To me this is the most amazing thing people that would turn themselves inside out against communism/socialism because of the lies they have been told. When it actually comes down to it are all for communism ie open source
Open source is not communism. Communism would entail that we collectively own Linux, which we don't. It's private property, and if we want to use the code, we need to abide by its licensing terms. Licensing terms that are built upon the existence of copyright, a concept that allows for private ownership of intellectual property.
Communism is about a would-be utopia after the workers own the means of production.
For us tech workers, it could be argued that the means of production are source code. Thus, there is a socialist aspect to open source - but that's a good thing!
Just because it's free? Let's talk again when all open source projects are funded and controlled by the state with zero competition between them and no consumer choice. Only one Linux distro, only one database, only one web framework, etc. And it's decided top-down from the state what to work on. I doubt though that these projects would have started in the first place in a communist setting.
There is no reason such a state would have to set things up this way.
As an example: you probably know that germany has socialized healthcare. It is, however, not implemented as a single-payer model. Instead there are tons of different insurances competing with each other, while having a highly regulated floor of what they MUST offer.
Is the model perfect? Hell no, it has tons of issues - though overall it's pretty solid. My point is just that social policies and "no internal competition ever" does absolutely not have to go hand in hand. There is a massive middle ground.
See: social democracy as a concept and in its current implementation.
Germany has a dual healthcare system with both public (GKV) and private health insurance (PKV) options. About 10% of residents use private health insurance.
Problem here being that those terms aren't used as defined in regular discourse. Language changes and casual use differs from academic use.
When on an american-centric board anybody writes about "communism", I assume they refer to anything from marxism to stalinism to socialism to democratic socialism to social democracy up to anything non-hyper-capitalist. Not great, but sadly something to be taken into consideration.
Especially when looked at in context - parent was criticizing the EU initiative by essentially claiming something like that leads to a kind of monoculture like in a planned economy reminiscent of "communism", here probably meaning stalinism, from what I assume is a radical libertarian position. Which tells me the person is likely american, implying a rather ... minimal awareness of the nuance here.
Please, look at the actual comment chain and it should be rather trivial to make out what everybody is talking about. Does your comment really add value here?
The fundamental reason why terms are confused is because malicious
actors (bad faith) intentionally set up to at best muddy the waters
and at worst associate things they fight against with the worst
adjectives. That doesn’t reflect on anyone present right here, just a
process that took decades.
I don’t care if someone “doesn’t know” about the nuance when they
breathlessly throw back with One Cereal For Everyone Decided By The
State. Come on.
> Please, look at the actual comment chain and it should be rather trivial to make out what everybody is talking about. Does your comment really add value here?
I can understand that you think my reply is pedantic noise. That’s
simply because we have different goals and things that we intend to
communicate. I’m content with setting the record straight. You
apparently want to calmly explain the difference between apparent
Stalinism and Bernie Sanders-style Socialism.
I think I am able to make out what people are talking about. But you
can’t seem to, right in this context, imagine that we all have different
goals ourselves about what we wish to get out of commenting here.
This is as usual confused. People keep discussing communism as if they were (via analogy) talking about capitalism being about men in suites with fake smiles, green paper, bank vaults, and powerpoint presentations. Every time people have to respond with paragraphs upon paragraphs just unrolling all that nonsense.
Try to update your knowledge on the subject instead of talking like an alien in Trafalgar Square.
Looks like the cost curve down for batteries is still on track.
The next decade will be interesting as the world transitions from oil to renewables it's funny in a way that 20 years ago peak oil was about supply but now it is likely to be about demand. Solar, Batteries and electro tech is rapidly going to eat into oil and gas demand.
For me current battery tech is already good enough for passenger ev they cant even use the full charging speed capacity or the charge discharge cycles. Solid state batteries might be useful for heavy duty trucking or aeroplanes/drones
Cost, volume, and weight are still significant constraints. Existing batteries obviously can make for some good cars, but they could be better. It doesn’t have to be more range or faster charging, it could be the same range and charging speed but 25% lighter and cheaper.
Cost is no longer a concern as today LFP batteries and electric motor price is cheaper than an ice engine in China. Though my main point is that there is a lack of infrastructure to charge at full speed current batteries so higher capacity faster charging solid state batteries are mostly pointless when you cant charge them fast or to full capacity.
It's still a major expense. Reducing costs is good.
Higher capacity and faster charging doesn't have to actually mean more capacity and faster charging. It can mean smaller and lighter for the same capacity and charging speed. If you have a technology with 10x the energy density, you can build a car that goes 3000 miles on a charge, or you can build a car that goes 300 miles on a charge and has a battery only 10% the size/weight. (In practice a even a bit less than that, since the reduced size/weight will reduce how much energy you use per mile.)
A Model 3 doesn't weigh significantly more than a comparable ICE car, so I think weight isn't a huge deal. And it costs less to put in a new battery than it does to buy a new engine, so it seems like we're in an okay spot. And since battery tech reliably gets better every year, the future looks bright.
