In a planned economy, it wouldn't be unexpected to over-build. In fact, it perfectly makes sense, same as we would over produce a small surplus of anything. Housing isn't ten I to create, and so having reserves ready for use when they're needed in the future is a good thing. It may be bad from capitalism perspective, because you aren't getting a great return on the investment yet. But from a planned economy perspective it's good.
I like open source because of how it affects ordinary individuals. I am not very concerned for businesses. In fact I'd prefer that businesses profitting from free software must profit share with the creators. It would ensure the longevity of the project.
In nodejs, at least, it does. The minification and tree-shaking can make code significantly smaller. This can mean smaller cold start time in AWS Lambda for example, or just overall a little less RAM. If your heap isn't that large, that can be noticeable.
It also eliminates the filesystem overhead of resolving and loading modules.
My issue with lutris is that when I used it before and something didn't work, or used to work but broke, I was completely at a loss, because I did not understand what all it is doing exactly. It just felt that what lutris is doing is a bit too obfuscated or unclear to me.
If I just use the flatpak as is, does it already provide filesystem isolation akin to a chroot? I dont need it to be incredibly secure, just some basic isolation is enough for me. I just want the installation to be easily reversible rather than having to track down installed files. Lutris installs a lot of stuff outside of the package manager, so I figured filesystem isolation would provide easy means of undoing everything it does
I agree with that commenter. I do not claim that "nothing happened". I said this in my earlier comments, that I just don't think it's a problem worth my attention.
Forced labor is when labor is done involuntarily, under the threat of penalty. That would be what the working class is subjected to under capitalism. You must work for your capitalist overlords to give you enough for basic subsistence. Don't work, face the repercussions of poverty, even though we already produce enough to feed you.
The USSR never fully achieved communism, even by its own admission. So they still operated under a capitalist mode of production with respect to the global economy. So people were also required to work, but there were many improvements. Worker conditions and rights we're far better in the USSR. The USSR had the "right to work" policy, meaning as long as you are willing to work, you're fine, even if it means sitting in an office doing little. The USSR also operated the means of production in a centralized manner towards bettering its society and reducing working hours.
You called it "directed labor". Not sure what you mean by this, but you later called it "slavery". I suppose you could call it wage slavery, as it still operated in surplus production, but it was an improvement on capitalism and towards achieving communism. People were working for their own interests and needs, not for capitalist profits.
You first start by talking about marrying liberalism and minarchism. I assumed you meant that as an intro and less as a definition, but if you meant it as a definition, I would need to understand: what of liberalism and what of minarchy are you taking? Should I just take the Wikipedia definition and trust that you'll follow it?
You then said maximizing rights and freedoms of the individual, and minimize the size of the state.
The reason I think that is vague: what size is small enough? Some see States in modern Western nations as small, not intervening as much in personal matters compared to the 3rd world, and they offer many freedoms in comparison. But some view them as too big. If you left that up to the reader to decide, then some will call the US small enough, at least in its internal politics.
And then which rights are necessary? Some view the right to religion important, while others view the right to not have to deal with religion to be core, like in France recently not allowing hijabs in school. Is the right to hate speech required? Is the right to be noisy to my neighbor required? Who even decides and enforces that?
I love how you ignored everything in the article except what could possibly agree with your viewpoint. On your first quote, the link they cite does not exist anymore. In the video you linked, I hear gunshots but don't see people running away from them. As someone from a country that saw unrest and shooting at protests, I can tell you that people immediately start running when they're shot at, emptying the area. Not continue to March nonchalantly.
In the end, I want to conclude with saying that I didn't deny that anyone died (although the comment I linked does seem to imply that. My apologies for not clarifying, as I was only using them to back up my opinion). What I said in the original comment is that it is not an issue worth my attention. I've seen and read about so many government rerpression, and this is far from being in the top 10. It's an unnecessarily magnified issue.
Oh wow that's cool. Any competitors? Does it actually perform better than RPI?