The main difference being that code is typically stored in plain text files, where you can more easily compare and merge differences, while some other document types are harder to diff usefully. That doesn’t mean you can’t use git to keep their version history, it just means resolving merge conflicts might be a bitch.

This is really damn good. Thanks for sharing it!

I think he’s an asshole¹ but he’s not nearly on the same level as Elmo or any other billionaire. Between actually working and contributing, not being as hardcore exploitative capitalist, and not having nearly the same level of hoarded wealth², there’s just far less potential for assholery.

1: Mind, I still value his work, but the way he sometimes treats people reaches into asshole territory for me.
2: A superficial search suggests a net worth of $50 million. In perspective, that’s $0.05 billion, compared to the late Jobs’ $10.8 billion (0.5%) or Musk’s ~$400 billion (0.01%)

I also struggle with people liberally handing out “11/10” for “great” and go up to 12 for “awesome”.

My scale for “great” is 8, “awesome” is 9 and 10 is reserved for really special things (greay by itself + some additional bonus).

I always feel weird, like I’m overly critical, when someone else says “Oh this is great, I love this, 11/10” and I feel the same but only hand out 8.7/10.

Running a 3060, no issues I can tell.

YMMV obviously: There was some driver fuckery I had to sort out because I’m stupid (curious and clueless is a dangerous mix), and I might not be running the most demanding games or programs (Jedi: Survivor might be one of the heavier ones? I have no idea)

I also might have lower standards: I’m playing 1080p 60fps and generally don’t notice FPS issues unless it drops below ~45, because I grew up using to an old-as-fuck laptop to play Skyrim at 20fps (unless there were too many spells flying around and it dropped to 5-10).

Still, the consensus seems to be that AMD is better for Linux, and I’m coming around too.

I don’t have a solution. I’m just here to ask if anyone’s up for a barbecue? I can think of a few nice places for a fire.

(Joke aside, pure vandalism wouldn’t fix the underlying issue that is the perceived legitimacy of the robber barons. So long as people accept their claim to ownership, they will continue to own. It’s that claim to property that needs to be challenged.)

I really intensely love adverbs though

kept as a bargaining chip

That’s my suspicion too. Cutting all ties also cuts all talks. Norges Bank has a duty to their own investors to balance the financial interest with ethical principles. If they’re otherwise profitable, it makes sense to hold on to the shares and use them as diplomatic leverage instead.

Not all activism needs to be cut-and-dry. Often, negotiations can move a lot more than pure antagonism (though they often need to be backed up by some “otherwise…” to hold any weight).

Ideologically? I’m a fan of opening doors, particularly to the people whose exploitation feeds our prosperity and to the vulnerable and persecuted.

Realistically? I don’t think that stance is politically feasible right now. It’s a heartless sentiment, but spending political capital on those who can’t vote (yet) is an expense we (the political left) can’t afford right now.

That doesn’t mean we have to go all in on the right-wing policies, and some of the stunts Denmark has pulled are too far for me. But if I have to, I’d rather pick battles about social safety nets and domestic welfare. If we can alleviate the issues that feed the right wing, we’ll be better positioned to extend that to foreigners too.

Leather can take quite a bit of heat. I wouldn’t leave it laying in the flames, nor would I hold anything for too long because eventually the heat does get through. But if you just wanna shift a log or something, it gives you more control than a stick.

Same energy as holding people at bowpoint like it’s a gun

Open war is a dangerous thing. So easy to begin, yet impossible to end. Once the missiles start flying and the tempers rise, enormous amounts of death, destruction and military spending are inevitable.

There has to be some threshold of escalation, but it can’t be “two people we suspect may be linked to the Russian government set fire to a municipal government building”.

Ukraines government is either so backed against the wall

Probably this. They can start worrying about morality and integrity once their existence is no longer on the line. I don’t blame them for prioritising their own survival.

I’d like to clarify off the bat that I’m not suited to advocate communism, specifically, as the solution to our problems. I wanted to point out the distinction between economical and political government systems. But I do think we need to clarify this point:

At its core, capitalism is about freedom to trade.

Capitalism is about private ownership of goods and infrastructure required to produce other things, allowing the owner to charge others for the privilege of using them. Once you own enough, you’ll be able to live off of the work of others without having to raise a finger yourself.

These aren’t synonymous: You can have free trade without paying vampires for having money. If companies were owned by worker collectives, for example, they could still trade freely.

The defining characteristic of capitalism is the accumulation of capital. All those rules you propose are restrictions on that, as in: no longer pure capitalism. If the solution to the problems of capitalism is to curtail the accumulation of capital, perhaps we need a different name for the resulting system.

