GoodEye8 @ GoodEye8 @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

1,165

Joined

2 yr. ago

That has been gone over by Marx over 150 years ago. I'm not going to go over everything Marx said about capitalism, he wrote an entire book called Das Kapital about it. Here's a summary that does a pretty good job at getting Marx's ideas across. You can skip the first 2-3 chapters as the main criticism of capitalism starts around chapter 4. But some things refer back to the previous chapters so you might want to watch them if some parts of Marx's ideas aren't very clear.

As for you points, I'll do a short summary:

• Production of commodities and services is not capitalistic, we've been producing commodities and services for more than a millennia before capitalism was even a concept.
• Profit-motive is a poorly defined concept if we want to divorce it from capitalism. Profit-motive in the sense that I want to make all the money is capitalistic. But if we talk about the "profit-motive" in the sense that I want money so I could buy things I want to use, Marx argues that is not capital and not capitalism.
• Marx has a very specific definition of capital where capital is something that exists for the purpose of making more capital. If you make $10 mil and you buy a fancy house, that $10 mil you got is not capital and the house you bought is also not is not capital, but if you take that $10 mil and you for instance invest it with the purpose of getting $20 mil later, now it's capital. The capitalist definition of capital doesn't acknowledge the purpose money or things, so everything is capital which also makes it impossible to separate capital accumulation from just owning things you need to live your life. Your house is not capital, your car is not capital, your phone is not capital, the money you're saving up for a trip to the Bahamas is not capital. But if you own a company and the means of production within that company and you're buying in labor to use your means of production so you could siphon surplus value from the laborers work, that's capital.

The things you've brought up aren't necessarily the basis of capitalism. They're the basis of capitalism only if you want them to be the basis of capitalism.

Steam hardware survey puts 4090 at 1.16% and 7900xtx at 0.54%. That means if we look at only the 4090s and 7900xtx-s then just between the two of them the 7900xtx makes up about a third of the cards. So yeah, you are a minority of a minority.

As for this number jargon. I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here but I'm sure you're comparing an overclocked card to a stock card and if you're saying it's matching the 4090D then you're not actually matching the 4090. 4090D is weaker than 4090, depending on the benchmark it ranges between 5% weaker to 30% weaker. If you were trying to prove that AMD cards can be as good as Nvidia cards then you've proven that even with overclocking the top of the line AMD card can't beat a stock top of the line Nvidia card.

I think you're now suggesting things that have nothing to do with consolidating communities.

Backup communities don’t really exist right now. There are copies of things on other servers l, but they can’t become functioning communities. This has caused some communities to disappear when their instance went down. The biggest I remember is movies and TV related things.

They don't exists right now, but the foundation is there. I checked the old kbin.social communities that users from lemm.ee had subscribed to. All the posts seem to be there right until kbin.social got shut down. The data exists on your instance even if the original instance went down. It's just a matter of figuring out and creating a new functionality to revive those communities on a new instance. This suggestion has nothing to do with consolidation, it's just a backup solution that can already be done.

Having a ledger helps with discovery, because instances now don’t know about other communities by default, it requires extra effort to seek them out until someone else has found them and subscribed. It’s not a big deal for established communities, but it does hurt building a new one.

I don't see how that specifically requires a ledger but I guess we can call it a ledger. The solution itself is fairly simple, each instance publishes whenever a new community is created or deleted and federated instances can store that data on their side to have a list of all the communities to search for. For already existing we can create a "publish all existing communities" so each instance can update their lists accordingly. That's effectively a ledger but once again, it has nothing to do with consolidating communities.

I don’t have a great solution for admin of creation/movement of communities, but this isn’t meant to be a 100% solution. Distributed consensus is a concept that exists though.

Distributed consensus is a concept but is such complexity necessary? Especially when the end result isn't that much different to what we already have.

There’s no reason a community can’t go on a users instance as default, it just enables a community to potentially migrate for various reasons.

It can, but it doesn't really matter because that's exactly how the current system works. As for migrations, if we solve the "backup community" problem then that functionality can just as well be used for migrations because right now we can just duplicate data. If you want to add the one community restriction that migration actually gets harder to implement.

This doesn’t necessarily create a walled garden, as no one owns the walls. It does encourage everyone within Lemmy to maximally federate. I can’t say it significantly changes integration with other implementations as they were never very robust in the first place.

