js8

74 ms·

841.
by js8 3y ago
If you improve the operation of the worker-owned company, you will get rewarded just like any other employee who improves things. If you want to improve things by doing things on your own, you will own the fruits of your labor. If you need
842.
by js8 3y ago
Angela Collier did a nice video on YT debunking this, about why dark matter is not a theory, but rather a name for a discrepancy in observations. So it's not a social construct, the discrepancy is real.
843.
by js8 3y ago
Yes, the reason it is vulnerable IMHO, because within our mostly liberal system, there is too little support for coops in the law. We do not protect enough against people taking power from others. That's why I believe liberalism (which
844.
by js8 3y ago
What I am suggesting in practice would be similar to either consumer or worker cooperative. These are similar to publicly-traded companies, except the stakeholders are not some Wall Street randos, but people who actually use company product
845.
by js8 3y ago
So, reading the comments.. there seem to be an internal and an external explanations to the paradox. Internal explanations are that people who want to do comedy tend to be somehow messed up somehow. External explanations are that the world
846.
by js8 3y ago
I think you're wrong, there were plenty of anti-government people appearing in public TV back in the 60s, 70s, 80s.. The government doesn't really care as much as you think it does.
847.
by js8 3y ago
No, the word socialism is correct, it describes pretty much what you call "distributed ownership", although a condition should be it's also democratic. I don't see why to avoid a well-defined term because of a connotatio
848.
by js8 3y ago
I think this misunderstands what "ownership of means of production" really means in Marxism. The point is NOT that the capitalist owns the factory, which they then rent to workers, who can choose to do whatever they want with it.
849.
by js8 3y ago
I think you misunderstood my comment. In order for socialism to remain true to its intent of being democratic, it needs liberalism. By 'government capture' I mean the authorities in government taking control over an ostensibly dem
850.
by js8 3y ago
Yanis Varoufakis had some interesting talks about techno-feudalism. He argues that if the big cloud and platform companies control the platform, it's not really a free market capitalism anymore. I used to be skeptical, because I believ
851.
by js8 3y ago
I think socialism is the mechanism - one person one vote with the stake of ownership. I am pretty liberal but it I believe it needs socialism (democracy in economic sphere) to avoid capture by corporations. (And vice versa, socialism needs
852.
by js8 3y ago
Well, everything evolves. They will eventually be adversarially tested. Wise societies will realize that it's better to spend resources to prevent physical violence than to control everyone's thought. It seems it broadly goes that
853.
by js8 3y ago
> Encrypted traffic will stick out Not really, there are steganographic LLMs that can disguise encrypted traffic as a regular chat between two people.
854.
by js8 3y ago
That's a good point. The mass media and elite media really use different language, which is an additional obstacle. They don't seem to be a part of the same structure, and are presented to be at odds. I am reminded how Chomsky des
855.
by js8 3y ago
It reminds me of AlphaGo not playing for a win by a large margin, unlike humans do. I don't think the system needs to stomp Chomsky to the ground, unlike some totalitarian systems that demand complete subordination. They only need to m
856.
by js8 3y ago
There is also good series on YT from "Carefree Wandering" (Hans-Georg Moeller) on media theory in general, which also discusses Chomsky perspective in one of the videos.
857.
by js8 3y ago
I get your point, but I think there is a lot of empirical support for 5 filters. From a leftist perspective, there is something to your critique, I would say some of the hallucinations of the right-wing Trumpers far overtook what the mass m
858.
by js8 3y ago
I work on enterprise observability, professionally. I think conflating service names (such as /product) and service parameters (such as /product/{product_id}) in the same syntax is a big mistake. The reason is you want tools
859.
by js8 3y ago
A related thing is an Application Dependencies Clock, which has dependency injection at 6.
860.
by js8 3y ago
I am a leftist, and agree that many of them don't act in a good faith, for exactly that reason. However, I recently watched (for a reason I won't go into here) Nelson Mandela talking about apartheid, and why he accepted support fr
861.
by js8 3y ago
How can I support it (I am in EU)?
862.
by js8 3y ago
No, I made it all up. I wish I had time and interest to formalize it.
863.
by js8 3y ago
No, they were not pathologising it, just explaining (or wondering about) the motivations of some (not all) of them, the fact they were willing to suffer for truth, with no apparent personal gain. And I don't have a link.
864.
by js8 3y ago
I think people get the modularity wrong. Modularity is important, but I came to conclusion there is another important architectural principle, which I call "single vortex principle". First, a vortex in a software system is any loo
865.
by js8 3y ago
There was a similar article postulating that dissidents (for example from Eastern Europe) are often on the spectrum, for that very reason, if they see injustice, they are vocal about it.
866.
by js8 3y ago
> building software is so far from building a house that's not really worth comparing I disagree. I think the comparison is between engineering part of building a house, i.e. creating blueprints. The actual "blue collar" w
867.
by js8 3y ago
I like Agile, but I think the industry needs lot more Waterfall. Imagine building a house with Agile, you would start from the roof (rain is the most pressing customer's problem), and the foundation would be built last (after, 5 years
868.
by js8 3y ago
These are not mutually exclusive, the reason why is something being built matters. Capitalism can build a lot of housing as an "investment", but it doesn't mean that type of housing will meaningfully improve lives of people w
869.
by js8 3y ago
I think root cause is capitalism (neoliberalism) and concentration of wealth. The wealthy people have all the money and for them, it doesn't look like that improving infrastructure and "building" will make them more money, so
870.
by js8 3y ago
Why rat? Why not a rose divided by an integer?

More ›