11,330 karma · joined August 21, 2017
Had this colleague argue "there has to be ABI how else are we going to get money". Like ... no thoughts about not needing the middle class would change power dynamics of voters versus the new prospect elite.
Like, if security was a concern we would have simpler systems and still use 2fa devices for banks etc.
It is really hard to keep your cool.
Fascist is not just a silly label. The political collapse of neoliberalism made a lot of closet fascists emerge and they seem quite common among what was earlier thought of as "techno libertarians". E.g. the VPN provider owner (forgot which) just lately.
If there was too much crying wolf 15 years ago, doesn't really matter now anyways.
Running non free software is essentially giving up our freedom. Before internet connectivity the problem wasn't too bad but nowadays there is always the temptation to squeeze the lusers.
I would assume they do stuff like this on purpose for marketing reason.
Internet security need simpler systems and local systems.
Everything the SaaS people sell makes things worse.
I think there is some sort of collective collusion. Like a school of fish moving. If there is an external stimuli the price can rise or fall eventhough it doesn't make sense from a 10y dividend perspective.
Isn't that to reload ads? Each plus sign click could have some sort of SOAP call or whatever to load dynamically.
You need to imagine them as they were new though.
We do though. It is a kind of virtue signaling to use the evil version.
E.g. "Human Resources Department" is called "Personnel Department" in non evil business speak.
To be fair "HR" is going the way of Thermos nowadays though.
The status quo is in favour of the owning class. Things in a macro sense can't be not political.
It is funny how it is the mundane things that it boil down to when one judge a someone's character. When it gets abstract it is too easy to rationalize.
Yeah this is a big problem. Essentially I feel there is to few "the child in Emporors new clothes" that can call out obvious BS.
I.e. somewhat emotional members that don't know the unspoken rules.
> But if you want a stronger argument: The general pattern is that revolutions that intend to depose the ruling class of a country run the risk of turning on themselves.
Sure. You could generalize to violent brutes should not run things if you want a nice society and they are let loose in bloody revolutions.
> Zuckerberg can bribe the shareholders to not care about their lack of control.
Monarchies had to please the aristocracy, etc.
I would say that "democracy" happens on party level not voter level. Party members are way more into the details than even the most engaged voters. You need to be at the meetings to know who is pushing what. It is all in subtle things. Most people I speak to have the most naive view on how parties work internally. Like it is a person. Goomba fallacy..
And party members more understand power hierarchy. All the drama is about that internally. Commité of whatever doing whatever having a say in whatever and delegate count of whatever county level org. to distict congress org. etc.
I think a big problem is that far too few people are engaged in politics nowadays. Active party members are aware of power structures and how they work.
One could argue it is nominally safe.