We can hope the cost trajectory of solar and batteries continues for the next 10+ years as that is what most likely to make oil, gas and coal uneconomical rather than all use stopping
This is why I think China will win the AI race. As once it becomes a commodity no other country is capable of bringing down manufacturing and energy costs the way China is today. I am also rooting for them to get on parity with node size for chips for the same reason as they can crash the prices PC hardware.
Most of her friends are probably women. Try making an account with an obvious female name and you will see a marked difference on most social platforms I am saying this as a guy we really don't understand the world women live in online or offline.
funny story: I got the wife of a friend to install tinder, a couple of years back when I was dating. I was having a hard time getting matches, so I figured I'd see how the other side lives. She created an empty profile, with a blurry hippopotamus as a profile picture, and a single letter as name. Just "H". For hippopotamus. No bio. Within five minutes she was matching with every other guy she swiped right on. Which wasn't all of them, mind you. Within another five minutes, half of the guys she had matched with had messaged her. Regular looking guys. A lot of them had same opening line. "Did you know hippos are the most dangerous animal in the world?"
After that, I got why I wasn't getting any replies >.<
You can try creating a profile as a woman. I did, five years ago, on a site that advertised itself as being dedicated to "affairs" between married people.
All I said was I was 20, was red haired, and open minded. Nothing more, and no photo.
Indeed, within a couple of minutes there were guys asking me if I liked to be whipped while handcuffed to a radiator, and offered to send me dick picks if I sent naked photos first. One of them added later "maybe I'm too direct for you, is that why you're silent?"
I didn't respond to any message, but the offers kept coming. It's insane.
Still a very valid experiment. I know the source of both sex' strife though: competition. I don't think we'll ever solve that, not while we're still monkeys.
Vincent stated that, after the experiment, she gained more sympathy for the male condition: "Men are suffering. They have different problems than women have, but they don't have it better. They need our sympathy, they need our love, and they need each other more than anything else. They need to be together."
I respect that, compared to the arguments that sex A is having a better time than B, or that one needs more support and focus than the other. We’re all in the same, but different, shit.
I agree with that, although a giant amount of support and attention is one way, the sexes are going through different stuff into terms of the meta-problem of "how our problems are viewed".
She died by assisted suicide, for private reasons. No need to exaggerate to make a point. There’s Twitter if you want to engage in that type of culture war.
It means that if you zoom out, things look more similar. Similar patterns, similar problems and solutions, but different components.
All the various shades of red are all red. All news is engagement bate (if it bleeds, it leads), but every piece of news is different. You are in a forest in region X and I am in a desert in region Y, both could be dealing with the same problem of keeping warm at night. It's all different, and yet still the same.
I didn’t ask for an interpretation of the post, I asked for other times where anyone would use “same” and “different” interchangeably as words (in a sentence, presumably)
It kind of seems like the sentence I quoted was gibberish that’s short enough to seem vaguely profound. Unless somebody could give other examples of when those words are interchangeable (then obviously dogs is eggs), but as it stands it’s a duck pregnancy is optional type situation
This seems unnecessarily rude. If you have examples of when somebody would use the words “same” and “different” interchangeably in a sentence that are so obvious that it justifies being rude, the bigger dunk would be to post them
You may be the victim right now, and I may be the perpetrator, but over time you'll sometimes be the perpetrator (what, do you think you're perfect?) and I'll sometimes be the victim (you don't think I suffer?), and over time it all averages out.
But just because you're the victim this time, you're getting all the sympathy. Is that fair?
> They have different problems than women have, but they don't have it better.
How can I agree with this? Material conditions matter: whatever problem you have, being poorer will make it worse. Women have been earning less than men for decades, and most highly paid execs are men, not women.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-end...
It's really telling how most replies to your message are about "sexual market" or online dating. That's all some men can think of when talking about women online.
I understand their struggles because I lived through them. However, after I got better at OLD, I understand how it gets tiring hearing about it after a while, specially from people who are clearly on a bad path. For example, treating like a market (which I don't consider a good approach) but not accepting their current value is not enough for creating any demand. And nowadays, with the gym culture being mainstream, it's getting even harder if you don't even try to be more "valuable".
If I summarized men online as watching pornography and following hot women on social media, people would (correctly) point out that it does not encapsulate what men do online as a whole. A lot of people do these things, but that is only part of their online experience. However, these replies are talking about OLD apps and sexual market as if women only do that online, which relates to the point of the original comment.
They didn't suggest men couldn't understand, they actually offered a way to help foster understanding by creating the false profile. The ones who won't understand are those who make no effort to understand, and that's quite reasonable to say.
A woman's online safety relative to other spaces also misses the point about their online spaces being less safe than those of men; the suggestion wasn't that online spaces are the absolute most dangerous spaces for them.
That said I would raise the point of how easy it is to dehumanise people online and how easy it is to quickly gather various data like work addresses etc.
Most men don't understand what women have to go through in everyday interactions and most women don't understand the same for men. And I think your analytical reaction to an emotional problem proves my point I feel.
I have read the full conversation, and you're still failing to recognize how the original post has a valid point. You have admitted yourself that you create online accounts without gender identification, so your own experience is different from women that do create gendered accounts.
