That would make the situation even worse by reducing the pool the rich have to buy to get the majority to contribute to their wealth even more. The problems we face with democracy aren't driven by poor education. Poor education is a component but it's a consequence of the main driver which is accumulation of wealth in few hands. Those use that wealth to keep it and accumulate more by buying elected officials, buying campaigns, running their own people, buying the media, defunding the education system that educates the majority, etc. Reducing the voting power of the majority would make this cheaper to do for the owner class, which would lead to increased exploitation and decrease in the living standards of the majority. Eventually leading to social unrest of some sort. Instead you want to introduce more democratic power for the majority, especially where the generated wealth is separated from them - in the workplace. If you get democracy in the work place, the workers would likely vote to keep more of the value they produce, leaving less to accumulate as wealth in the owner class. Leaving less money to buy elected representatives with the owners and more money with workers to buy political representation of their own.
No issues with Debian / Ubuntu on many laptops since early 2010s, mostly with Intel graphics. I had a Vostro 1400 with Nvidia and it also resumed fine, but that was 2009-11 so the experience with the Nvidia driver from that time is likely irrelevant.
According to my observations, the Fediverse grows whenever people look for alternative. People do that whenever their comfort is disturbed by material changes. E.g. Reddit gated app APIs, people's apps started shutting down, protest ensued, it failed, people looked for an alternative, many joined Lemmy as the obvious one. That created one of the largest spikes in active usage. There were others following that. There are network effects keeping people where they are unless there's a significant force pushing them to overcome that. And so I think the Fediverse would grow the same way it's grown so far. By being here for people whenever they can't say or read something the way they were previously able to, as corporations enshittify to profit maximize. You even see them doing that themselves, with Bluesky for example, where they built an alternative that pretends to be federated in order to capture refugees. But Bluesky is inevitably going to get fucked too and since it's federated in pretense only, there isn't another instance to take over. I think the process is similar to Linux adoption. It was always there, chugging along for people looking for alternatives. It hasn't stopped growing. It hasn't exploded but we're not complaining about where we are, are we.
On miticide resistance from 2001. Looking at what's required to keep resistance down... can't see how that could have been achieved without heavy regulation, and the US is all outta regulation.
100%. And I think such a status quo would be much more easy to organize voters against. Picture AOC talking to a crowd and saying how the oligarchs have 2/3 of politicians in the form of those two parties and we need to close the gap by electing more of ours - 15-20 more. Now it's like - the oligarchs are buying politicians. OK, which ones? OK, what do we do, run independents or primary them within the Democratic party? What other shit can the party pull to fuck us over? Could be totally wrong, I'm just thinking here.
o asked not to be named. “We do not recognize ourselves anymore in Trump’s administration. There is a strong movement out there in the party to reclaim the values we were raised on and reclaim the middle ground.”
Translation: “Omg can you believe this leopard is eating my face? Now that I’m perso
But getting fucked by 51-49 votes is I think much more difficult to solve than getting fucked by 65-35 votes. When there's 1-2 votes diff, people don't know why they're fucked and what needs to be done to stop it. When it's 65-35, it's much more obvious what is to be done and what campaigns have to do to organize voters.
Only very few of them. And unless they're owners of those corporations, they won't get that rich anyway. Oh and isn't a significant portion of the Canadian oil companies ownership foreign?
Just read the section on his mayorship of Braddock. This bud has been problematic for a long time. I don't think he's gone crazy lately, instead people got sold a counterfeit product during his federal election that they didn't look much into.
At this point all the arguments about what nefarious could they possibly do with the data are busted. They answer is - our imagination and access to information is not rich enough to figure out today and it's probably worse than what we can think of.
That would make the situation even worse by reducing the pool the rich have to buy to get the majority to contribute to their wealth even more. The problems we face with democracy aren't driven by poor education. Poor education is a component but it's a consequence of the main driver which is accumulation of wealth in few hands. Those use that wealth to keep it and accumulate more by buying elected officials, buying campaigns, running their own people, buying the media, defunding the education system that educates the majority, etc. Reducing the voting power of the majority would make this cheaper to do for the owner class, which would lead to increased exploitation and decrease in the living standards of the majority. Eventually leading to social unrest of some sort. Instead you want to introduce more democratic power for the majority, especially where the generated wealth is separated from them - in the workplace. If you get democracy in the work place, the workers would likely vote to keep more of the value they produce, leaving less to accumulate as wealth in the owner class. Leaving less money to buy elected representatives with the owners and more money with workers to buy political representation of their own.