4L3moNemo @ 4L3moNemo @programming.dev

Posts

0

Comments

39

Joined

2 yr. ago

:) beeing not a young person, beeing born in one of the soviet block countries (forced in to that block by force), having to learn commies litterature almost from zero grade and during the whole education system, later having finished bussines and economy studies in capitalism, now having a small IT bussiness, even your nickname (as it sounds) for me is behind the borderline of my tolerance. ;) Yet, I'm not trying to call you someone or even atack your beliefs by presumptions. The questions were just the questions, simply out of interest of how would someone who presents himself (socialist or comunist) would answer them. P.S. your comment (before this one) where you replyed my question by question, was quite good as for a discusion, even if you fall time to time into some magic asumptions about person behind questions. Anyway, I thank you for you effort when you answered the questions and presented your point of view on the subject. :)))

So you sugest that somebody living of money/ownership is a leach by definition. But what about someone who (lets simplify things, lets say he just) saved – money (by spending less), or time and resources (for example by efective barter exchange) and now has got plenty of it. By spending less now he got a bigger surpluss, you may even call it a profit comming from diferent (better or worse) priorities management of his. How's that bad? Why these coul'd not be invested? Work as a capital? Why if he can buy labour or aditional value on market for less he shouldn't do it? Why if somebody sells something at at a value he by himself doesn't appreciate – somebody else has to be blamed, taxed more? Aren't we trying to pray on more successful ones, and if it is so, then how is that diferent of them trying to pray on less risk taking ones, less rich ones?

P.S. I'm not suposing to abolish taxes or not keeping up available some social minimum (basic) services which are enabling people, giving them more oportunities to start. At the same time, I do not think we have to punish someone who is more efective or can make money out of the money, resources out of resources, or time out of his more efectively managed time. Someone who could exchange it into others resources or time, and even someone who automated this (or these proceses) by using his (or bought) mind on how to make it all work seamingly "without a further work" of his. I mean – invested.

Imaginary value of own labour and effort versus exchange value in the eyes of other market players. Your afore mentioned "labour theory of value" apprises the first but ignores the second (both as a component of some global-whole value essence, or as a standalone thing). :)

Are you sugesting (by refering to that theory) that "fair value for a labourer to get is" only the first? What about other questions I've rised?

Could you just comment instead of refering "read the book" and leave guesing of what do you exactly think or imply as answers? I have my opinions, I have my questions – now I'm fishing for others – looking for discusion, opinions, questions (why would I comment otherwise). You are able to keep a discussion, if you know the topic, arn't you? I mean without using an avoidance tool in style of "go read a bible or you have to have a belief and then you'll understand". Just talk, explain in your own words as you inderstand it, if you understand it, and if you have an opinion on questions asked at all.

P.S. answering to your: "This is a terrible gotcha and shows that you didn't even read the theory before you thought you could debunk it." Let's not fall so low as to the personal attacks ;) or conclusions about a person. You don't know what I have red and what not, to judge. A question is a question – it can be anounced even by a parrot. If you are to philosophize and a question is of current topic, and you are not a parrot yourself, then it should not be a problem to discuss it with logic and arguments by both sides. You see ;) I can do it also, well of course unless you are a parrot :)))

What is that "the full value" that worker should get? If for example I have worked my ass, building five garages, and now i rent four of them for someone doing busines in there with their own hammer and my multitool – what is the full value that the renter/worker should get? What is the full value if someone who rents my garage, bought his own tools, created workplace, found someone happy to make stools whole day for him and now only sells them? What is the full value if someone (garage owner, or renter with busines) decided, that 10 years of working (their ass) hard is enought and now they will live a bit slower, maybe even employing profesional manager to do their job. Where is the line?

I understand giving everybody as much equal oportunities as possible, enabling everybody equaly as much as possible – but that does not magicaly make them all work equaly hard, equaly skilled, equaly balance their work/life/family/free time, does not magicaly eaqualy balance them all taking same risks, responsibilities.

What's fair to take, to share with less efective (or happy) ones – that is the question? Should we make it harder for the faster ones, working harder ones, healthier ones?

How the fck not alowing to gain from someones earned capital or someones labour (by delegation of some tasks) will create equal oportunities? Whats wrong in and with curent democratic/capitalistic (semi social share and care policies having) system of western countries? System curently alowing workers to own shares and voting with their hands (as coowners) in business or voting by their feet and going to other busineses to work and own them (or building them themselves). Go and do?

Oh, but what if they work in my coat, in my barn, gather my mushrooms for a salary? He (worker/labourer) profits from my coat (it warms him, he saves expences not using his own), he doesn't have to face elements and has an enviroment and a way of (having a job) earning in my barn, and his coleague sells my mushrooms gathered by team, to convert it into the money.

So the worker profits from me. Profits from my labour put into the earnign of the coat, buying it, cleaning it, me saving (debting) and building a barn, aranging a mashrooms farm, finding people, taking risks, etc ... Are you (socialists/comunists) talking about abolishing "worker/labourer" now, cause he profits from capitalist farmer? :)

P.S. in scenario above, we would all earn our part, but if somebody wants to own any part more – of gear, buildings, organization, responsibility, risks – just buy shares, or vote by feet and build your own bussines.