It was never the point that it's possible to go online without recieving such ubiquitous abuse, which is what you suggest women should do. You have still not acknowledged that such high level of abuse can be dangerous, not merely for the mental health problems but for the real possibility of being stalked in the real world. That way, you're just reinforcing the point you tried to deny, which is that it's hard for men to understand such abuse without having experienced it first hand.
> I have read the full conversation, and you're still failing to recognize how the original post has a valid point. You have admitted yourself that you create online accounts without gender identification, so your own experience is different from women that do create gendered accounts.
The assertion was that women find posting on the internet too dangerous. Not that they find it too dangerous when using gendered names. See, you haven't even followed the first thing!
Nevermind the fact that the entire idiotic assertion is obviously invalidated by all the countless women who do post on the internet, and with gendered names even. For the ones who don't post or don't use gendered names it's not "danger" that drives the choice. Annoyance, disgust, unsolicited attention, whatever it is. No need to make things up, or make stupid claims like "men can't understand", it doesn't help anybody.
Every single assertion made (without evidence) is trivially false.
And finally, disagreeing and debating something is not "reinforcing" the assertions that it's too dangerous for women to post on the internet, that's just stupid. And by continuing to argue with me you're just reinforcing that you're an angry racist misogynist.
Over the whole population, I bet the difference between sexes is very small when it comes to what % posts online comment. You're saying "most social platforms" - what's the biggest one in the world? Probably still Facebook. Yet I'm fairly sure it has a higher female than male DAU, at least in the West.
r/kpop has 3 million subscribers. Take a look at the most followed accounts on Instagram. How many of them have female-dominated comment sections?
> I am saying this as a guy we really don't understand the world women live in online or offline.
You're saying this as a guy who doesn't understand the world the general population lives in, outside your highly-educated male-dominated tech bubble. You're considering only the spaces you have been visiting for most of your life.
Parent was saying that most men don't understand the amount of casual sexual harassment women are subjected to in unmoderated online spaces -- much more so than men receive.
Which makes me sad.
Apparently Y chromosome + enculturation = prerogative to send unsolicited photos of ones genitalia to random internet strangers.
No, rather both are on opposite sides of an equation, and being buried in competition from folks trying to solve their part of it in isolation.
Women == get too much attention, often of the wrong type. How to get the right kind of attention?
Men == not getting any attention, of any type. How to get some attention?
So women either get ‘the wrong kind’ of attention, but plenty of it - or somehow figure out the magic of getting the right kind of attention? Not easy.
And men work hard to get any attention, often overdoing it on the only way they can figure out - which usually has poor (but not zero!) results. Folks good at playing the game get excellent results, however.
Meanwhile, everyone is getting played by the folks in the middle.
Notably, there are plenty of women taking advantage of the attention they get on Tinder. They just have no problem solving for what it works for, which is getting laid with near zero effort.
The way this previously got figured out was a ‘managed market’ - arranged marriages. Religious/social rules, etc.
Sexual harassment (having been a target of it), is pretty much the definition of ‘unwanted attention’. Targets typically just want to be left alone.
It’s also a crime in some places, not (!!!) in others, or called different things in other places depending on the details.
For example, is sending an unsolicited dick pic on a dating app sexual harassment? Is getting felt up at work, with the implication ‘or else’? Is being stalked by members of the opposite gender? Or having career advancements blocked by a lack of ‘playing the game’?
I can give you concrete examples from a number of cultures that each culture will write off as ‘he/she/they were asking for it’, or ‘she/they/he deserved it’, or ‘it’s just boys/girls being girls/boys.’.
I’ve seen it up close and personal, and have lived it.
The underlying ‘attention economy’ dynamic is still the same.
Edit: meant to add - plenty of 80/20 also applies here of course (though more extreme). Top 1-2% men (esp. from earning or traditional looks perspective) deal with the same issues that top 50%-80% of women deal with, bottom 20% of women (from traditional looks perspective) deal with issues that 80-90% of men deal with, etc.
Sure, there are misogynistic cultures out there, but that doesn't justify it from a categorical imperative perspective.
If it's okay, then it's okay for all sexes. And I'm hard-pressed to name a world culture that's equally accepting and promoting of men-sexually-harassing-women and women-sexually-harassing-men.
Can you?
It feels like you're trying to make this an argument about statistics, when it's an argument about ethics and morality.
I never said it’s okay at all. Where are you getting that from?
Reality doesn’t particularly care about one persons idea of right or wrong. And if you look at the planet, good luck coming up with a consistent definition either.
I’m also 100% sure some random persons idea on the internet or what is moral or right has zero to do with the dynamics of dating or social interactions either.
What sort of discussion do you want this to be about?
I know. Parent, along with the reply, also said that women as a result are much less active online, but that's a belief caused by a lack of grass touching.
> "I know nobody that comments on online forums. Nobody would ever comment to strangers on the internet. It's too dangerous."
> Most of her friends are probably women
-> "Women don't comment on the internet (especially compared to men) because it's a hostile place".
reply