How about we just speed up ourselves? Build a human sized LHC and leave it running for a few millenia.

Yeah. I could see someone ordering a combo and then complain when instead of a combo they have to pay for burger, fries and drink. It’s stupid that 5 guys doesn’t have a combo option but the person behind the counter did what they’re supposed to do, take the order and make sure the person ordering also understands what they’re ordering.

That has been gone over by Marx over 150 years ago. I’m not going to go over everything Marx said about capitalism, he wrote an entire book called Das Kapital about it. Here’s a summary that does a pretty good job at getting Marx’s ideas across. You can skip the first 2-3 chapters as the main criticism of capitalism starts around chapter 4. But some things refer back to the previous chapters so you might want to watch them if some parts of Marx’s ideas aren’t very clear.

As for you points, I’ll do a short summary:

• Production of commodities and services is not capitalistic, we’ve been producing commodities and services for more than a millennia before capitalism was even a concept.
• Profit-motive is a poorly defined concept if we want to divorce it from capitalism. Profit-motive in the sense that I want to make all the money is capitalistic. But if we talk about the “profit-motive” in the sense that I want money so I could buy things I want to use, Marx argues that is not capital and not capitalism.
• Marx has a very specific definition of capital where capital is something that exists for the purpose of making more capital. If you make $10 mil and you buy a fancy house, that $10 mil you got is not capital and the house you bought is also not is not capital, but if you take that $10 mil and you for instance invest it with the purpose of getting $20 mil later, now it’s capital. The capitalist definition of capital doesn’t acknowledge the purpose money or things, so everything is capital which also makes it impossible to separate capital accumulation from just owning things you need to live your life. Your house is not capital, your car is not capital, your phone is not capital, the money you’re saving up for a trip to the Bahamas is not capital. But if you own a company and the means of production within that company and you’re buying in labor to use your means of production so you could siphon surplus value from the laborers work, that’s capital.

The things you’ve brought up aren’t necessarily the basis of capitalism. They’re the basis of capitalism only if you want them to be the basis of capitalism.

I think you’re now suggesting things that have nothing to do with consolidating communities.

Backup communities don’t really exist right now. There are copies of things on other servers l, but they can’t become functioning communities. This has caused some communities to disappear when their instance went down. The biggest I remember is movies and TV related things.

They don’t exists right now, but the foundation is there. I checked the old kbin.social communities that users from lemm.ee had subscribed to. All the posts seem to be there right until kbin.social got shut down. The data exists on your instance even if the original instance went down. It’s just a matter of figuring out and creating a new functionality to revive those communities on a new instance. This suggestion has nothing to do with consolidation, it’s just a backup solution that can already be done.

Having a ledger helps with discovery, because instances now don’t know about other communities by default, it requires extra effort to seek them out until someone else has found them and subscribed. It’s not a big deal for established communities, but it does hurt building a new one.

I don’t see how that specifically requires a ledger but I guess we can call it a ledger. The solution itself is fairly simple, each instance publishes whenever a new community is created or deleted and federated instances can store that data on their side to have a list of all the communities to search for. For already existing we can create a “publish all existing communities” so each instance can update their lists accordingly. That’s effectively a ledger but once again, it has nothing to do with consolidating communities.

I don’t have a great solution for admin of creation/movement of communities, but this isn’t meant to be a 100% solution. Distributed consensus is a concept that exists though.

Distributed consensus is a concept but is such complexity necessary? Especially when the end result isn’t that much different to what we already have.

There’s no reason a community can’t go on a users instance as default, it just enables a community to potentially migrate for various reasons.

It can, but it doesn’t really matter because that’s exactly how the current system works. As for migrations, if we solve the “backup community” problem then that functionality can just as well be used for migrations because right now we can just duplicate data. If you want to add the one community restriction that migration actually gets harder to implement.

This doesn’t necessarily create a walled garden, as no one owns the walls. It does encourage everyone within Lemmy to maximally federate. I can’t say it significantly changes integration with other implementations as they were never very robust in the first place.

