I saw a discussion the other day that may have been part of it. They were pointing out that many users when first joining lemmy created accounts on multiple instances. Whether they needed to find a community they preferred or do to ddos attacks and other issues causing outages a lot of those accounts have likely become inactive more as time went by. So the numbers may not be decreasing so much as been inflated by individuals coming up as multiple active users early on. I haven’t looked into how they are verifying what users are active though, so it could be wrong. If someone knows more please respond.
As far as I have heard, “activeness” is measured by whether a user posted a comment/post the past month, so lurkers/voters are not being counted. This does likely skew the numbers quite a bit.
Yeah, my first account on Lemmy was actually on Beehive, but I was confused by their sign up process (there wasn’t a page update telling me I had to verify my email, it just happened in the background and didn’t appear to do anything when I clicked sign up). I sorted it out when I checked my email an hour later, but that killed the vibe for me. So then I made this account, but jerboa didn’t support Aussie zone at the time so I made a shitjustworks account and used that for a while until I started becoming more active in the Aussie zone communities and tried to jump ship just for the ease
But yeah, I saw quite a few people who were very confused about the whole instances thing and a few others that have jumped ship a few times because of it. And as I mainly browse local top day, then all top day once that runs out of content, and my instance federates with all the instances I want to interact with, I don’t see a reason to use either of those other accounts I created
I was on this really great cyberpunk / LGBT instance called DATATERM.digital. It was even advertised on the joinlemmy page. However it disappeared without a trace and there is no word on it ever coming back :( I haven’t found another one where I felt at home.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Microsoft but I don’t think this is one of them. First, Windows Defender is quite good as far as antivirus software goes. If you ever had to do desktop support in the days when Norton, McAfee, and AVG reigned supreme, then you know what I’m talking about.
Second, one of the biggest challenges for an OS vendor is backwards compatibility. Especially since Windows dominates the enterprise space and has for the last 25+ years. Big corporations can get really cranky about their legacy applications from 1998 that are still basically holding the entire org together. While it’s short sighted to not be proactive about keeping your technology current, it’s also a reality that many businesses simply aren’t proactive.
Windows definitely has its flaws but it has come a long way in terms of both security and reliability over the years.
I sacrifice C:\Windows\System32 to you, old noodly one! 🗑️ Bless me with the computing power to pwn my enemies in CS2, see them driven before me on Twitch, and hear the Lamentations of their simps.
I’m an ordained minister in The Church of the FSM and I approve this liturgy. I should seriously ask Bobby if this can make it into official church doctrine.
The first written evidence of slavery in the ancient world comes from ancient Mesopotamia. However, slavery was in practice much longer than that. Slavery most likely began when the first cities needed labor to keep food production up to feed growing populations.
There was plenty for everyone since there were a lot fewer people, plus there were no real territories that people claimed over longer periods at all since we were nomads.
The only real solution is intentional population control. But I don’t have high hopes we ever get there though.
Everyone could have way more resources than we’d ever want to even use. But instead, we seem focused on maxing out the world population leaving the least amount possible for each person.
Oh, there probably is. All things being equal (and that’s the important factor) there is next-to-no chance of us ever reaching such a bizarre amount of people - you could triple the amount of people on earth, and, all things being equal, we still wouldn’t be “overpopulated.”
However, things are not equal - which means we are already existing way beyond that which our ecology can support. And it’s all thanks to capitalist parasites - a very small group of people sucking everything dry at the expense of everyone and everything else.
That’s literally an article about how they don’t have enough water. Yes, the rich are using twice as much as the poor and it would go further if it was distributed more evenly but the fact remains that there’s a finite amount that is not sustainable beyond a certain population.
No? The article says rich people are using 2x as much water as poor people - 50% vs 23% and they are already having water problems. Assuming the water consumption was evened out this leaves the population room to go up no more than 4x what it is now even with equal consumption. That’s hardly out of the realm of possibility considering the population already has gone up 8x since 1950
The article says rich people are using 2x as much water as poor people domestically.
FTFY. That’s just household use, Clyde. We haven’t even started with the water usage that makes the rich rich - ie, the private ownership of industry and commerce (which, of course, externalizes the destruction of water resources).
