Oh boy, I can’t wait until we bail out the tech giants because they’re too big to fail.

If wielding power in our “democracy” is so complicated that we must exclude non-experts isn’t that an indictment of our democracy? What is it about the legislative and executive process that people are ignorant of?

While I am skeptical of the celebrity as politician trend which has been prominent over the last few decades; especially on the right. I don’t think lack of experience is the problem with the trend.

Put aside what you think about Trump’s political project for a moment. He was effective at giving conservatives what they wanted. Tax cuts and Supreme Court seats. Despite having zero legislative and executive experience. You could say the same thing about Reagan and perhaps Schwarzenegger.

I agree, expecting a strongman to come in and save us from all our political issues is problematic. We shouldn’t recreate feudalism. We need to learn to organize ourselves into a base of democratic power that we can wield towards our broad economic interests.

But at the same time our media apparatus runs on spectacle, it takes someone with the charisma of John Stewart to be taken seriously by mainstream power brokers. Perhaps he could breakthrough the spectacle and kickstart a new progressive era that could enable those democratic ends.

Because the alternative to charisma for gaining political legitimacy is going through the political system. And the longer you’re in that system the more time that system has to influence you towards ends that want to stop progress. Just look at Jamal Bowman and John Fetterman.

The reason why subsidies in the US lead to corruption and subsidies in China lead to innovation has nothing to do with how long the industries have been subsidized.

The US subsidizes industries to bailout corporate executives that made bad decisions.

China subsidizes workers who innovate towards ends that we know we need to be working towards as a species. Such as building electric vehicles to address climate change.

Even if the economy worked how you’re suggesting addressing climate change would be a worthy investment. It’s an end that has been obvious that we should be investing in for decades. The US refuses to do it because it would take power out of the hands of the corporate executives who they are busy bailing out.

Well, where do you think the money for subsidies comes from? Taxes.

This is logically incoherent. Money doesn’t exist in nature my dude.

Take out a physical dollar and look at it… what does it say on it? If you do this you will find it says it’s a note from the federal reserve.

Every US dollar in existence was originally spent into the economy by the federal reserve which is managed by the US government. That is a matter of fact. To suggest money comes from taxes is incoherent. Taxes are how the government destroys money not how it creates money.

Now maybe to control inflation we should take money out of the economy through taxes. Especially in places where money is being mismanaged… if we do, the aforementioned corporate executives seem to be at the top of the list of places where large amounts of money is being mismanaged. Given that in the context of the automotive industry China is managing their wealth better than the US.

TLDW: Landlords are colluding to fix pricing with algorithms. The FBI is actually doing something good for once and breaking them up.

I don’t remember them saying that specifically. But we did spend a lot of time on supply and demand curves which heavily implies that.

To be fair to my econ101 class for a moment when I took that class it was during the Obama years and that was a bit before progressivism made the come back it has now. A lot of people were still Fukuyamaists.

I think economics is a pretty complicated subject that is deeply intersecting with ideology. It maybe impossible fully to disentangle how the economy works with how it should work. To expect kids just out of high school to critically examine all the nuances of a field beyond the assumptions they grew up with, while simultaneously learning the basics of that field is a pretty tall order. And if the experts at the time are moving away from that way of thinking anyway, why bother?

Of course in retrospect they probably should have bothered. But that’s just how the flow of history has to work I guess.

Edit: There’s some nuance and detail I could probably add to that conclusion. But I’m running out of steam for tonight.

I learned this in my Econ101 class; if you impose rent control you will disinsintivize investment into building homes exacerbating the problem of housing supply. Some one in my class literally asked why rent control was common in places like NY and my Econ teacher dodged the question. Econ101 in the US is basically neoliberal indoctrination.

The easiest response to the textbook is to point out that the current problem isn’t supply. In the US we have 6 houses for every homeless person. We have plenty of housing stock. The problem monopoly power over housing.

Beyond that I believe that housing investment should be managed cooperatively; rather than by the profit incentive.

Peter Zeihan is full of shit. He’s been predicting China will collapse in a decade for well over a decade now. Here’s a video explaining some of the basic mistakes he makes in his analysis.

Care to elaborate? I assure you genocide and the end of humanity are no laughing matter.

The U.S. is currently supporting a genocide in Palestine/Israel. Before that we spent 2 decades in a war —based on a lie— in which the U.S. killed up to 1 million innocent Iraqis.

We are currently occupying many territories, to whom we deny equal rights/status as states including Guam and Puerto Rico.

Over the last century we constantly supported coups of democratically elected governments mostly in South and Central America. (See the Monroe doctrine).

Not to mention the soft imperialism of the IMF and the world bank.

China deserves criticism for their genocide of the Uyghur Muslims.

There may be further valid criticisms if they invade Taiwan. This could go either way depending on what the Taiwanese people ultimately decide. Right now most Taiwanese want to maintain the status quo. Which is strategic ambiguity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_Taiwanese_identity

Edit: I might also add the U.S. is currently undermining the Taiwanese people’s desire for strategic ambiguity. Putting its own geopolitical interests ahead of the desires and well-being of the Taiwanese people.

The U.S. record of nationalist imperialism is worse than China’s.

China engages in this kind of “social democracy” all the time just like countries like Norway. But when Norway does it you don’t see people saying “rare Norway win”. I would call having a different standard for China vs a European country sinophobic.

If you’re a left progressive —as most people here on Lemmy seem to be— you probably agree with most of China’s economic policy.

China does sometimes engage in Chinese nationalism in a way that is worthy of criticism; but pretending they are worse than the U.S. in this regard is detached from reality.

The American ruling class has already decided they want war with China. They’re just trying to find a way to justify it to us. We as progressives shouldn’t make it easy for them to justify a war between 2 nuclear powers. Such a war could very well lead to the end of the human race.

SearX isn’t maintained anymore, SearXNG is the meta-search engine that is still maintained.

The best argument I’ve heard is that it is the one halfway decent messaging app that a lot of non-tech people use.

So either you need to explain to grandma what a discord or telegram is or you get iMessage to work on the device you want to use.

The green bubble thing is also more than just the color of the bubbles. Many of the features of iMessage don’t work if the other person is on android.

I’m almost certain the corporate internet will use this opportunity to further enshitify their platforms. But it will also give end-users more powerful tools to resist that enshitification.

In the end I think it’s better to give users more freedom to protect themselves. Not to put everything on a benevolent corporate daddy to protect the end-user.

Perhaps this is the reason enshitifacation wasn’t a thing until we were put into these locked down devices?

Having it enabled by default is a pretty massive security hole. I preordered the raspberry pi 1 when it launched and I don’t remember SSH ever being enabled be default in their images. Where did you hear it was enabled by default?

deleted by creator

They could hire more people, so the production load would be more spread out.

A few months ago there was a post on Reddit pointing out the problem with the writers being rushed from someone claiming to work at LTT. The solution the Reddit post suggested was to hire more people. Linus mentioned it on the WAN show but dismissed the post as just a whiner. (I believe the person making the post may have already been fired prior to making the post.)

If LTT was unionized there would have been an institutional path for this person to go through to get their grievances addressed. But Linus views that as some kind of personal failure. Rather than an institutional change that needs to happen to ensure the company is well run.

Or just don’t use an account. I’ve been doing that since Google force merged YouTube and Google accounts in like 2011.

https://archive.is/5e67T

I just want to know how sideloading is going to work when it’s implemented in the EU.