Almost any system that limits participation in democracy will be abused to disenfranchise people that those in power do not want to give a voice.
So you're coming at this from the wrong end. The goal is explicitly to keep the poors from having a voice in politics. The exact policy and enforcement of the system will reflect that. Unintended consequences, like the rich being disenfranchised would not occur.
I'm referring to how both Lütke and DHH, a Shopify board member, have fascist politics.
The word does have meaning. But underlying that meaning is a philosophy that there is an in group that should have power and many out groups from which power should be stripped. There is a long history of industrial leaders supporting fascist ideology.
Yeah, but please google first on what Mussolini preached. State-owned corporazioni are nothing like privately operated businesses of today. Don’t hang on the word. The correct word you are looking for is plutocrat, indeed.
Where I live the municipal courses are actually a part of our water retention and drainage systems that are provided at cost (or discounted cost, sometimes free) to members of the community.
Basically we found a good way to create green spaces for recreation out of flood plains and drainage ditches. During heavy rain they provide important buffers that protect the nearby homes from flooding, and reduce the urban heat sink effect.
That's not true everywhere but keep it in mind before making sweeping statements about golf courses. Some people like golf. It's fine if you don't.
yes and new developments/ cities are doing a much better job balancing this in most cases. Golf courses are a great use for flood plains and overflow regions.
This might be an instance of unfairly giving the native Anglo-Saxon roots a lower, vulgar status. if you were to calque it to ivsdvctvs nobody would bat an eye.
Nope. An ability to set and accomplish sensible war goals and an ability to overpower enemy's armed forces are not the same thing at all. As US has demonstrated repeatedly.
A fleet of AI-controlled F-16s? That contributes to the latter.
A lack of clear goals is a symptom of bigger, organizational issues is what I’m reading. The problem isn’t as much raw firepower as it is strategy and execution.
Clearly, the technical solution to that is to remove the command over US armed forces from the US president, and hand it over to something more sensible - more capable of setting and executing military strategy. Like Skynet.
I kind of like the idea of a software forge that won't host the Torment Nexus discovered in 2027 because its TOS didn't contain language about it in 2026.
Developers who use LLMs: You are telling me that you have moral/ethical/practical issues with how I work but I'm going to ignore what you say to justify how I'm not at fault.
The moral/ethical high ground argument just spirals.
Oh you drive a car? You should justify that to me.
Oh you bought any piece of clothing, tech, etc where it was made in countries with cheap labor and bad labor laws? You should justify that to me.
Oh you use electricity? Idk some of that is made via non-renewable resources.
Oh you eat meat? So much animal suffering and land is being wasted.
I get using an LLM has some problems. But I find it ironic that for most people, they didn't have a problem with any of this until it started to affect their job and their expertise.. And their paycheck.
Where was your outcry for anything else? Or is it just performative?
I sure hope you are also only using products and services derived from union labor.
This is about the kind of code allowed in a place to store code. Your comparisons are obviously nonsensical in relation to the actual topic at hand. If you're a part of the transit community, they have plenty to say about car dependence and its ethics. If you're a part of the fashion community, they have loads to say on fast fashion and its ethics. The list goes on and on. For all them it seems totally reasonable for them to have their own ethical lines within their relevant spaces and communities. But it should be pretty obvious that none them have anything at all to do with Codeberg, or the general discussion of ethics at hand here. I don't see how you have any ability to claim what causes are issues someone cares about or prioritize based on them raising an issue relevant to the actual subject matter.
You're missing the point. I was only saying those things to show that arguing ethics and morals is bad because it's a never-ending self-imploding purity spiral. I am not trying to argue those views, nor am I refuting some argument because the replier is trying to claim some moral high ground.
If someone hangs a 'no cars' sign at the entrance to their private nature path you're not going to think they're saying 'You are not traveling according to the exact rules I have made up in my head about how one should travel, so I'm going to build a wall and hate you'
No, they don't want cars on their path, because cars would be harmful to the environment they're trying to foster.
I'm not asking you to justify your choices. What I'm saying is that you sound like you're deliberately ignoring what other people think as a precondition to justify your choices to yourself.
> They’re not responsible for the rise in the cost of utilities and shouldn’t be held responsible for it.
One thing that has near radicalized me is the rampant dishonesty on this subject. Data center builders/users have the audacity to tell me that my rates aren't going up, but also if they are it isn't their fault, but even if it is their fault they will actually lower my rates in the long term (but somehow, never promising to pay us back for the damage in the short term).
It really, really bothers me how slimy the people doing this are.
So you're coming at this from the wrong end. The goal is explicitly to keep the poors from having a voice in politics. The exact policy and enforcement of the system will reflect that. Unintended consequences, like the rich being disenfranchised would not occur.
reply