That’s hardly out of the realm of possibility considering the population already has gone up 8x since 1950
That kind of population growth is a thing of the past. The only way to successfully reverse that would be by design - such as the measures taken by certain aspects of the US political establishment to enforce patriarchal norms through institutionalized violence (ie, the criminalization of women’s healthcare).
Water used for industry is still going to be used regardless of who controls that industry. Poor people can be just as greedy as rich ones, they just don’t have a means to act on it.
Population growth has slowed but it has not stopped. Even at 1 or 2 % per year it will be only a few generations before it becomes an issue. 1% of 6,000,000 people is a lot more than 1% of 600,000.
Absolutely not. Pretending that capitalism doesn’t work the way capitalism works is a certain dead-end for your argument.
Wtf does that even mean?. The point is there will still be a demand for goods whether it’s produced by a farm/factory owned by one individual or a collective of workers. They’ll still be consuming the water.
That is one piss-poor justification for the status quo.
I’m not justifying anything. All I’m trying to do is explain to you that resources are finite and too many people will burn through them. If you don’t think poor people can be greedy and wasteful then I encourage you to get out more.
The people at the top aren’t worried about population growth these days, Clyde - they are worried about population reversal. You wanna know why?
The only reason I ever hear for that is from racists because it’s the white people that slowed down the most. Population projections for the world do not show a decline. Unless of course you take the lack of resources into account…
Pretending that production for profit and production for need is the same thing is fallacious - end of story.
All I’m trying to do is explain to you that resources are finite and too many people will burn through them.
You still haven’t managed to justify the right-wing trope of “overpopulation” - pretending that the vast majority’s consumption is (somehow) the problem isn’t proving it, merely regurgitating it.
the white people that slowed down the most.
Sooo… you have figured out that in a capitalist society access to women’s healthcare is merely another commodity - and, thanks to colonialist pillaging and repression, white people do tend to have more access to that commmodity?
You don’t say.
Population projections for the world do not show a decline.
No… it shows a trend towards stabilization - which, just by itself, demoslishes the entire concept of “overpopulation.”
Unless of course you take the lack of resources into account…
What lack of resources. Resources being hoarded by a capitalist elite was as true in 1950 as it was in 2023 - so how does that affect the trope you are trying to justify?
Whether Malthus himself was a right-winger or not isn’t really important… it doesn’t change how the trope of overpopulation has been used to protect power and privilege (ie, the whole point of right-wing ideology). For instance, there is a very good reason why white supremacists support the criminalization of women’s health care in (supposedly) “white” countries while demonizing 3rd world countries for their (supposedly) “explosive population growth.”
It’s a very old trope that flattens human consumption and therefore camouflages the reality that certain classes of people consume resources at astronomical rates in comparison with the rest. It’s utility in shielding class hierarchies from scrutiny should be perfectly obvious.
The problem is the improper distribution of resources, not overpopulation. If we truly tried we could sustainably support our current population and work on healing the world.
Talking about intentional population control is a fat too slippery slope.
Check out The Dawn of Everything, puts to rest a lot of the myths about prehistoric societies that we tell ourselves. Early societies were consciously experimenting with different social arrangements and they were far more peaceful and egalitarian than we usually give them credit for. Their ideas on property were vastly different than ours as well. There wasn’t really an “our hunting grounds” to speak of. If you’re interested I’ll leave this video by Andrewism about human history. It’s well sourced and pretty informative
I think it sort of depends on what time period we’re talking about. Jericho and other walled cities came about after a certain point. By then, there certainly were societies that lived off raiding the less nomadic agrarian societies, not very peaceful or egalitarian.
I’m just answering the question. They ask what system rewards kindness, I say a hunter-gatherer one does. I’m not implying that going back to the stone age is realistic by any means.
Because with capitalism, the greed is out in the open. Everyone understands it. It is clear and legal to push against the greed of those who have more.
In a system that incentivizes “virtues”, greed will hide behind those virtues. And when you then fight against that greed, you are accused of attacking those virtues instead.
Hey, that makes sense. Now, in this capitalist system that exists in real life—the one that you think is working out better than any alternatives you can think of—are everyone’s cards laid out?
