkable cities and public transit are better for disabled people than cars. Have a person in a wheel chair try to drive a car. Lets a blind person peel out on a motorcycle why don’t you you dipshit? Know how easy it is for a paraplegic to use a subway? They take a ramp or elevator down then roll on and off the cars as they please. Know how a blind person can get around without needing a friend with a car? They can make their way to a bus station where they can be taken across town.
Oh and finally, a “car ban”? Who mentioned flatly banning cars you disingenuous idiot? We want to design infrastructure for more than just cars, not ban them.
One way to come across as childishly banal and negative is to rant at someone for how bad of a person they are because of your own idiotic assumptions about their position.
You’re an insanely unserious person so log off and look into what people are actually advocating for instead of swallowing gallons of bullshit from people that know better. It’s unbecoming of someone with your smug sense of superiority.
And here’s stupid motherfucker number 1 coming down the hall and up to the stage to prove my point.
This isn’t a conversation about your feelings or mine, this is a discussion about the viability of walkable cities for the disabled. And they’re not viable for people like that and never truly can be, not without cars. So unless you assume every resident is riding around in a wheelchair and plan accordingly, which you can’t do because most major cities were built way before the ADA and similar laws in other countries were passed – even before the wheelchair and walkers were invented.
What you want requires trillions of dollars in investment you are never going to get. Not unless you do what I told you to. I gave you stupid assholes a solution, but you’re still not listening. Why?
Because for you, this is all about your feelings and not about building a better world at all.
You’re up in here writing walls of text to personally attack me, like you always do, because all you care about are your stupid fucking emotions. And I emphasize your emotions.
You clearly don’t give a fuck about the old people who will be trapped in their houses, isolated and alone, because they can’t make use of anything other than a car.
You don’t care about the motherfuckers in wheelchairs who you will be effectively imprisoning either.
You sure as fuck don’t care about me other than “How can we exploit this asshole’s anger to make them look bad and win the argument?” because all this is about for you is winning an epic battle against me that is only happening in your own head, because I hurt your feelings by telling you facts you didn’t want to hear, and now you’re getting revenge.
I called you stupid assholes and you, personally, a stupid motherfucker and you will not display one bit of temerity or maturity at all by ignoring it; in fact, that’s all you’re going to talk about because all you care about is how you feel. Not the actual topic of debate.
And that’s why I don’t like you, and I will continue to be an asshole to you until you change, and not before. Like I said, you need me a whole hell of a lot more than I need shallow, stupid, petty, selfish, emotional and violent scumbags like you.
Sorry but reality doesn’t stroke with your concerns. Old people are stuck in car centric cities when they can no longer drive. Disabled people are stuck in car centric cities when they cannot drive. Cities that prioritize other modes of transport have more options available to both groups and you’re mad over nothing.
Edit: just look at Dutch walkable cities as an example - they’re perfectly accessible for old people and disabled people. Sorry but the idea disabled people can only use cars and need car-centric infrastructure to live in a city is delusional.
Sorry but the idea disabled people can only use cars and need car-centric infrastructure to live in a city is delusional
And one of the most tired scapegoats used by people opposing it, we all know they don’t give a flying fuck about accessibility when it comes to any other city planning or infrastructure project.
Pot meet kettle lol. People are making actual arguments about how a walkable city is better for every class of person, not just one specific class, and you’re throwing them all out, without entertaining the thoughts at all, and with a fair bit of vitriol.
Any situation where the average person doesn’t need any special equipment (a car) to get their things done is going to be better for everyone. As a off the top of the head example, when no one else NEEDS to drive, for instance, the people who do need to can more readily. Or they can utilize other, cheaper, specialized equipment, like powered wheelchairs more easily, because everything is within walking distance and the streets aren’t packed with people in cars.
That’s not what’s happening but thanks for showing the class you haven’t been paying attention at all.
You know, if all you invested a fifth of a third of a quarter of the energy you’re investing trying to get something over on me onto building these walkable cities you supposedly care about, we’d all be on Saturn by now.
Or, if we’re changing cities already we could make more accessible homes and public transit. If someone in a wheelchair can’t get onto a train you’ve made the train wrong.
Man. There’s a Korean drama on Netflix… I think it was All of Us Are Dead. The apartment building had a bodega-like grocery either on the first floor or connected to it. If we’re going to redesign, can it be like that, maybe?
