"He initially planned to finish the development in 30 days but he worked on development for three years"
Can relate
1,062 karma · joined November 26, 2021
Can relate
I'm just saying that underling guards in general don't actually need to believe in the narrative the guarded elite uses as self-justification. Maybe they do believe it, maybe they feel obligated to pretend to believe, maybe it's all naked self-interest... regardless, what really keeps them in their position is the grid of power/interest.
(Also entrepreneurs are different from small businesses. Entrepreneurs make attempts at new big businesses, vie for new monopolies, etc.)
> in the telling of Left Twitter, liberals are basically centrists and centrists might as well be right-wing -- yet what “The Left” believes is, by and large, pretty much what I believed as a “liberal” two decades ago
I think probably you're not as aware of what leftists believe as you think.
Leftists are not using "liberal" in the American sense of the word at all, and "never were." (Like, maybe those specific people were, but "the left" wasn't.)
Human beings in general.
> The important part is making sure they don't get power over others.
That too!
"all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"
^ At best they get to split the furs up among 40 people instead of 41.
(And if the 1 removed is actually doing any work, there's also more work to assign.)
There's little reason for any individual goon to think they're going to get a better deal this way. Let alone enough to compensate for the risk.
Removing the guy who takes "the lion's share" produces someone new to take the lion's share.
Unless they think they can do away with that entire structure. But then they have to believe they can change everyone's behavior all at once from collectively enforcing inequality to collectively enforcing equality.
The kind of social structure that makes this possible is the kind of social structure that the powerful person will make sure can't arise (by controlling information, removing potential leaders, etc.)
In order to even have a concept of "owning wealth" there must be a physical defense of wealth already set up.
It's "inherent" in that sense. Owning the thing means having some means of physical militaristic defense of the thing.
The underlying fact you're referencing here is simply that the means of defense is never an individual's physical power.
What it is instead, is their position in a social graph of interests. Other people in the society have their own lives structured so that it's in their interests to serve and protect power.
Each individual bodyguard has no reason to think they would have a higher rank after a coup replacing the "one person."
They absolutely don't need to believe that the person at the top is irreplaceable. Sometimes they've lived through a replacement or two!
They would need to organize themselves collectively somehow.
> Somehow, they have to first be convinced that the wealthy has some sort of moral right to their possessions.
No, they just need to be convinced that they don't have any collective organization.
Slaves don't need to be convinced of the morality of their situation, just the hopelessness on it.
> what do you mean when you say "Maybe the powerless person is a homophobe" ?
The taxi driver may cause conflict with gay passengers. Or female passengers, or whatever else. Then they would blame their own victim for their reaction. The taxi driver's personal biases and animosities would become a vector for corporate discrimination.
There is a reason that corporate bureaucracies take such care to look out for this kind of thing. If you let ordinary people just go with their gut on things, you end up excluding a lot of people based on stereotypes and bias. It's not some theoretical possibility, but empirical fact.
If a homophobe was working for HR (in 2022) they would hide it, even to the extent of making sure to hire some percentage gays no matter what they thought personally.
> If your friend told you "man, my last customer was a jerk" you would distrust that?
My personal friend? That's the standard we're expecting from a giant corporation's bureaucracy? It just has its personal friends that it trusts.
That kind of thing is just gross, is my point. Maybe it's how everything works, welcome to the real world, etc. But it's nothing to be praised or admired.
The corporation should vet its "personal friends" at least as closely as its official HR personnel. Otherwise they're an unaccountable source of bias in the hiring process.
I would just assume that about any employer anyway.
This story is supposedly about an actual taxi driver, not a plant from HR. It's absurd to trust this person like this.
As far as paid services the possibility also is there that someday _you_ run out of money and have to stop paying them. They tend to shut down your access when that happens. Another financial threat you have to model.
These things don't happen when you use public key authentication.
That's not a property of P2P, it's a property of anything that's not built into browsers.
That is, either the protocol is built into browsers and the browser is the client, or else it is not built into browsers and something else is the client.
Modern browsers already support P2P through RTCPeerConnection. In the future there may be even more general P2P capabilities built into browsers.
What you're talking about is at most a limitation of current browsers, not of P2P.
It was a figure of speech, not any kind of "sampling" at all. I don't consider you to have addressed my point.
>That's exactly the problem; the median worst case for working-class white leftists is losing their job. For others, regularly, it's their life.
WTF is a "median worst case"?
You can certainly say: death rates for blacks are higher than whites. But the death rates in the USA are fairly low for any race; while the rates of having your entire life structured around class-imposed labor obligations are practically 100%! For every race!
Right. And to be concrete, it means people who control the distribution of wages, vs. people who are dependent on wages. A focus on class is a focus on the relationship between wage-workers and shareholders.
> it absolutely makes sense to say "Labor's subservience to capital is a driver of material inequality"
Well, I don't get it. Labor/capital is one form that subservience takes. It is a form of material inequality. I don't see how you can say that the subservience can "drive" the inequality.
"Subservience" is not a very specific term here btw, it's basically metaphorical... an individual laborer is literally subservient to their specific employer, but "labor" is not literally subservient to "capital." More specific concrete language would be much appreciated.