Leonard_of_Q

You're not describing socialism but social democracy. While both "socialism" and "social democracy" have the word "social" in them the comparison largely stops there. Neither are current France and Spain socialist countries, let alone the Nordic countries since all these have a (regulated) market economy with a large private sector. Sanchez (Spain's prime minister) is a socialist but that does not make the whole country socialist. Macron is not a socialist, the Nordic countries are governed largely by centre-right to centre-left coalitions.

Socialism is the precursor to communism, the "dictature or the proletariat" where the means of production are "socialised" or, in clearer terms, nationalised and run by the state. The end goal of socialism is communism, the "class-less state" which is supposed to eventually wither away because it is no longer needed because "everyone is a communist". This last stage with the withered-away state has never and shall never be reached because it goes against human nature which means the true end stage of socialism and communism is the large and oppressive state which defends its necessity by constantly pointing at in- and outside forces which are out to topple it.

Socialism and communism can only work at a small scale, small enough so that everyone really knows everyone and there is no need for a "Party" and the related "party elite" to rule. Even at that small scale conflicts arise - "Johnny got twice as much ice cream as I did, NOT FAIR" - but those tend to be easily settled since everyone knows everyone and there is no "elite" which is treated differently from the rest. At a larger scale that elite quickly succumbs to the same human vices which doom feodalism, crony capitalism and similar systems.

I am disheartened and rather flabbergasted by the way this has to be explained time and time (and time) again. Socialism is BAD, m'kay? Social democracy is OK because it doesn't violate basic human principles which make that people put their personal and familial needs over those of the collective. Socialism and communism do violate those principles which means people ruled under them need to constantly be kept in check by the state lest they try to take care of their own needs before serving the collective. That in turn necessitates a large state which begets the "party elite" which turns the whole thing into a twisted form of feudalism where the serfs have to pretend it is all for their own good while the masters feast on the spoils of their labour. Those spoils tend to get thinner and thinner because nobody is really invested in making things work viz. the Soviet joke of "we pretend to work while they pretend to pay us" which widens the gap between the "party elite" and the rest of the population which leads to more dissatisfaction which leads to more repression until the whole thing collapses.

From the ruins of yet another failed socialist state a new state is born. Things start to go well, the economy is flourishing and people send their children to university where they are radicalised by the remaining few ideologues who holed up there. They are told that "real socialism (or communism, more or less the same thing here) has never been tried" and that the previous regime was corrupted by outside forces, Jews, whatever, just as long as the blame is shifted away from the failed ideology. The seeds for the next iteration have been sown.

This was just in the news: 726 million unused voting forms left over after the last elections, 20 million forms were used. The amount of waste alone is enough to demand a change even if there were no problems with fraud due in part to this system.

https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/GxzXE6/726-miljoner-val...

Which of these organizations should I trust on their word? Give me 5 of them and I'll see if I feel like I can trust them. As to them "all being Hamas", well, who knows. The Swedish television special reporter from that region is so it isn't unheard of. It is not as if it is possible for anyone to just barge in there and report anything he sees, interview anyone he wants and visit any place he cares.

Faster but for the rest basically the same. More megahertz, more megabytes, more transistors per cm2 of silicon, more processors but that's basically it. Von Neumann architecture, processing separated from memory, block/file-based storage, input and output through keyboards and displays.

Yes, this drastically understates the change in computing but the actual technology hasn't changed that much, it just got denser and faster.

Airliners may look the same but they don't work as they did 50 years ago when the was no fly by wire in these planes, no high-bypass engines, etc.

Using UnifiedPush with ntfy [1] as push distributor, used Prosody as well with Conversations as distributor which did work but I prefer ntfy because it does its one thing well.

[1] https://github.com/binwiederhier/ntfy

My point is that wikis are not reliable sources no matter how many sources they link to. You'd have to check all the other sources to verify their veracity and that only gets harder the more sources are linked.

I'll take your 100+ sources and raise you 200+ sources:

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Genocides,_Cultural_Genoc...

Does that make this link twice as truthful as the one you sent?

Try using another source than Wikipedia which is edited by "interested groups" and as such not a reliable source for contentious issues like this one.

Use Invidious, self-hosted or otherwise with the Sponsorblock extension and you get these benefits everywhere - mobile, desk/lap/${whatever}top instead of just on a single device. Yes, you need a mobile browser which supports extensions but then again, you want to block ads and other malcontent anyway so you may as well use Firefox or one of its derivatives.

Yes, well, so can humans given the "right" circumstances, e.g. "enterprise" software:

https://github.com/enterprisequalitycoding/fizzbuzzenterpris...

Assuming the code is produced to serve human needs there will be humans in the loop somewhere. Not nearly as many as before and not in the same roles but they will be there

The advent of the Spinning Jenny, water frame and power loom (etc.) changed textile manufacturing for good and made the end result so cheap that it is now seen as disposable. There are still some people in the loop controlling the machines but not nearly as many as before and also not really the same people since it takes a different skill set to keep a textile production line running than it takes to spin and weave.

The same is true for the advent of the phototypesetting machine (Linotype etc.) and the offset press which irreversibly changed print production. There are still people in the loop but not nearly as many and with a different skill set.