I traveled up and down the East Coast with my dad when he was in a wheelchair. Every city was a little different but Amtrak has made their trains this way. A special ramp is needed, which has to be fetched by someone. Baltimore was the worst about it, but they did get us on just fine, and kicked a guy out of the handicapped starting. New York City was incredible. Dude hung out with us until our train showed up and made sure we got on and situated before regular boarding started. Though I think he had dealt with something similar personal and took it upon himself. DC was at about the level you’d expect and was pretty pleasant.
Great to hear, that is actually a lot better than I would have expected. It would still be ideal if you could use it as easily as someone not using a wheelchair but we do have to live in the real world and accommodating everyone is complicated and expensive.
So in other words, disabled people still need cars – they can’t ride bikes or e-bikes and scooters are too small for them – and you didn’t think about what you’re saying.
What? I said it depends on the disability. Depending on why you can’t walk to the store, a bike or e-bike might work. Not every disability is the same. I know people that can’t walk to the store but can use an e-bike.
How is a mobility scooter too small for a disabled person? It’s literally designed for the purpose. And by Microcar I mean what you see in Amsterdam as microcars, not ‘a small car’.
As a disabled person who can’t drive, I ride my ebike everywhere. I can easily fit a week’s worth of groceries because it’s a cargo bike, which makes it even easier to balance and steer because of the way it’s weighted.
Im lucky to live in an area that is becoming increasingly bike friendly. 10 years ago I barely left the house because it wasn’t safe to ride on the road, and I couldn’t afford uber/taxi, and there were no accessible bus stops near me.
When something is more than 20km away I will take a bus or an uber - but there’s no reason that uber couldn’t be a microcar, or a light vehicle (like an electric version of the old milkman lorries) for those that need ramp access or electric wheelchair transport.
At the moment in many places, disabled people are already forced to use paratransit systems because adaptive cars and taxi services are prohibitively expensive.
There will always be a need for some people, and some communities to have and depend on cars. The goal is to reduce this to as few people as possible by making it easier for those that are able to choose other methods.
By having specially designed cars that enable them to drive.
Even the ones who by the nature of their disability can’t do anything mentally or visually taxing, like drive, don’t disprove or negate the need for cars because everyone else with disabilities need them to get around. Public transport simply isn’t suitable enough for them.
Even old blind people who can’t pass driving tests use Uber or Lyft, because public transport simply isn’t safe or suitable enough for them, especially during grocery runs.
I have an older retired mother who uses a cane and can easily move about once she gets into the store by using the cart to stabilize herself. Taking public transportation is a no-go where she lives, because the one thing that I haven’t seen mentioned here yet, is crime. As an older woman with a walking aid, she’s the prime target for criminals, who also know old and elderly tend to not trust banks and use cash.
I do what I can to help and support her, however this is not always feasible, and in her words, she’d “be damned if she wasn’t able to get out of the house and do her damn shopping herself”.
And she’s able to drive just fine. But I guess she should give up her car, her freedom, so you can feel better about, whatever the fuck you think it is that getting rid of cars will fix.
Walkable isnt “walkable” for someone who has trouble walking. Brainwashed? Hmm. Explain. And twat? There’s two reasons you’d use that word, you’re either European or Australian, and if that’s the case, I’ll take twat and wear it as a badge of honor. The other case is you’re American and around my age or older where that word would be in our vernacular, in which case, at least you didn’t call me a cunt, because then I’d be really sad.
Public transport simply isn’t suitable enough for them.
Ding dong, you’re wrong. Walkable cities are more accessible for everyone than the carcentric dystopia.
And you literally quoted someone talking about public transport, so there’s that. Can’t wait to see what fun things you come up with to call me this time.
Uh, ever heard of commercial and residential zoning? You can have a Bodega down the street and a big box store 5 miles away. Both can coexist in the same city. Unless you’re talking in absolutes, which seems like pretty poor city planning. Not sure where you’re from, but in the US such things exist.
Even old blind people who can’t pass driving tests use Uber or Lyft, because public transport simply isn’t safe or suitable enough for them, especially during grocery runs.
You are assuming a car centric city here. In a walking and transit oriented city, it is safe and suitable for blind people to be independent and move by themselves. Only cars make the cities unsafe and the lack of transit makes it unsuitable to use something else than a car.