Kbin/Mbin integrations with Lemmy worked pretty well, but if you force all Lemmy instances to use a solution unique to Lemmy then you're pretty much building a wall because integrations with other similar implementations become less likely. Nobody owns the wall but it would create an "in" group and an "out" group. We already kinda have that with Lemmygrad and Hexbear and the rest of Lemmy, but those two instances can exists independently from the rest of Lemmy so the "in" and "out" groups can easily coexists. But if you force communities across instances you're going to also force friction between the "in" and "out" groups. There can only be one "c/europe" but there's one on Lemmygrad and there's also one on feddit. If you keep the feddit one then Lemmygrad and Hexbear can't have c/europe and if you let Lemmygrad have c/europe then the rest of Lemmy can't have c/europe. It's unnecessary friction.

I guess it would work if Lemmygrad and Hexbear were federated with the rest of Lemmy, but that's not happening.

It's already Nvidia or nothing. There's no point fighting with Nvidia in the high end corner because unless you can beat Nvidia in performance there's no winning with the high end cards. People who buy high end cards don't care about a slightly worse and slightly cheaper card because they've already chosen to pay premium price for premium product. They want the best performance, not the best bang for the buck. The people who want the most bang for the buck at the high end are a minority of a minority.

But on the other hand, by dropping high end cards AMD can focus more on making their budget and mid-range cards better instead of diverting some of their focus on the high end cards that won't sell anyway. It increases competition in the budget and mid-range section and mid-range absolutely needs stronger competition from AMD because Nvidia is slowly killing mid-range cards as well.

But that's effectively what we'll have right now. You can create multiple communities of the same name but one will eventually become the main community that people will visit. And we could already create "backup" communities because I'm pretty sure the data from the main community is already sent to all the instances that have users who are subscribed to said community. The data is already in other instances, it's just a matter of reusing the data.

So the only crux of your solution is how the possible instance for the community would be chosen. And that's a whole can of worms. It can't be the same instance the community creator is a part of because that's the solution we have right now. It can't be completely random because I'm pretty sure there are instances that legally can't have porn or piracy on their instance, or maybe the instance owner simply doesn't want that on their instance. If there's supposed to be distributed ledger that effectively prevents creating duplicate communities and that ledger is the same for all instances, then there must be a possibility that the new community ends up in an instance the community creators instance might be defederated from, otherwise a "pariah" instance (who are pretty much defederated from the majority of Lemmy) can reserve community names by defederating everyone and then creating communities. So that decision starts to have a lot factors which lets instances influence the decision. And in some ways there's even an incentive to influence the decision because the more communities one instance has the more power they have over the entire lemmy side of the fediverse. If they defederate from another instance that instance can't create those communities for the people on that instance (unless you go down the reddit route of having gaming vs games vs truegames).

And that's just the decision of the primary source. There's a whole other bucket of questions about the distributed ledger. For example how does the ledger change? If one community needs to be moved to a different instance who makes that decision? If it's the primary source instance then how do other instances verify the ledger? If you have Instances A, B, C and C and instances A and B are defederated from C. Instance A has a community that gets assigned to instance D. Instance A sends a ledger change to instances B and D and then instance D send the change to C, but how does instance C know that the sent data is correct? Instance D could send the message that instance A set the community to instance B and there's no way for instance C to verify that message. In fact most of my questions in my previous comment apply to the ledger as well because the ledger would have to exists on every instance.

And then there are other factors like what if Mbin sets up a community/magazine? Mbin doesn't care about any ledger. Will we turn Lemmy into a walled garden and prevent Mbin from participating because they don't want our ledger?

the high end crowd showed there's no price competition, there's only performance competition and they're willing to pay whatever to get the latest and greatest. Nvidia isn't putting a 2k pricetag on the top of the line card because it's worth that much, they're putting that pricetag because they know the high end crowd will buy it anyway. The high end crowd has caused this situation.

You call that a loss for the consumers, I'd say it's a positive. The high end cards make up like 15% (and I'm probably being generous here) of the market. AMD dropping the high and focusing on mid-range and budget cards which is much more beneficial for most users. Budget and mid-range cards make up the majority of the PC users. If the mid-range and budget cards are affordable that's much more worthwhile to most people than having high end cards "affordable".