Kbin/Mbin integrations with Lemmy worked pretty well, but if you force all Lemmy instances to use a solution unique to Lemmy then you’re pretty much building a wall because integrations with other similar implementations become less likely. Nobody owns the wall but it would create an “in” group and an “out” group. We already kinda have that with Lemmygrad and Hexbear and the rest of Lemmy, but those two instances can exists independently from the rest of Lemmy so the “in” and “out” groups can easily coexists. But if you force communities across instances you’re going to also force friction between the “in” and “out” groups. There can only be one “c/europe” but there’s one on Lemmygrad and there’s also one on feddit. If you keep the feddit one then Lemmygrad and Hexbear can’t have c/europe and if you let Lemmygrad have c/europe then the rest of Lemmy can’t have c/europe. It’s unnecessary friction.

I guess it would work if Lemmygrad and Hexbear were federated with the rest of Lemmy, but that’s not happening.

But that’s effectively what we’ll have right now. You can create multiple communities of the same name but one will eventually become the main community that people will visit. And we could already create “backup” communities because I’m pretty sure the data from the main community is already sent to all the instances that have users who are subscribed to said community. The data is already in other instances, it’s just a matter of reusing the data.

So the only crux of your solution is how the possible instance for the community would be chosen. And that’s a whole can of worms. It can’t be the same instance the community creator is a part of because that’s the solution we have right now. It can’t be completely random because I’m pretty sure there are instances that legally can’t have porn or piracy on their instance, or maybe the instance owner simply doesn’t want that on their instance. If there’s supposed to be distributed ledger that effectively prevents creating duplicate communities and that ledger is the same for all instances, then there must be a possibility that the new community ends up in an instance the community creators instance might be defederated from, otherwise a “pariah” instance (who are pretty much defederated from the majority of Lemmy) can reserve community names by defederating everyone and then creating communities. So that decision starts to have a lot factors which lets instances influence the decision. And in some ways there’s even an incentive to influence the decision because the more communities one instance has the more power they have over the entire lemmy side of the fediverse. If they defederate from another instance that instance can’t create those communities for the people on that instance (unless you go down the reddit route of having gaming vs games vs truegames).

And that’s just the decision of the primary source. There’s a whole other bucket of questions about the distributed ledger. For example how does the ledger change? If one community needs to be moved to a different instance who makes that decision? If it’s the primary source instance then how do other instances verify the ledger? If you have Instances A, B, C and C and instances A and B are defederated from C. Instance A has a community that gets assigned to instance D. Instance A sends a ledger change to instances B and D and then instance D send the change to C, but how does instance C know that the sent data is correct? Instance D could send the message that instance A set the community to instance B and there’s no way for instance C to verify that message. In fact most of my questions in my previous comment apply to the ledger as well because the ledger would have to exists on every instance.

And then there are other factors like what if Mbin sets up a community/magazine? Mbin doesn’t care about any ledger. Will we turn Lemmy into a walled garden and prevent Mbin from participating because they don’t want our ledger?

How would that even work? Imagine you spin up a brand new instance and create a new user and want to subscribe to a community. Because there is no one source of truth does the new instance simply not have the posts and comments that were made before the instance was created? If it’s supposed to get historic data as well from where is it getting from? Does it pick a random instance and pull all the posts and comments from that instance?

What if that instance is defederated from another instance with the same community and doesn’t contain the posts and comments from the defederated instance? Does your new instance have to go ask all the posts and comments from all the other instances to rebuild the community dataset on your instance? What if these two instances that are defederated both create the same post with the exact same content? Is that one or two posts?

What if user on one instance changes the name of the post but there’s some weird bug that allows only half the instances to register that change. Did that change actually happen or not? How do you solve the data inconsistencies if there’s no central source of truth?

What about moderation? There’s no central authority to define moderators or moderation policies. How do you verify who is actually a moderator and not someone trying to impersonate a moderator? What if different instances have different moderation policies, how would communities agree on a moderation policy if in essence both instances can claim authority over the community?

And these are still pretty high level questions. It would get more complex if we were to dig deeper into a possible solution. Even if it’s all technically solvable I think the solution would probably be so complex that it becomes unmaintainable which means it becomes unusable.

True, but the same issue happens with reddit as well, for example gaming vs games vs truegaming. Over time those communities either found their niche (gaming sub became mostly memes, games sub became news and discussions and truegaming tried to become a more serious discussing sub). Actually there were way more gaming subs but unless they found their niche they died out. So people gravitating towards specific communities is a natural occurrence.