So, folowing your theory, if ... I have a coat - it's "PERSONAL" property; I wash my coat myself - it's still "PERSONAL"; I rent my coat - it now becomes "PRIVATE" property; I ask someone to clean my coat for money - it's "PRIVATE" property (remember I'm still renting it); Somebody wears my coat, whilst gathers mushrooms (uses my coat in process of making value) to sell them latter - it (the coat) is "PRIVATE" property;

Questions:

1. Why should we abolish my coat? Wheres logic in that? And how, at the same time, does it magicaly can be mine PERSONAL, mine PRIVATE, and (in sugested future) a collectives property?
2. I mown someones lawn and they clean my coat (barter exchange) - my coat is PERSONAL or PRIVATE? How does that differ if money involved?
3. Now change the "coat" into the "factory" (a "garage", a "hammer", a "boat"), what's the diference?

That's (above) a good example of argumentation, iliustrating and beeing born out of that other cultural understanding of ethics I've talked about.

My answer is: show me that you can learn and think, show me good work ethics and the job is yours. Company will even sent you to (and pay for your) courses. You'll get my own time to explain things, to give you directions to resourses and themes, your coleagues will teach you on a go whilst collaborating and it all will hapen on company's time.

I'm not sure about their graduates and doing next projection may be hasty, wrong and anegtoticaly based only on limited exposure of cases, but ... But if they fake studies same as some of indian, suposedly "programmers", fake work experience in interviews and/or doing work given – the reason behind the large % unemployment of graduates maybe that they can't do shit. I mean, lacking quality of ethics results a wrong learned behaviour – cheat vs own (admit) reality and learn (bring on board effort) for the future.

P.S. Romance folows Latin – dad joke, year 999 since founding the city ;)

Romance Latinam sequitur.

/Pater iocus, annus CMXCIX ab urbe condita/

Putins russia is like the rapist who in during the process says: – Hey, stop fighting. I do not reject peace talks, but in order for them to begin there needs to be agreement on both sides of how I'm staying put in.

There is no any controversy – ditch rpm/RHEL based distro you use (if still on it). Don't get close to any other.

P.S. Last ~>10..15 years they had been causing unnesesary, no easy path, migration from one rpm distro to other, repeatedly droping support, making it a bad choise for servers and consequently for desktops and everything else.

P.P.S. from the practical standpoint - why should anyone care what they speak (thats just a PR and spam). It's what they do and how they impact matters.

vim

Argh, tired of that rpm'ers shit – paths differ, config locations differ, you got to learn relearn on each swich again.

As for deb distros, they been for me more stable in that concern – life long know-how reusability, muscle memory, old notes of shell snipets still valid. Decade old servers, current ones, LTS (long term support) desktop distro or last dev edition don't difer much from point of view of fs organization and if differ at anything these are small evolutionary changes. My main argument reusability of know-how and "muscle memory" between desktop and servers and during the years, and growing reusable know-how during the years on top of that.

I regred for still having to suport several old centos servers during the last decade. Still regret of having to do lots of co-hosted old projects migrations from one of these – for lost time, money.

Have never regreted for any debian based one during the last 20 years. Have switched desktops ~10 years ago too. Before, been hardcore rpm distros fan – desktop: fedora, later suse; servers: centos, sometimes fedora. Lucky to have used deb distros for servers too, that made at least part of the bussiness stay stabile.

That's your chance to turn away from rpm/RHEL distros and run without looking back. As last 20 years history shows, that branch of linux OS is either dying off on hands, leaving you without suport, either makes migration path complicated by a need to change distro. Like it was with centos +5..10 years, oh no ... -> maybe fedora -> oh no ... -> whatever whocares rpm pop/rocky/alma name it ... Thats it, beat it, no more this shit.

deb or any other kind linux is a way to go.

Somewhat agree, but don't get me started on a Gimp. To think that gimp was build to be a tool analogous to Photoshop (PS) is naive. It was born to demonstrate GTK GUI widgets and to check boxes on feature list (of supposedly paint program analogous to PS) from programmers perspective at most. Ok, they did the thing, checked the boxes, used all widgets, demonstrated that it works and from that day on it had and still has totaly inneficient workflow compared to PS and nobody cares about that. Answer to sugestions is almost always half assed, apple soused - you are holding it wrong, we are not PS. :)

My 2 cents, you can learn Gimp, you can adjust yourself to it, but if you have ever worked on PS and were good at it (with all its workflow, shortcuts, up to the level where you work one hand on keyboard, having most toolboxes hiden out of your view, etc..) you'll still feel gimpy. It's like comparing of giving commands to the gnome with an axe versus to an elf with a whole bunch of efficient specialised tools, spells and workflows – both trying to create art. I don't use PS daily for how much, maybe >8 years and use Gimp weekly for about 12years – I say, it is still gimpy as f.. And I'm programmer not a designer, designers usualy just hate it. I on another hand understant it (and it's history) and take it as it is, as an inferior gimpy cousin of PS :)

Ask me do I care, lol.

a) Linux, Firefox + uBlockOrigin + Enhancer for YouTube;

b) Android, Firefox + uBlock Origin + Video Background Play Fix;

c) I never ever use any account or login into the youtube. Playlists? Got favorites/bookmarks in browser :) Voting, comments? I don't care. Native youtube android apk? Never. So, no tracking and stats for you and no dumb auto recomendations for me. Thanks.

P.S. oh, and all cookies are auto deleted on last tab close. Bye.

So, war with or strike me how? Close whole site or put everything under paywall and die? Hahaha