And I am assuming that because they are the norm you’re complaining about in the first place.
If they’re not, then go move to one.
It’s as simple as that. But you don’t get to demand other people lose their cars just because you don’t like them, especially disabled people that will always need them as no walkable city will replace the individual autonomy, carrying capacity and convenience a car provides.
You seem to live in a car centric city with really shitty public transportation. My city has decent regular bus service and for those who need extra help, they have more handy centric busses that will directly pick people up on a schedule. I think even the tiny town I grew up in has a service that does the same because there are tons of older people that are not able to drive. We also have a shuttle service to the train station if you live too far away from one.
There are solutions to these problems that tons of cities have had no problem implementing. It sounds like either yours is not one of them or possibly it is not a service you need so you just plain do not think about it.
I’m not like super pro car or anything but your argument in my experience doesn’t really hold up. I work at a farm and we have a lot of elderly folks come in and shop by themselves. They drive themselves and shop themselves but I doubt they could do that with a walker and if they didn’t have a car I doubt they’d be finding a different way to come out here.
Rural life is a whole different beast from urban. I won’t ever make the argument that rural living people shouldn’t have cars. So yeah, plus one for that argument.
Rural life definitely, but I’m in suburbia hahaha. I just can’t imagine public transportation being able to replace what a car can do for elderly people
If the individual is so bad off they can’t manage to get on a (more robust than we currently have) form of public transit, I really question if they should be driving. The simple fact of life is that at a certain point, maintaining complete independence isn’t a reality. This isn’t a bad thing, we should be moving towards embracing Ireland building the systems we need for people to get help at that stage of life.
These people have no problem driving or taking care of themselves, I’m sure plenty shouldn’t be driving, but doing something like shopping and then walking your groceries back home simply isn’t an option for a lot of people even if public transportation was more robust. Sure, past a certain point everyone loses independence, but there are plenty that don’t need to that you are advocating should
In what world is a disabled person able to board a car on their own but not a bus or train? And in what world are those busses and trains not staffed with people to help? Are we talking self-driving busses and cars with wheelchair driving options as a standard?
Edit: Seems the response is for the disabled person to: JuSt SpEnD mOrE mOnEy ; but we couldn’t possibly be bothered to spend more on public transit to make it more accessible.
At least in my country, bus drivers that need to help people in the wheelchair to get up on the bus are already at the edge of their patience. Don’t even talk about helping them stuff seven bags of groceries as well. That’s why unfortunately, taxis are still a necessity
I think the best solution, if we can redesign our cities, is to incorporate more mixed use buildings, or at least more mixed zoning. Why even have to have a bus if your building has a connected grocery and 3 other small shops on the same block.
These issues only really exist because everything is SO spread out. We have strict zoning regulations that mean having a grocery in a residential area is at best a challenge, and realistically impossible. This means we have to go further for the most mundane daily tasks, and this means we need more robust transportation, including cars.
ETA:rereading this it looks like I’m making an argument for no cars, buses or anything. I’m absolutely pro expanding public transportation, merely stating that if things were slightly different, you could eliminate the bus entirely from this situation specifically
Sure this applies for suburban or rural life. Everyone has the space to have a car there. In a city, which is what my entire argument stems around (you can see elsewhere in this thread where I state I wouldn’t ever dream of taking cars from rural people), it’s more like “the car is in the parking garage connected to the apartments. And the bus stop is just in front of the apartments, maybe down on the corner”
I didn’t say it had to be an individual who needed to help. It could be any number of programs, services, or even yeah, individuals.
I mentioned mixed use buildings in another part of this thread, something like an apartment complex with a bodega-like grocery on the first floor or directly attached. What about moving more towards that kind of building? There are a ton of solutions that don’t require cars.
Friends. Family. Building facilities. Government programs.
The simple fact is that at some point, people just can’t be completely independent. It’s the nature of growing old. This is only really a problem because we have such a strict independence culture, where if you can’t do for yourself, you may as well just die, society doesn’t have time for you.
If we recontextualize this, and see growing old and more feeble not as some personal failing and instead as the symbol of a long life, if we start looking out for those around us, and if we start building up the facilities we need to allow people to gracefully enter elder-hood without stigma, we’d all be a bit better off.