Actually AMD has said they're ditching their high end options and will also focus on budget and midrange cards. AMD has also promised better raytracing performance (compared to their older cards) so I don't think it will be the new norm if AMD also prices their cards competitively to Intel. The high end cards will be overpriced as it seems like the target audience doesn't care that they're paying shitton of money. But budget and midrange options might slip away from Nvidia and get cheaper, especially if the upscaler crutch breaks and devs have to start doing actual optimizations for their games.

Maybe you can start by not making your government a trashy reality TV show? The media is pulling a TMZ because there's trashy gossip in the government. If you fix your government there's nothing to TMZ.

How would that even work? Imagine you spin up a brand new instance and create a new user and want to subscribe to a community. Because there is no one source of truth does the new instance simply not have the posts and comments that were made before the instance was created? If it's supposed to get historic data as well from where is it getting from? Does it pick a random instance and pull all the posts and comments from that instance?

What if that instance is defederated from another instance with the same community and doesn't contain the posts and comments from the defederated instance? Does your new instance have to go ask all the posts and comments from all the other instances to rebuild the community dataset on your instance? What if these two instances that are defederated both create the same post with the exact same content? Is that one or two posts?

What if user on one instance changes the name of the post but there's some weird bug that allows only half the instances to register that change. Did that change actually happen or not? How do you solve the data inconsistencies if there's no central source of truth?

What about moderation? There's no central authority to define moderators or moderation policies. How do you verify who is actually a moderator and not someone trying to impersonate a moderator? What if different instances have different moderation policies, how would communities agree on a moderation policy if in essence both instances can claim authority over the community?

And these are still pretty high level questions. It would get more complex if we were to dig deeper into a possible solution. Even if it's all technically solvable I think the solution would probably be so complex that it becomes unmaintainable which means it becomes unusable.

True, but the same issue happens with reddit as well, for example gaming vs games vs truegaming. Over time those communities either found their niche (gaming sub became mostly memes, games sub became news and discussions and truegaming tried to become a more serious discussing sub). Actually there were way more gaming subs but unless they found their niche they died out. So people gravitating towards specific communities is a natural occurrence.

As for trying to automatically consolidate communities across instances, it sounds like a great idea on paper but seems like technical she moderation headache, because you won't have a clear source of truth. Let's say instance A and instance B both have a community called news. The same news article with the same title is posted on both communities on both instances by different users. Assuming we want to consolidate those posts into one, which instance post will be shown or in more technical terms, which instance becomes the source of truth for that post? Who makes that decision? What if there's also instance C with the same community and the same post but that instance isn't federated with instance A, how do we consolidate posts? Each community has its own moderators and moderation rules, who is allowed to moderate the post? What if the moderation rules contradict between instances and both instances want to apply the rules independently, are they supposed to split the post?

Maybe there is an elegant solution to all the problems but I don't see there being one. I'm not against the idea, the problem is you want to solve its something I have given some thought and because of that I just don't see it working out the way you're imagining it.

User friendly is pretty vague but if we're talking about the average user who uses the computer to browse the web, play some games on Steam with friends and do some document editing that is all covered. Linux Mint would be an excellent option. The installation is arguably easier than Windows (because you won't get all those pesky telemetry and data gathering questions), visually it looks and functions similarly to Windows, most standard software is handled by a package manager so no using terminal to install things and the distro prefers stability and ease of access over fancy bells and whistles.

If there are any user issues they're most likely because of third party developer not properly supporting Linux and there's nothing Linux can do. One example is anti-cheat for games. You can't play Riot games on Linux simply because their anti-cheat won't allow you to play their games on Linux and there's nothing Linux devs can do about it.

I don't know when was the last time you used Linux but I'd say the user experience has definitely improved in the last 10 years. It's gotten to a point where I'm actually willing to recommend Linux to users whose needs I'm familiar with and know they not going to have some weird needs that need the use of a terminal.

I like to imagine they're one of those "I agree with what you're saying as long as you don't mention socialism" kind of people, except for them the big bad taboo word is patriarchy.

Some people on the internet are saying it's okay to not support Palestine because they're not pro LGBTQ enough.

It's an insane argument to make so I guess that's why OP feels like it's CIA.

Getting upvotes on my main points.

And yet every reply is in disagreement and almost every follow-up reply made by you is heavily downvoted.