As for trying to automatically consolidate communities across instances, it sounds like a great idea on paper but seems like technical she moderation headache, because you won’t have a clear source of truth. Let’s say instance A and instance B both have a community called news. The same news article with the same title is posted on both communities on both instances by different users. Assuming we want to consolidate those posts into one, which instance post will be shown or in more technical terms, which instance becomes the source of truth for that post? Who makes that decision? What if there’s also instance C with the same community and the same post but that instance isn’t federated with instance A, how do we consolidate posts? Each community has its own moderators and moderation rules, who is allowed to moderate the post? What if the moderation rules contradict between instances and both instances want to apply the rules independently, are they supposed to split the post?

Maybe there is an elegant solution to all the problems but I don’t see there being one. I’m not against the idea, the problem is you want to solve its something I have given some thought and because of that I just don’t see it working out the way you’re imagining it.

Just pointing out you’re the one living in cuckoo land.

I guess next you’re going to call AI generation fanfic.

From Gemini:

Is this manifesto political? (removed the manifesto to save space)

Yes, this manifesto has strong political undertones.

Here’s why:

Focus on Systemic Issues: It criticizes the US healthcare system, the dominance of large corporations (like United), and the perceived corruption and greed within these entities. These are all significant political issues.
Calls for Action: While the author doesn't explicitly advocate for violence, the act itself and the language used ("parasites," "brutal honesty") suggest a desire to disrupt the existing power structures. This implies a call for change, which is inherently political.
Critique of Power Dynamics: The manifesto highlights the imbalance of power between corporations and the American public, arguing that the public has allowed this imbalance to persist. This analysis of power dynamics is central to political discourse.

Disclaimer: This analysis does not condone the actions described in the manifesto.

Note: The indecipherable words make it difficult to fully understand the author’s intended message.

Same question with chatGPT.

Yes, Luigi Mangione’s manifesto contains political elements. It critiques systemic issues, such as the healthcare system in the United States, corporate power, and societal complacency. By highlighting the disparity between healthcare costs and life expectancy, as well as the influence of large corporations, the manifesto engages with political and economic structures.

However, the political nature of the document is more implicit than explicit—it critiques systemic issues but does not explicitly outline a political ideology or program. The tone also suggests a personal justification for extreme actions, which can blur the lines between political and personal motives.

It’s sad when even a braindead AI is smarter than you.

I don’t know what you’re lacking to not understand his manifesto and I don’t care because it’s not my job to improve your failed education. I’m not wasting any more time on you.

You said intent not outcome. Him killing only one and it “not having any effect” is an outcome. His manifesto doesn’t say he intended to kill only one, his intentions were against the system not a single individual.

Looking at the outcome and saying “that wasn’t political” is like saying Jan 6 wasn’t political because they failed to overthrow the government.

We have no indications that Luigi wanted anything other than one or maybe a handful more dead CEOs.

But why did he want one or more CEOs dead?

Do you think killing someone is political only if the targets are politicians?

But the reason why they think it had to be done still matters. “This CEO wronged me personally” and “the systemic oppression made me do it” contextualize the act in a very different way. The reason he did this is why it’s political. If he had done it because he had a personal vendetta against the CEO or he had some religious beliefs that made him do it or if he was just insane, then it wouldn’t be a political reason. But he did it because (paraphrasing his statement) he saw an unopposed corrupt system that needed to be opposed. That is a political reason.

The reason for “it had to be done” is political.

Obviously the problem is more complex, but I do not have space, and frankly I do not pretend to be the most qualified person to lay out the full argument. But many have illuminated the corruption and greed (e.g.: Rosenthal, Moore), decades ago and the problems simply remain. It is not an issue of awareness at this point, but clearly power games at play. Evidently I am the first to face it with such brutal honesty.

He explicitly states that he does not have the “space” nor the qualification to lay out what you want him to lay out, but he pretty much says what you said he should’ve said for it to be political: “Privatized health insurance is corrupt and greedy, we’ve known it for a long time and nothing has been done to prevent or stop it, thus I took a more violent approach to do something about the corruption and greed.”