At 85 years old my Mum can’t drive or walk, she does her own shopping with an electric mobility scooter and occasionally needs the help of others … that works fine for her because she lives in what might be called a “15 minute city” these days.
Thankfully, my little corner store will remain open during floods and other natural disasters as well as pandemics and such. So it will never be necessary for me to have more than 24 hours worth of food in my house.
I used to buy ingredients for my meals every second day while living in Europe. Always what I wanted or was on sale. No meal planning for the week and making a huge order / weekend mall spree.
Just walk in to the local shop on your way to/from wherever else you’re going (or just to get out of the house for two minutes if you’ve been working from home) … that way you can have fresh ingredients every day, and you’re walking a bit regularly so you don’t get overweight easily
It’s super simple. You stop there on your way home. When I was in Berlin, I would generally hit up the grocery store a few times a week. I did not have to worry about produce going bad because it would be used with one of my meals on the next couple of days.
The reason you haul entire shopping carts at once is because the trip to the grocery store is a big planned deal. That’s also the reason people buy bulk items and then let half of them expire.
The “ideal” for bikers and train riders would be easier, quicker trips to small stores to get ingredients for the next few days. I find I’m able to fit most of my needs into one pannier.
This changes sharply if you’re buying for more people than just yourself.
The reason I haul entire shopping carts at once is because I don’t want to waste time shopping every day. A big 2-hour haul per month vs. 1-2 20-minute trips to the local corner konbini every day. Plus some of the bigger bulk stores deliver (this is Hinode, Tokyo; rural ones probably don’t).
Buying in bulk is far less expensive: you pay less (duh), but you spend a lot less time on it too. If I’m buying groceries just-in-time and the nearest shop doesn’t have the ingredient I need that day, I have to go to a different shop for that one item. Lots of time wasted, and a lot of stress on top. You can’t change your mind later either, because you’ve already bought ingredients for that one meal. So I prefer to have things buffered in stock, and resupply in advance. You also use far less plastic packaging that way, e.g. buying a 25-liter premix syrup canister instead of hundreds of coke bottles.
Not to mention that the grocery stores that are well located are usually more expensive. The cheaper options exist in less number and so it makes it less convenient or sometimes not possible at all to get to on a normal work day.
My experience is different. If I go for grocery once a week I buy a lot of stuff which rots or expires. If I buy it daily I just buy what I need, and what I want that day.
Yes that’s how it works. You save some money and spend it in other shit.
Also I don’t have a car just so I can go get groceries. I have a car for a multitude of other reasons and I can get groceries. Driving 5 mins to a supermarket has an insignificant cost, and if that supermarket is cheaper then you can save multiples of that.
Regarding the stuff expiring, that’s just your experience. I have the opposite. There’s plenty of non perishable shit that I can get when it’s on sale because I can carry a ton of it if I came by car. Meanwhile if I go shopping by foot and I need laundry detergent I’ll just have to get whatever they have at that time. You can save a ton of money like that.
For easily perishable food yes buying regularly is better but that also means a ton of wasted time going to the supermarket very frequently even if to get only a few items.
If a grocery store is within walking distance why not make a trip of it with the whole family? Many hands make light work. Or, just because a city is human focused instead of car focused doesn’t mean no cars at all (at least in the way I would implement it) you could rent a car for a few hours every couple of weeks.
Obviously these ideas won’t work for everyone but they’re just off the top of my head, and unfortunately there is no system that will work for everyone. We just have to try for works better.
I will say that I’ve been able to bring 3-4 grocery bags onto a bus, which is enough to last me around 2 weeks. I’ve done this fairly consistently (basically whenever it’s too cold/snowy to bike) for the last couple years. It might not be possible for a family without more than one person making the trip, but for an individual it can definitely work.
I completely understand that, and I know that’s why a lot of people need cars. I was primarily responding to the parent comment claiming that it wouldn’t work for anyone because it’d be impossible to bring enough groceries with you on the bus/train.
Oh, I see now. Sorry about that. Yes it’s possible to use public transport in cases where you don’t need much and the time necessary isn’t outlandish. I think I was conflating several messages in my head when I responded to yours. Glad to see some people are able to be civil here.