People who disagree with me right now are still in a backlash phase. They’ll either listen and think about it and accommodate the obvious truth that feminism isn’t a panacea for men’s issues because that’s just stupid.

Another argument that was never made. You're the one who brought up feminism in the first place and nobody said feminism should solve men's issues.

I’m not screaming, I’m lecturing.

The lecturers I remember would address questions instead of ignoring them.

The centering of women in a topic about men’s feelings being undermined by women centering their perspective is an obvious problem. It’s not that difficult to understand that if a woman were talking over a Black woman’s experience to talk about patriarchy instead of racism, that woman would be out of line.

So if it was another woman talking over a White woman's experience that wouldn't be out of line? It wouldn't be a patriarchal issue if the person talking over had been a man instead of the woman?

The argument you're refusing to address is that the gender does not matter when it comes to patriarchy.

Your patriarchy concept isn’t working. You can’t reach men by talking about the patriarchy. Joe Rogan doesn’t talk about the patriarchy. It’s not that complicated, you just hold to your ideology hoping that if everyone nods their heads and says “yes the patriarchy is to blame” the problem will get fixed. That’s stupid.

Just because the vast majority of people are unwilling to question their beliefs does not mean the concept is wrong. That's like saying socialism is wrong because the large majority of society is taught "capitalism good, socialism bad" so they wouldn't question capitalism and would view socialism as something bad.

And once again, nobody said if everyone agree patriarchy is to blame that would solve the problem. It wouldn't, but it would at least be a step in the right direction because people would at least acknowledge there's a problem.

Anyway. I'm done with your comments. As I said in the very first comment, you're not here to listen. You just want to get on a soapbox and scream about your deeply rooted personal beliefs you refuse to question. I feel I've made my points about how you don't listen and your points are nonsense and I really have no desire to talk to you because you won't actually address the core arguments anyone is making. You'll just pile on irrelevant information to try and shift the discussion to something adjacent and it's just not worth the effort.

But people are listening to me.

I'm going to assume you meant listening (and agreeing). Because there are people listening and disagreeing, for example me. But how do you know anyone else is agreeing with you? Do you have anything empirical to show that would indicate what you believe or is it just something you want to believe?

My point is about the nature of their statement and how it centers women in a topic that is about how when men speak about feelings women center a feminine perspective.

And if you were listening instead of just screaming you'd notice that their statement does not center around women. Their argument is that patriarchal beliefs can be adopted by both women and men and in this case the patriarchal belief is that men shouldn't express their emotions and in the image it is a woman perpetuating that belief by refusing to accept what was said.

This wasn’t an invitation for you to speak up.

There wasn't an invitation for you to speak up either. But you chose to speak up so you should expect some push back. Looking at how you've presented yourself so far I seriously doubt you'll listen to me, so I'll just put my argument very plainly. Nobody should listen to you because you refuse to listen to anyone else.

You haven't addressed anything the other person has said. All you've pretty much done is try to put words in their mouth so you could counter an argument that was never made. There's no discussion here, it's just you screaming into the void and the other person wanting to believe you're a normal person.

Sure you can, because those are two different things. Feature creep applies to functionality that is there straight out the box. Add-ons are things that are built ontop of the out the box solution.

To put it in hardware, if you buy a PC then a PC is what you get out the box. If every PC had to come with a dedicated graphics card that would be a PC feature creep, because every PC doesn't need a dedicated graphics card. However, that doesn't mean you want mobo manufacturers to remove the PCIe slot, because you might want to add on (pun intended) a graphic card.

Just because I think something shouldn't be in the baseline for everyone doesn't mean I also don't want to those things to be available for the people who do want those things in their system

The water bottling company?

A company should be free to sell its game in any way at any price without any restriction coming from one vendor.

People keep bringing this up like it's some kind of a fact but any time I ask for a source I get no reply. So I'm going to ask again, can you please link the source because I've searched for it and I haven't found it.

Nuclear power has its own mining and rare material problems, in the form of uranium. You have to dig into the earth for it, and then after you use it, poison part of the planet forever. We still dont know what to do with all the nuclear waste we alrwady made.

Thorium is 3-4 times more abundant than uranium, is generally safer to use and would produce less waste that is also less radioactive and can become safe in a reasonable timeframe (few centuries compared to few hundred/thousand? centuries). Historically the main issue with Thorium has been that it's not as sexy as uranium because you can't make nuclear weapons out of thorium.