Yes…? We are aware of how bad we’re being fucked. We saw the Panama papers. Rich people dodge taxes with loopholes. War is waged to line pockets. Senators practice insider trading. Huge, major problems exist with capitalism and of course, we can’t know the full extent. What do you think would be different under your preference?
Yes? It’s that obvious? What percentage of the population knows how the animals they consume are raised and slaughtered, or that it’s illegal to show them? What percentage knows that in many other nations, the burger flipping jobs the U.S. loves to debate do pay better, and yet the food is cheaper? What percentage is aware that many European nations simply do not allow large corporations like Google and Facebook to “own” your data, and that they do not have some sort of inherent right to it? All of these things are legal—passing laws to hide information you don’t like, having no obligation to pay livable wages or provide healthcare, lining your pockets with money nobody else knew you could just… take. Seems like a system in which these actions weren’t both legal and highly rewarded could, you know, put more of the cards on the table.
I asked you what would be different under your preferred alternative to capitalism and you’ve responded with policy from other capitalist nations. Perhaps the ideas you have presented are not solutions to capitalisms failings but instead just good ideas that can coexist within a capitalist society. I’m really not sure I understand your point but feel free to clarify if you’d like to continue the discussion.
Chiming in to a conversation with a weak point, just to have no one respond to you.
No wonder you haven’t made so many comments today. This poor troll is starving because he’s having a hard time getting people to take the bait. Anyway, see you tomorrow buddy. I hope for your sake you do better next time
It must kill you that I have a laugh about you to the people you argue with here. Hey man, no one is making you respond with all these little love letters to me
Don’t I recall you trying to call me out for making fun of mental patients yesterday? I guess your ego knows no hypocrisy. You’re a man of no principles, and that’s what makes you a good troll
Hey man, I appreciate you practicing on me. You could do a little better though. Is “ghoulphrenic” the only insult you could muster after 10+ comments?
Hey buddy, I really love that you’re using a made up word to boot. The only hit “ghoulphrenic” got on any search engine I tried was an off brand 4chan Incel chamber. Nice to know what media you do consume.
Man, god made you a perfect little troll didn’t he?
Actually professor I don’t much care to continue. I asked if all the cards are on the table (because I know they’re not) and you responding with “yes…?” so this isn’t going to go anywhere. Especially since I don’t have a favorite -ism to provide you with so you can tell me how it would never work!
The ideas I’ve presented force cooperation in opposition to capitalist market forces. They coexist in the way my white blood cells coexist with the flu.
By the way, the Panama Papers aren’t available to the public, and they’re culturally relevant because they were secret for so long, and represent an opportunity that isn’t on the table for the rest of us. Better examples are key when upholding the status quo 👌
I apologize if I offended you or otherwise indicated hostility with my “yes…?”. I felt my position was clear and unchallenged by your reply. I’d also point out that you made assumptions about my opinions prior, which while it didn’t really bother me, could certainly change the temperament of discussion.
I do think it’s important to have a clear point in a debate though and I don’t see that you have presented one. From what I gather, you value cooperation in society and disagree with pure capitalism. For what it’s worth, I actually agree with both of those points and feel the same. I’ll respect your wish to leave it here and wish you the best of luck.
I’m allowed to go take out a loan and start my own business to be a piece of shit like every other business owner and noone will stop me from doing so.
Noone will stop you either, question is why you aren’t dealing your cards.
I’m a leftist but I’m not much of a fan of the Soviet Union. I’m Finnish and middle-aged so I know a bunch of people who had to escape from there and I’ve heard first-hand stories about the shit that went on, and I’ve visited Soviet Estonia who got the short end of the stick with Russian imperialism compared to us. At least we stayed independent although had to grant a lot of power over eg. our foreign policy to the Russians – ie. Soviets, but it’s not like it wasn’t essentially a Russian project since they pretty quickly forgot about korenization and went for Russification instead – to keep them from invading (again…)
One of the biggest failures of alot of leftists spaces is failing to criticize the failures of the USSR. Yes they had alot of Ws but they also took their fair shares of Ls due to external and internal forces. That being said there arent many leftists that geninuinly want to recreate the USSR. We are merely trying to pierce through the veil of Capitalist propaganda to recontectuallize what they did right and incorporate it into the modern political discourse.
