No, now you're talking only about Marxist communism. Communism as a whole does not state that a single central power owns everything or that individuals can't own property. Marx was very much against almost all personal property, but communism is simply about making the means of production owned by the people doing the production and not a small subset of individuals. That doesn't mean ownership by a single entity. That very much could be local community governments that own each factory or power plant or whatever. And it's only about the "means of production" not the products necessarily. People can still own the products in many forms of communism. Communism doesn't necessarily dictate a specific economic theory beyond the idea that entities that produce goods that are to be owned by the people, should be owned by the people making the goods, not individuals, and especially not individuals who don't participate in the production, only in the sale and profit of the goods they don't produce.
But communism is less centralized than representative democracy or dictatorship or whatever the pre-revolution government likely was. These portions of the government must decentralize as part of the process of moving between government types. That decentralization is essential or it's not true communism, it's the fake things that pretend to be communism like PRC, USSR, DPRK, etc.
The only way that some amount of decentralization doesn't need to happen is if were talking about a society with no previous need for government forming into a communist state, which is what I mentioned was extremely unlikely, even if there were societies isolated enough to still exist without any form of centralized government.
I'm not really talking about Marxist communism. See my other comment, but in any realistic scenarios, communism is unlikely to form spontaneously as the first form of government in a new society.
And since revolution on a large scale requires centralized coordination and leadership, there will always be someone or some group given centralized power that is unlikely to allow for decentralization to happen on a large scale and is actually more likely to grab the power of the previous government system and keep it centralized, "for the good of the people" or "to defend the people" or whatever. Even well meaning revolutionaries are highly likely to crave control and be unlikely to want to allow "someone else" to change what they put in place. This then leaves in place the centralization indefinitely and never leads to communism.
Theoretically, one could spontaneously be created from scratch starting with a small group of people on a new world who have never experienced a centralized form of government. Formal governing is not required if the society is small enough and there are no outside forces at work to create a threat. But once governing is required, there will generally be forces at work that will centralize it. The only exception might be in a society with very limited need for cooperation due to plentiful resources available to all, such as a utopia like Star Trek's Earth.
In all other, realistic scenarios, there will need to be a revolution. That will always be led by a person or group of people to organize the overthrow and coordinate the changes. This group will inevitably be in search of power themselves, corrupted by the power they are given, or infiltrated by those in search of such power and are unlikely to give up that power.
But they want backdoors in the encryption...because it's too much work to go through proper channels to get data for themselves. Can't have it both ways. If LE is going to have access then hackers are going to have access through the same means. Whether it's companies that give LE a backdoor into their systems or the encryption itself has a backdoor, the weakest link is the only relevant measure of security.
Because, at a high level, communism requires that a leader or group of leaders get things on track and then give up all of their power over time. Instead, the type of people who tend to lead revolutions are the same type of people who are unlikely to want to give up power and instead end up wanting more power. So no true communism has ever existed because it never gets to that phase.
I tried a few but just got that it's a particular shade of taupe with no discernable people or objects. And it went on describing how oddly particular the shade of taupe was....for some reason. 🤣 And the other said it was sage green.
I'm guessing something was wrong with it when I tried it and it was just getting a very small portion of the image because the different colors it mentioned were present in the images it referenced, so it's not like it was just random or blocked entirely.
Romantic attraction and sexual attraction can often be different. It's just society says you can't have sex with people you aren't romantically involved with, and once you're romantically involved with someone, you can't have sex with others. That's totally unfair IMHO. You should be able to have a romantic relationship with someone and not expect sex and then be able to have sex with others who are interested in sex. This is why asexual people have a hard time with monogamy and have to pretend to be into sex because otherwise they can't have a relationship with someone they love.
Why TF does it matter so much if you cheat in a single player game that they have to take such drastic measures to prevent it? In multiplayer, competitive games, I sort of get it, depending on context, but single player games, no way. I mod single player games all the time. It's one of the main reasons I like PC gaming over console. I'd never buy a game that went this far to prevent something that has no effect on them or anyone else.
Won't need to. Trump's pick to handle it already said he's not only planning to cut new funding, but going to remove the US provided weapon systems from Ukraine. That's why the Biden administration is trying to get the already congressionally approved funding and weapons out the door before the end of the year.
I think most people misunderstand what software engineers do. Writing code is only a small portion of the work for most. Analyzing defects and performance issues, supporting production support that ends up with unqualified people due to the way support us handled these days, writing documentation or supporting those who do, design work, QE/QA/QC support, code reviews, product meetings, and tons of other stuff. That's why "AI" is not having any luck with just replacing even junior engineers, besides the fact that it just doesn't work.
I don't believe it's something for the government to enforce. Any law that requires a nongovernment agency to collect identification means that identification is at risk of being stollen and means it will be used to track the person. If every person using the internet will have to prove their age everywhere, it's going to be a mess.
Whatever company has the worst security will have all the IDs stollen and used everywhere else. And I'm sure at first, it will be used so that criminals can frame others for their online crimes really easily.
I mean how do you prove the person using the internet is the one in the ID over the internet. It's easy enough to just use the picture on the ID and some "AI" to produce a fake image if they're going to require taking a picture of who's using it or something like that. This won't stop any minors from accessing information they shouldn't. The only way to do that is through education to make them realize they don't want to access that information and then give them the tools to avoid it. Not try to keep it from them. That just makes them want it more and to have to become criminals to do it. And further, if they're committing that minor crime just to do something normal it desensitizes them to more serious crimes because they don't understand the reasoning for them. Which is why making minor stuff that doesn't affect anyone but the offender a crime is always a bad idea.
Yeah, the crazy requirements, most of which are impossible, unreasonable, or are meant to be wish-list kinds of things mean the scores are all useless. It's just the people who game the system and lie who get good scores anyway. Probably the least good candidates. And ,sure, by default it "shows all candidates". Buy if you don't have a score because you opt out, that likely puts you at the bottom when sorted or removes you when the HR person filters the results. But that's not their fault, that's the user, despite it being their design that allows for and encourages using the scores that way.
"Elections nationwide should be one day, paper ballots..." Fund it and it can be done. It's primarily a volunteer thing now. Not enough people can take two days off of work to volunteer to monitor and count ballots.
Instead of lowering their prices over time and so sales are less significant of a percentage, they keep the original price indefinitely and just have lots of sales. This makes the percentage off much higher than if they had depreciated the regular price as it should. Pretty common these days.
When the convenience store only has one employee, even often during peak times, that has to run the register, stock shelves, clean, and take out the trash, in that priority order, is it any wonder that the lower priority tasks just don't get done at all?
Which is why Trump will withdraw from NATO and effectively neuter it in the short term allowing Putin to do whatever he wants until Europe can muster the resources to defend its Eastern-most and Scandinavian members, which Putin wants to annex.
irotsoma @ irotsoma @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 721Joined 2 yr. ago
No, now you're talking only about Marxist communism. Communism as a whole does not state that a single central power owns everything or that individuals can't own property. Marx was very much against almost all personal property, but communism is simply about making the means of production owned by the people doing the production and not a small subset of individuals. That doesn't mean ownership by a single entity. That very much could be local community governments that own each factory or power plant or whatever. And it's only about the "means of production" not the products necessarily. People can still own the products in many forms of communism. Communism doesn't necessarily dictate a specific economic theory beyond the idea that entities that produce goods that are to be owned by the people, should be owned by the people making the goods, not individuals, and especially not individuals who don't participate in the production, only in the sale and profit of the goods they don't produce.