I don’t think limiting a company’s upper number of employees is a great idea. Part of the prosperity-generating mechanism is the economy of scale, which would be curtailed. I see the issue of monopolies (which I believe you’re trying to tackle here), but I think they can and should be combated differently. More on that below.

I would also get rid of shareholders entirely. Being rich should not entitle you to getting paid money for nothing, and that’s exactly what shareholders are. Worse yet, so long as that mechanism of “be rich -> get richer” exists, the system will be under threat by actors seeking to bend its rules by manipulating lawmakers and judges.

If companies need initial funds to get off the ground, those funds shouldn’t come from private investors. Universal Basic Income would go a long way to reduce the hurdle already, because you need to worry less about being able to survive and can focus on building something to thrive instead. You could more easily bring other people on board with your project, because they don’t need to worry about the company going under and leaving them without a livelihood.

Public credits, to be repaid through taxes on revenue, could help you acquire the tools and resources you need. Profit could be split between the workers, which allows them to afford luxuries beyond the necessities of survival. That desire for luxuries will still encourage profitability.

If the funding comes from the public, that would make the public the owners of these companies (presumably through representatives, but I’ll abbreviate that here). That eliminates the cycle of incentives wherein the shareholders will reward the CEO for making them more money at the expense of employees and customers, because employees and customers are shareholders too.

If the public owns companies, monopolies through acquisitions become a matter not of who has the most money, but whether the public decides to fuse two companies it owns.

Likewise, the public could regulate the actions of monopolistic companies to avoid the detrimental effects of monopolies. They could also split companies to provide redundancies in case of disaster. They could fund competitors. They could make and break monopolies as is warranted.

And if the company goes under? Well, its assets belonged to the public, any money it “wasted” was spent on goods and services the public produced and UBI keeps the people out of poverty so they have a chance to build something new. That particular project was a dud, so you learn and try again.

Heavy taxes on for higher brackets would offset attempts to enrich yourself. I’m not convinced I’d go 100% as you propose, but 90% isn’t unprecedented. Wealth Tax also needs to be a thing, to encourage re-investing your gains (that is: buying the things other people produce so they can afford luxuries too). A well-funded and -run IRS to ensure those taxes are properly complied with will also be necessary.

The one thing all this hinges on, that any system hinges on, is the government / management. As soon as you put people in charge of decisions, you place trust in them. There need to be mechanisms that effectively hold these decisionmakers accountable to the general public. That is the most crucial part of any system that should serve the people. That is the most vulnerable part, which conservatives have been attacking and eroding for decades.

No matter what we want to accomplish, no matter where our aims may diverge down the line, we must work together to ensure public accountability first and foremost.

Godspeed to you, all of you.

The other comment is definitely far too simplicistic in its proposition, but I’ll point out that Communism doesn’t have to be authoritarian. That’s just the result of violent revolution, necessarily carried out by people so convinced that their ideology is right that they’ll use violence to assert it. Revolution requires unity, so dissidents present a real risk to a nascent movement.

Combine those two and you have a recipe for authoritarian suppression of all who disagree with the dominant ideology, or the dominant leader figure supposedly best representing it. What they might initially see as a necessary step to a better world then becomes a feedback loop: Anyone who argues that they’re past the point where this policy is still necessary and justified is a dissident by definition.

Conversely, authoritarian policy also doesn’t require communism. It’s perfectly possible to have a non-communist ideology in power that suppresses all opposition. The problem isn’t communism, it’s violence: once started, it’s hard to reign in again and keep on the right track.

Yeah, there’s a blurry line between hatred against foreigners and fighting back against displacement, and it’s vaguely parallel to the line between immigrants trying to integrate and invaders trying to overtake.

The tourists may have no malicious intent, so things aren’t quite as straightforward, but if the end result is that they’re contributing to a destructive trend, non-violently bringing attention to that is the best response I could think of.

If anything, their employees should have gotten more

I get why it’s done from a narrative point of view, but some obnoxious pedantic voice in my head never stops wondering why people would write down obscure lore notes in the middle of a disaster or when they’re about to die. It makes sense for some organisation’s agents to document their discoveries and leave (incremental) reports on-site in case they don’t make it back for a full report, but some random raider in FO4 noting down how pissed he is with his boss?

Of course, I’m a sucker for lore, so I’ll take it, particularly when it’s in audio log form during exploration sections so I can keep exploring and listen instead of stopping to read.

Intersex is a biological rarity wherein a person exhibits sexual characteristics of both sexes. They’re neither strictly biologically male nor strictly female. Hence, if they’re supposed to use the bathroom matching their sex, they’ll need a separate bathroom.

(There’s a lot of complexity and unpleasantness I’m omitting for brevity, but the point is that they don’t fit into simple binary assumptions like the one underlying the headline)