That was well said. Recontextualization is exactly the thing; it’s not that I think the Soviet Union was absolute evil with zero redeeming features. They got more right during the early years although I’m not necessarily a huge fan of that period either, and to a large extent it was Stalin who fucked them up pretty severely with the frankly sociopathic system that the Union turned into.
Russian political culture has been outright brutal for a long time. Eg. these KGB-like secret police organizations have been around for a while and have invariably had brutal methods of dealing with politically displeasing individuals or just who-the-hell-ever in many cases. This, coupled with the cultural ethos that Russia and Russians – and specifically meaning ethnic Russians – are superior to anyone outside their borders and a tendency for imperialism, means that Russian rule has nearly invariably been a shitty time, with Finland being one of the few exceptions as we mostly faced little repression or cultural erasure compared to other Russian “colonies” and this was done intentionally; most of the Russian Emperors during our time as a Grand Duchy in some ways thought of Finland as way to show the European powers that they can run things in a “western” way, and to work as a kind of window to the West. For the last 20 or so years they did try to Russify us, which we – being stubborn fucks – did not take well. We also kept our previous Parliament for the most part even though even starting from Alexander I the Emperors wanted to have autocratic rule, but – again in parts thanks to us being stubborn fucks – it took something like 4 emperors for it to happen. Their other historical or the currently existing colonies (nobody seems to think of Russia as a colonialist empire because their colonies are inside contiguous borders) weren’t quite so lucky, as Russification and “Russian supremacy” has been the standard.
This political culture played a large part in the problems with the Union. It was nominally multicultural (and korenization was briefly a thing until they went back to Russification as usual) but it wasn’t exactly unclear who were ultimately in charge.
And before some smartass barges in asking me why it’s OK if the US/UK/France/whoever does this stuff: I don’t like imperialism any more regardless of who’s doing it.
Jokes aside communism is just as bad because it does nothing to prevent power from congregating at the top. The only difference is the type of corruption.
Talk to anyone who grew up in the eastern block about bread lines. Communism is a failure in comparison to capitalism.
You posted a photo of fully stocked shelves and every word you said is a straight up trope. “Corruption” does so much work with politically illiterate westerners to paper over why ‘bad thing is bad’ without a lick of knowledge about either the bad system or the good one in your mind. And I always love hearing about how bad socialism is from people who suffered from the end of socialism.
Ultimately the only actual reason the west has for why socialism is bad is “We’ll kill you”
Point taken. I am not for communism as I’ve seen first hand what it looks like. All communism does is congregate the power in the government instead of private hands. It’s still corrupt just in a different way.
Doesn’t matter the form of government. Power will narrow and corrupt IMHO. It’s human nature.
A lot of it, as a “Westerner” is also the devil you know.
You can’t use personal experiences as evidence when you’re staying anonymous and won’t say what those experiences were. If you’re 60 years old you got a solid 10 years of socialism in the last phase of being overtaken by the west to make adult brained judgements about it.
Let’s start with how old you are. Are you 60 or older? And what country are you talking about?
“These individuals and groups synthesise radical far-right politics with environmentalism,[5][6] and will typically argue that overpopulation is the primary threat to the environment and that the only solution is a complete halt to immigration or, at their most extreme, genocide against minority groups and ethnicities”
It’s not just about systems, It’s about conditions. Certain conditions make certain strategies more profitable - see game theory. I think low population density and hard life conditions cam lead to kindness being among the winning strategies.
Yeah well we dont have any of those conditions and it would make sense to make oue life conditions harder or to lower the population density so drastically so this meme doesnt make any sense
Fortunately, we’re doing our best to make our life conditions harder in the future and possibly to lower the population as well!
Of course, there can be other sets of conditions that lead to kindness win. Like probably heavy cultural persecution of selfishness. The conditions can also be pretty complex. I wonder whether those things have been studied in some meaningful way.
The only thing really wrong with this picture is how far off the wall the mattress is… how many times during the night does this bloke need to pick his pillow back up
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.