This is ok though, going once per 14days for that 90% of stuff and having your car for that is ok. Otherwise if you run out of something, hop to your nearest store. Also here some of my friends and family are not reachable via public transport so I use car for that. But dont use it for commute every day, going to the beach/mountains every weekend, going to the store every other day, taking kids to school and back etc. For many this is completely doable but people are lazy
Buses where I live have a cargo rack at the front. If you had four bags of shopping (though that’s really quite a lot - the bags are big) you would tie the tops closed and leave them in one of the racks until you reached your destination
If you had four bags of shopping (though that’s really quite a lot - the bags are big) you would tie the tops closed and leave them in one of the racks until you reached your destination
Along with the 75 other passengers doing the same thing?
And what if it’s paper goods and raining like fuck?
Can doesnt mean do. Most people drive distances that are longer than 8 minutes.
If the argument to give up the car for shopping and to replace it with a bus is countered with the amount of bags on the bus, then your counter to that cannot be to just walk.
I mean the idea is that good urban planning would enable shorter and more frequent grocery store trips. Rather than a supercenter supplying everyone within 30 miles, requiring long drives, you’d have things distributed by need, i.e. general food stores every couple miles, more specialist places potentially farther away. Our current layout and shopping habits are contingent on car infrastructure and massive federal subsidies.
Would also decrease waste and increase general health, since fresher, less processed food could be purchased.
Okay but this isn’t what happens. When using services like instacart they will batch only maybe two or three orders in a car. Unless there are other services that I’m not aware of that will batch more?
I don’t think grocery translates well to mass delivery because it increases rates of spoilage and damaged produce.
I live in UK and fall the major supermarkets they do 20-50 deliveries in one fully refrigerated van. This is clearly a culture difference between where I live and wherever you live.
But yes it’s EXACTLY how it works in most of Europe.
I have my own cart that I walk to the store with, I never have much trouble with it, and it’s super useful when I need to get heavy things like milk. I’ve never brought it on the metro as I’ve never had any reason to, but it would not be too difficult to do so. It’s no more difficult than carrying a suitcase or two to the airport.
Some countries stupidly accept non delivery as the norm, and that’s on them.
If your delivery person leaves your package outside your house, that’s NOT, I repeat NOT delivered.
They got 99.9% of the way to delivering it and then abandoned it on the street at the very last step. It must be handed to an occupant or pushed through the letterbox to be delivered. This is obvious.
What do real delivery companies in normal countries do? If they can’t deliver the parcel, they don’t just drop it on the floor and wander off, because they’re not insane. They either try to leave it with a neighbour, or they try to deliver it again another day (or depending on the service, they may leave a paper slip in the letterbox indicating that it can be collected from the local depot).
Countries that accept delivery people throwing their stuff on the floor undelivered have nobody to blame for that but themselves. That is not the norm, it is not reasonable, and they only do it because the people in those countries allow it, and don’t do anything about it.
It’s madness. Utter insanity. Imagine if the postman did this with important letters!? “The letterbox is stuck, better just leave then on the floor outside!” Can you imagine! MADNESS.
You say that, but in the US, if you don't live in an apartment, your letterbox most likely doesn't lock or anything like that either. They may as well just be tossing the mail onto the floor.
Cool story. I don’t know a single person in my area with a letterbox let alone a locking one. It’s just not something we have in the more rural areas.
Unless this is a language thing. To me, a letterbox is generally attached to a house, often it’s just a slot on the front door. And a mailbox is on a post near the street (and generally they do not lock)
I've only really ever heard of the box outside of someone's home being called a postbox or mailbox. Despite the fact that both terms also refer to the box at the post office where you can put outgoing mail, there's just no separate word for them. And I've only ever heard of the slot on the house door where the mail is placed being called a mail slot.
Letterbox is a completely new term to me in this context... and I still am not quite sure what it would mean, if not a mailbox. Haha.
It’s an interesting discussion in general… I’ve lived in 5 states in the US and mail service isn’t necessarily the same across all of them even among similar types of neighborhoods…
For example, in Georgia it’s common for every house on a rural residential dirt road to have its own individual (non-lockable) USPS mailbox at the end of their dirt driveway.
In Colorado, on the other hand, it’s not uncommon for many of those similar rural dirt road neighborhoods to have a communal (locking) mailbox at the entrance to the dirt road neighborhood similar to what most apartment complexes have.