If anyone is wondering it’s actually because of frame of reference. The first two images have speeds in relation to the rotation of earth, the last imagine uses a different frame of reference. If you put the last image in the same frame of reference as the first two images the number there would be 0km/h, because it would be moving in relation to itself.

If the concept is appealing to you it could also mean that Factorio itself doesn’t suit you. For example I find the concept appealing and I did put a fair bit of time into Factorio, but in the end it just didn’t click. But I loved playing through Satisfactory and I’m currently playing through Techtonica which I’m also enjoying. Maybe one day I’ll learn to love Factorio but in the mean time there are other factory builders that I’m enjoying.

What? The leds that go in the bulb sockets take 3W so the RGB ones going into the case probably take like 1.5 to 2W. RGB led strips seem to take 8W per meter. We’re talking about 5m of led strips and 25 individual lights and still not hitting 100W.

I don’t put RGB in my cases so I don’t know what the trend is. If it’s to turn your PC into a Christmas tree then I can understand 100W not being enough.

I would rather say we should make it illegal to do things that cause an inordinate amount of suffering to animals. I would prefer not to kill the dog either, but since most people in this thread seem to believe a vegan diet with supplements is impossible for carnivore pets, what other option is there?

I don’t think it’s impossible but I do think it leads to the suffering of pets because most animal owners aren’t capable of taking care of their pets right now and they’ll be even less capable when they need to follow a relatively strict diet for their pet.

However If I had someone who would pay someone else to torture 1 animal a day, and then eat it, meaning ~30,000 animals would be tortured throughout their life, and I have no way to make them stop besides killing them, what is your proposed solution? I want to hear the non utilitarian answer to this problem, in this hypothetical where killing them is the only way to stop the behavior.

About that specific person? You do nothing. You can’t force people (or animals) to live a different life. What you want to do is get a societal shift. Educate people so they’d willingly switch and over time (if it’s reasonable and I do think going more vegan is reasonable) society will shift away from eating animals and those people will disappear with time.

You’ve baked in that the only options are “kill people who eat meat” or “do nothing.” In a situation where all humans were strict carnivores, that’s a much harder question.

If would argue if humans were strictly carnivorous the question would be much easier, because then eating meat is our nature and we would die if we went vegan. The reason we (and dogs) can go vegan is because from a dietary perspective we’re both omnivores. For example with cats there’s no question, they’re biologically not adapted to plant based diet. Their entire diet would essentially be supplements and they get next to nothing from eating plants.

Obviously I would hope to have legal or social consequences for people who eat meat.

The most “moral” thing to do would be for vegans to make it impossible for factory farming to exist,

I guess if you don’t value animals at all, you would never kill the person.

And these are the examples why I have a problem with Veganism and why I think Vegans like you are a detriment towards people going more plant based with their diet. Because you’re all about moral superiority, absolutes, guilting others for their lifestyles and assuming the worst. You won’t change peoples mind if you call them a piece of shit. You also won’t change their minds by not compromising on anything. And this “all change must happen instantly because we demand it” message is just childish behavior.

If you’re serious about getting people to eat less or no meat you can’t expect instant results. You need to let people change their minds instead of trying to force them to change (and that includes trying to guilt them into changing). Also you can’t change everyones mind but you need to change enough to for society to change over time. It’s a process and it needs to be treated like a process. Don’t force people, educate when you can and hope people change. After-all (hopefully) nobody forced you into becoming a vegan.

Ah the utilitarian approach. You’re just one species away from saying it’s okay to kill people because most people eat meat. Afterall the math problem is exactly the same for people, except people eat even more meat so from a math point of view it’s even more logical to kill a person than a dog. I’ll walk you through this conundrum.

You can choose to say it is okay to kill people who eat meat and good luck talking about the ethics of killing people.

You can choose to say it’s not okay to kill people, but now you’re not treating life equally because now a human life is worth more than the dogs life. So what’s stopping me from saying that the the dog is worth more than the 4 animals who get killed?

And if you want me to prove the dog is worth more than the animals I’ll just ask you to prove that a human is worth more than the dog. If you can’t prove that you’re back to saying it’s okay to kill people.

You can’t solve this problem through utilitarianism and then talk about ethics because utilitarian solutions often end up being unethical.