That’s interesting. I’ve never had any issues with systemd directly mainly with poorly setup default configs I’m a big fan of a centralised place to manage services. Works super well with podman quadlets

But I’m not too invested use whatever works for you I reckon

What are the systemd bugs that are so bad? I kinda get the bloated comment, but I don’t really mind when it serves its purpose

I wonder if we could set up all your devices to get that data from something like radio/Bluetooth. Then have your router/small device just send out the time from ntp and all your devices can just accept the message

That way you don’t need an internet connected microwave

If you don’t have any scripts that rely on branch name it should be pretty trivial actually. But I wouldn’t be shocked if you had a few dozen scripts that nobody has looked at in the last century lol

Is this a bot?

Just on the risk point. To reduce the scope a bit

People not having the assents to start large businesses is of course a thing. You need to be quite lucky to start a business to begin with, I wouldn’t dispute that and I hate the dumb thing the right does where they assume everyone can start a successful business

However I would like to know, in your ideal system where would the starting capital come from? And how do we decide which businesses should have capital allocated to them? Your comment on “communism has no government” would make this seemingly quite difficult

Isn’t this only the case in github? All my repos are based from master, and I would assume that’s because I init on the command line and push up to the remote?

I don’t consider it bad for people to make a profit off my work though. They’re always risking something in order for me to be in a position to make profits to begin with. If they weren’t I wouldn’t need the employer, I’d just have a risk free business that I’d run myself

I don’t think the oil companies are a failure of capitalism either. I understand how it looks that way, as they do some real sketchy stuff in the name of profit. But at the end of the day our governments should be regulating them to death, but they aren’t and the reason sadly enough is likely that the average citizen simply doesn’t care. In countries where an actual majority of the population care you see much better results Even under full on communism you could still run in to this issue anyway. Oil is a big industry for a reason, it’s really useful and relatively cheap you could easily see a communist society choosing to use it ignoring the downsides

I think capitalism’s flaws are obvious, which I like. Because we can easily rectify them with government regulation Do you have an example of a flaw of capitalism that can’t be solved? Other than just the idea that profiting off someone else’s labour is wrong, as I think that’s really more of a philosophical question that I don’t think 90% of people would agree with

See that isn’t very consistent is it? If you hold non voting stock you can’t vote on company decisions. But the company does now need to pay you a dividend, which according to you would be immoral as it would mean a third party is profiting from their labour correct?

Man I just find it frustrating that not a single socialist I’ve met or talked to can accurately explain their system given any amount of pushback

I can understand wanting to restructure your entire economy because you’re currently facing issues with your current system. But in my opinion the failing isn’t of the economic system but the system built around it. I truly believe with a well implemented tax system and regulations we could keep everyone’s needs met Meaning potentially negative taxation for those of low income and higher taxation as you move upwards

I don’t feel we can blame our economy for the way we’re currently fucking over the plant it terms of climate. Many socialist projects were massively damaging to the environment as well, in both systems the only real fix is regulation. Which I wish we could pass but unfortunately the reality is that in a lot of places voters simply don’t want it (which is dumb)

If you truly want to critique capitalism I think it would be beneficial to understand how it works and some level of the economics Which by the way if you can come up with a cohesive plan for socialism I’d love to see it. As I think fundamentally we want the same things, and I don’t mind which way we go, it’s just thus far socialism doesn’t seem to be very practical

That is a wholly unsatisfactory response

Firstly capitalism does work, it is extremely efficient at what it does which is allocating capital, which I’ve never heard of a good alternative. Central planning seems pretty trash as an alternative example But where “capitalism” falls over isn’t to do with it at all. Capitalism is an economic system, it doesn’t dictate anything about how we setup things like welfare or even ubi if you want. Look at Europe, seems pretty chill to me in a lot of countries that are capitalist

Right so you would make any other structure of company illegal. I don’t like that particularly, but from your moral system I get it. But then we probably have a fundamental disagreement there that can’t be resolved easily

What really annoys me about socialists/communists is you always want to handwave your bullshit system. You don’t even know how to start a business under your system but want to advocate for it! Being better than a moronic Marxist in this respect doesn’t excuse you of understanding what your system entails Also please don’t tell me to do my own research on your proposed system, you should be able to explain if you want entire countries to switch economic models

Right, but why do you require every person in the country to work under a co-op? Is it not enough to let them choose?

In your socialist society if a group of people agreed that they would like to set up businesses under a different model what would you do?

And further, if you’re calling for an enormous change to the way we structure our economy then shouldn’t you be able to articulate how that system will work?

How do you get your initial capital to start the co-op? Like you can’t have investors, so is every worker required to buy in the the initial venture?

By the way you are entirely free to structure companies this way under a social democracy

Wait so what’s your example of a functioning socialist state/economy? You mention the USSR, Maoist China, Cuba and the Chiapas. Which of these do you consider a success?

Isn’t market socialism literally just a form of capitalism? Like if you still have markets and a profit incentive then you’re not really socialist

Not saying that’s bad, just thinking really it has always seemed to me like capitalism with a strong social safety net. Which to me seems ideal, just want to know if I’m missing something?

Do you have any data to back that up? It would be quite interesting

I don’t think regulation is impossible to achieve, look at the EU. And what I am fairly sure of is you have better odds of passing regulation than replacing capitalism entirely

So material waste can be directly tied to cost. If you’re trying to bring down cost then you’re going to try to reduce waste correct? That’s why there is so much work being done for reusable launch vehicles

For space debris and pollution I don’t think we can squarely blame capitalism. Under a purely communist economy there’s no guarentee that anyone would care any more about it than currently And you can attack that issue by a combination of penalising companies that create debris and rewarding those that remove it under a capitalist economy

As for it not being entirely comparable. Sure the government spent a lot of money on that early R&D. But do we think that if we banned companies from doing this kind of work that govt agencies like NASA would be necessarily more cost effective, cause less pollution, and less debris?

That might be the case right? Let’s say there a percentage chance that would have succeeded call it 10%

Now your first attempt fails, maybe because of some miscalculation or lack of engineering precision

Even if the older way more expensive version had a 100% success rate you’d probably still rather the cheaper version right?

Also not sure how this is about capitalism, replace the above for material cost and it’s the same thing

Not really no. It’s not often that a stock is short sold really hard when there isn’t an underlying reason Otherwise large investors could regognise this and just take a long position. The short seller is then screwed if the price doesn’t drop far enough and fast enough before their options expire

Based on this I’ll just assume you have nothing further to say At this point you aren’t really engaging and I think it’s fairly clear why

Anyway have a good one mate. Hopefully this conflict comes to and end sooner than later