Now what about the "Coding Johnny"?

Generative models are now doing the same to coders, irreversibly changing the software production process. There will be far fewer people involved and those people will have a different skill set. Software will become disposable, more like RNA then DNA, if the specifications change the Coding Johnny will churn out a new version.

Oh you craving down-voting cowards, afraid of anything which disproves your narrative. Speak up instead of pressing that stupid button, let us know what you think and why what I said is wrong if you can.

You certainly don't need to agree with me or anyone else, you have as much right to an opinion as anyone else but hiding behind that button just to try to hide a dissenting opinion just proves you're on thin ice. Use that button for things which are clearly beyond the pale, and/or violate the board rules, use your voice to show disagreement.

The Swedish system works like this:

Before an election the parties all have voting forms printed out, two for each type of election - municipal, provincial, state and European parliament. The parties are responsible for distributing those forms to voting locations where election officials are supposed to make sure they are provided to the voters. The first form is just a 'party vote' while the second is a 'personal vote' which contains a list of candidates, one of which is supposed to be marked by the voter. All these voting forms are put in a voting form stand which is placed on a table somewhere in (the vicinity of) the voting location. This location can be a school, a municipal centre, a public meeting room or any other suitable locality. Voters are supposed to take a single voting form for each type of election, select a candidate if they chose a personal vote form and put it in an envelope which they then seal. They then take these sealed envelopes to the voting table where the election officials are supposed to check whether the individual is eligible to vote in the ongoing elections. Swedish citizens are eligible to vote in all elections, people living legally in Sweden can vote in the municipal and provincial, but not the state elections. If they are citizens of the EU they can also vote for the European parliament. Eligibility is checked using a state-issued ID - passport, ID card or driver's licence containing the personal number - against a list of eligible voters. Once eligibility is confirmed one of the officials is supposed to put the envelopes in the respective voting box. The individual is then marked as having voted and can leave.

Here's where it often goes wrong in Sweden:

- voting is supposed to be secret but the stand with voting forms is often placed in such a way that others can see which voting forms the voter selects.

- party representatives sometimes hand out voting forms to voters in the queue, telling them to put these in the envelopes. People who do not speak Swedish and do not understand the Swedish election process can be - and have been - coerced to vote for specific parties in this way. This is not allowed but often not acted upon.

- voting forms for 'contentious' (i.e. (supposedly) 'right-wing') parties often go missing or are hidden behind those for other parties. The voter then has to ask the officials for forms for that party which violates voting secrecy. Officials sometimes refuse to provide forms for parties which they do not agree with, try to convince voters to vote for other parties, claim 'the forms did not arrive' or loudly call for other officials to provide forms for 'that party'.

- voters are supposed to get 2 or 3 envelopes before they select their voting forms, then take those to a voting booth and put them in the envelopes which they are supposed to seal. In some voting locations the envelopes are handed out after the voter selects voting forms which makes it possible for the person handing out the envelopes to see which parties the voter has selected, again leading to comments and attempts at persuasion to vote for something else.

- in some voting locations the officials tell voters not to seal the envelopes. This makes it possible for them to check which parties the voter has selected. There are many reports of this happening and of filled envelopes 'falling on the ground' instead of being put in the voting box.

- only a single person is supposed to be in the voting booth but there are countless reports of this rule being violated, often by men 'helping' their wives because 'they do not understand' or 'they do not speak Swedish' or by election officials who tell the voter which forms to select, again violating voting secrecy as well as enabling voting coercion.

- election officials are supposed to check voter eligibility using state-issued valid means of ID before the voting envelopes are put in the voting boxes. There are several reports of voting locations where the envelopes are put in the box before ID is checked which has led to ineligible voters being allowed to vote in the state elections. There are also reports on invalid means of ID being accepted.

The system with individual voting forms for every party and election is fraught with error, ripe for abuse and incredibly wasteful since most of the printed voting forms are never used and thrown away after each election - hundreds of millions of forms, every election. A much better system would be for the state to provide a single form on which all parties and candidates are represented as well as a space for the voter to enter a candidate of his or her choosing who is not on the form. That form is to be considered an act of value which is handed out in the voting locality by voting officials, a single form for each voter and election type. Just this single change would take away many potential points of fraud and failure in the election process. One form for one voter for each election, handed out at the voting locality by an election official after checking voting eligibility. It'd also be far less wasteful since there'd be no more need to print hundreds of millions of voting forms in a country with just about 10 million inhabitants.

Did you read the article and follow the sources? If not, why not? Also, why spout nonsense about this being an 'alt-right blog'? Westerholm is a 'betongsosse', an old-style social democrat. Are they 'alt-right' just because they don't do identity politics?

If only, but that won't work because a certain group considers dissenting opinions not as political but ethically deplorable speech and votes and flags it down while defending their own political stance which in turn is voted up more than down and remains in the threads. The result is a biased platform. Notwithstanding the article the bias is mostly (possibly performatively) "progressive" with some cave outs related to startup culture, venture capitalism and whatever PG has to say on the subject.