It’s also not uncommon in Colorado or even California for some suburban single family home neighborhoods to have similar communal (lockable) mailboxes but that’s less common, in my experience, in most Southeastern states.
I’ve also lived in an old Victorian building with a mail slot but it had been converted to apartments and had a multi unit locking mailbox bolted to the front of the building at that point.
I don’t remember if I had a point or not now other than that shit is weird.
Not really. Letters are generally of a known size so a house-side box is used to receive letters. It’s a letterbox. Then mailboxes, which you may note are generally much larger than house-sixe boxes, are intended for more than letters, and are sized as such. They care called mailboxes dur to them holding more than letters/envolopes.
Please explain? After doing some quick googling, it looks like my interpretation is pretty accurate. But again this could be due to localized results. I’m not going to pretend all English speakers use the same words for the same things.
Not sure why the aggression, I was stating an objective point of view so that people can get some counter perspective. It’s an important part of establishing the scope of things normally. But ok, go full steam ahead captain.
What’s your point? We know there’s different infrastructure and protocol for delivery in different areas, which was established in the original comment.
Do you have a residence in every single place on Earth? No? I can tell you that I’ve never lived in a neighborhood with (outdoor) mailboxes with locks. Does that add anything to the conversation?
Brazilian here. Had a package get home when no one was there. Delivery girl called me and asked if she could leave it with a neighbor and which one. Told her the one to leave it with and that was it. Leaving it on the street is insane
I prefer having my shit left at the door as opposed to being bothered to have to come to the door to personally accept it from them.
I’m typically busy and I’ll get it when I get to it… But, I don’t live somewhere where I have to be paranoid that someone is just waiting to steal my shit either.
But like you are still gonna go and get the package so what’s the big deal with doing it when it arrives? You lose nothing by doing it that way. Or if you know you are gonna be busy at a certain time set the delivery at a more appropriate time (now that I think about it is this not a common option?)
USPs, FedEx and UPS all require “signatures” (really just a name) when delivering to businesses. They don’t leave business packages in front of the door.
In Poland there are parcel machines everywhere. Ordering pretty much anywhere on the internet you can just ask for there, it will be cheaper, and you will have to go just like 200 meters on average (I live in a point just between 3 machines so it is 300) in a city and less than a kilometer in most towns and bigger villahes and your parcel is always there. Much recommend. Wont work in america
Amazon has package lockers that people can choose to have their stuff delivered to if they’re concerned about it being dropped at their front door but USPS, UPS, and FedEx don’t.
They will however, for packages that require a signature, bring them back to their local depot and hold them for pickup if necessary.
Speak for yourself. I’d rather them leave the shit at the door then have to trudge my ass down to the post office to pick it up, which I have had to do for certain deliveries and it’s annoying every time.
You know they give us the option. If im not here I can select what happens to my package. Post office, post box next to the supermarket, give it it a neighbor, deliver it sometimes else or place itnon front of my door.
You know even FedEx delivers packages into customers hands in Europe? You have to sign on their tablet that you received the package. They call you in advance if you are there for delivery and if you are nearby they even do a detour. This is general practice for all big delivery companiesike DHL, GLS, DPD, FedEx and many more.
You can pay extra to require a signature on deliveries in the US too but for most shipments it’s really just a waste of money that may cause delays in receiving your package if they happen to come by when you’re unavailable.
While I often get the package delivered to a pickup point, many carriers now offer a predetermined safe dropoff point on your property, and I utilize that as much as I can. Even if I didn’t, I’ve always hated the ones that need a signature, as they used to have to come back multiple times because they tried to deliver during work hours when people were (surprise) at work. Luckily most don’t require a signature these days (and yes, this is in Europe).
I know it is not working with every workplace but I often deliver packages to my work. Most carriers define the delivery time to an hour timeframe, some like ExpressOne are doing it down to 20min time frame with a live tracking showing your courier’s progress to reach you.