They probably thought your reaction was too long and pressed that annoying get-rid-of-things-they-do-not-like button.

"good dog, here's a cookie"

You're repeating fruit factory propaganda as if it is gospel, the marketing department can be proud of their handiwork. In reality they're one of the most profit-maximisation centred companies out there in computing land, they don't really care all that much about what their users want and do their best to make it as hard as possible to escape from their "ecosystem". They fell into "value extraction" a long time ago and I don't see them stopping in any way as long as they have loyal apologists like you seem to be. Why would they? The money keeps rolling in, the congregation keeps on buying fruit phones and related paraphernalia, they'd be mad to stop from a business perspective.

Answer the question much? You're just quoting labels like 'democratic socialist' as if they mean anything. Remember what PDS stands for? The modern left is just as infused with revolutionary ideology as the left in the 60's - 80's. They may use different labels but those don't mean anything. If anything it seems that the more a party claims to be democratic in words, the less they are in deeds.

It won't. It will probably change it a lot but kill? The internet is a network of interconnected networks, why would "AI" kill that? Just because 98% of the end nodes turn out to be slop doesn't mean that the remaining 2% ceases to exist? If that were the case then the ubiquitous "social" networks killed the internet a long time ago. Just because TikTok is filled with human-produced slop doesn't make it more valuable than "AI"-produced dreck.

The fare-dodging example is valid for recent movies and music but it falters for older stuff where "older" means "older than the original copyright term", i.e. between 18 and 21 years. Beyond that it is more comparable to charging a wind-fee to sailing boats or a current-fee to river runners: taking money for a common good. Copyright has been extended and extended again just to keep people from drawing a cartoon mouse or singing a birthday song and that makes current copyright terms just as piratical as the self-styled internet pirates who have no qualms about releasing movies the day they are premiered.

Here's a fix: bring copyright terms back to something sensible, say 15 years. After that point copyrighted material is free to use for non-commercial purposes. For commercial purposes you still need a licence for another 10-15 years. Beyond that it becomes public domain, no licence required.

What makes you think Die Linke gave up their "religion"? I don't see any indication of such a conversion in either the Party's saying or doing. The same claim was made about other communist parties, e.g. "Vänsterpartiet" in Sweden which translates to "The Left Party" (they're even walking in step when it comes to choosing new labels) but it doesn't take much (or any, really) effort to pierce that veil.

I don't believe they gave up Marxism-Leninism, they just gave the monster a new name and claim it is nothing like its predecessor. They do that a lot, changing the label on the package. Inside it is still the same monster, waiting to be unleashed.

Of course there is competition: "piracy". The thing streaming was supposed to (mostly) eliminate by being "legal", easy, not too expensive, ad-free and easy to use while offering a wealth of things to see and hear. It even worked, for a while, in some places. Then they limited what could be seen and heard because of corporate politicking. Then the price went up, just a bit. Then more movies and artists suddenly went dark. Prices were raised again. Terms of use were changed allowing "limited" advertising where there was none before. Prices went up again while disallowing that TV upstairs to partake without buying another subscription. More ads, fewer things to see and hear, price rises, rinse and repeat.

What is that I see in the distance? A ship, right? They hail me, "Ahoy matey, come aboard, arrrrrrrrrrr...."

There will be on HN. Artisinal Intelligence, Biological Inference, Living Local Models, whatever. If the AI hype turns out to be real there will be a counter-revolution where the usual suspects start pushing their abacus-enhanced lifestyles, guaranteed AI-free.

Yes, which gave us luminaries like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez, Maduro and all those other Great Leaders. In other words, you reap what you sow.

Because it is the hot new thing and HN is a hype machine. Before AI there were crypto and blockchain, after AI there will be something else.

That point is said to lie somewhere around 640 KB if I recall correctly.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2863/did-bill-g...

> high levels of public service motivation - eg. the civil service, judiciary, NGOs, civil infrastructure, education.

Many of these are mostly known for harbouring activists, not public servants. They serve a cause, not the public and as such are just as unsuitable for politics as the usual suspects.

A little history goes a long way:

https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-...

The enmity between "the West" and "the middle east" goes back to the islamic colonisation era which created a religious incentive to "fight the infidels" and/or plunder and enslave them.

> On Android I think most apps still prefer to keep their own background connection open

Many Android apps give the option of using either FCM (Firebase Cloud Messaging, Google's push service), UnifiedPush or polling.

I've been using it for years, so has my family and recently a group of some 60 friends with whom we communicated about a large party ont of my friend and me organised. I made an invitation site with an instance of converse.js at the bottom of the page, pointed at an anonymous group on my (Prosody) server. We just mostly Conversations or one of its forks on Android - no fruit phones among us - and Converse.js on web, higher on the same server which hosts all our other services (mail, "cloud", media, etc.). Once installed and configured it is maintenance-free, lightweight and reliable.

That is how you gain traction: by having people use it, realise the user experience is comparable or in some cases superior to that of other messaging systems - the party chat thing I mentioned above being a good example - and then realise they dont need to hand over their data to an ad broker (Google, Metafacebook, the fruit factory) or the government (all of them through some "chat control" type law).