I have an unlocked box outside on the street where letters go. That’s where the postman leaves them. Tampering or stealing the mail = 30 years in prison.
nah I prefer them to leave. before covid the post here was notorious for not knocking, and dropping a card meaning you had to go to a post office and collect it in person, but only during business hours, you had to line up behind all the old people who paid bills at the post office, finally get your chance and if you are lucky they would find your parcel, but usually either way they would make out like you are being the biggest inconvenience in the world.
these days they drop and scan, sometimes knock, sometimes not, but it doesn’t matter. havnt had a theft ever
Oh hahaha nooooo, it would be 15 seconds, and it would start with a sigh and deep, troubled breathing noises, a finger tapping the mic and someone saying “is this thing on” before the entirely useless comment even starts.
“It’s possible I did something wrong.” 🤣
Like not read the warning that said that he was about to uninstall the desktop? Or to continue only if he knew what he was doing? He also earlier liked to talk about “red flags”, but somehow needing to type in “Yes, do as I say!” wasn’t one to him. I’m supposed to be getting Linux tips from this guy?
What makes you think your average Windows user that is trying out Linux for the first time wouldn’t have faced the same problem? I never understood why people criticized Linus for this video. After all, the video was supposed to see whether Linux is a viable alternative for Windows users (specifically gamers).
He’s at the bottom end of ‘knows just enough to be dangerous’, and people make fun of people in that range. The vast majority of gamers and Windows users fall well outside that narrow band. The average Windows user who is scared of the terminal wouldn’t ignore several warnings and type in confirmation phrases. They wouldn’t have even gotten to that point because to get there you need to copy/paste things from a website without understanding what it does.
My experience with most Windows users and their first encounter with using a Linux terminal is every single warning/error they see no matter how mundane is a big deal.
Things like the boot text or a random apt install on Linux will often display various warnings or even “errors” that are really of no concern but ime tend to freak out new users.
Linus is in that narrow band where he doesn’t really know shit but knows just enough to be falsely confident and ignore all the warnings/errors instead of just the irrelevant ones
Yes. People have been trained to ignore warnings like this.
Android makes you jump through a hoop and tries to scare you when you want to install apps from outside the playstore.
Windows has some similarly serious-sounding warning messages.
People have got used to rolling their eyes at warnings when installing software. Like it or not, that’s the way that it is. Users are used to seeing a scary warning when installing, and they’re used to just powering through it without much thought.
Linus was following a tutorial on the PopOS website, followed the instructions, and borked his install.
I have problems with LTT in general, but the PopOS thing was entirely understandable, and people pretending that wasn’t a usability problem in PopOS are delusional.
I’m supposed to be getting Linux tips from this guy?
No. You’re supposed to see what kind of experience someone who didn’t use Linux before would have.
How could someone who has never used Linux know that he was about to nuke his system, after typing in the command that the internet told him to type in to install Steam?
Far be it from me to defend "I did what the internet told me to do!" but nothing in sudo apt-get install steam would lead you to believe you were about to nuke core system packages. That was a big fuckup for PopOS.
There's also no reason to believe that apt update would be a preemptive solution to that problem, when it hadn't even been reported to PopOS yet. Let alone expect newcomers to Linux, who are just following widely available tutorials, to know that command and what it does.
It was extremely unfortunate timing. Pop_OS! had a bug for that week (or a few days?) where installing Steam would IIRC try to install the wrong version with the wrong dependencies. To support these alternate dependencies, it had to uninstall a bunch of the defaults, thus breaking the system. You can probably find a much better explanation by searching it up, Steam Pop_OS! i386 or whatever, but that’s the jist. It was a crazy blip that Linus managed to be in the way of.
Not Linux’s fault, not normal, but in my opinion not entirely Linus’ fault either as who expects their desktop to be bricked by installing an everyday program?
It was a bug in that version of the distro IIRC, trying to install Steam would instead try to install the SteamOS desktop environment (or something along those lines). It has since been fixed to actually install the Steam client.
Obviously it was a bit silly he typed “Yes, do as I say” after seeing the message, but he was also literally following exactly what all the online guides said to do (other than the “Yes do as I say” part). Luckily it’s fixed now but I do think it was a really good demonstration of what the video wanted to see: “What might the average non-techie gamer face using Linux?”
I mean Linus did sth wrong when he wrote that yes do as I say without reading the error message.
On the other hand the Bug he was experiencing should not come to a stable Release build.
Anybody could have make that mistake. Or worse wonder for hours why it didn’t work and suddenly it works. Especially if you are new to Linux and don’t know what instead of the error message should pop up.
lemmy.ml
Top