I think you’re overdramatizing it. Humans do shit when they can. The secret to prevention is to make so that they can’t. Not to make them promise they won’t. Not to pick “good” people who “certainly” won’t. Not to say many words how the wide masses will riot if they will.
Just make it so that they can’t. If they can, they will.
are the wooden hobby drones
They are using pretty normal drones. There are just different distances and different tools for different strikes, but they are pretty competent. BTW, learning from them is right too, Russia and Ukraine are now two nations with very competent and up-to-date militaries, in terms of modern warfare and not justice or glossiness. Evolution works.
in that one successful strike against Russia
They are, eh, making successful strikes all the time. Disruption is an achievement too.
When I worked for DoD. This was CBP and Other three letter groups biggest fears. Having their private lives invaded.
Might be unwise to frighten them before you have something to substantiate that fear with, they have weapons and an organization.
Cause frightening them without such basis is how you accelerate fascism. They would want to just enjoy their newly gotten power and - for the top - stolen money, but fear compels them to also press against threats to that.
Like after Bolotnaya protests in Moscow the Russian regime started doing various crap with increased tempo. They might not even have attacked Ukraine without it.
It’s not the bright side, I live in Russia, so many people here thought that it won’t start a big war because with all the corruption it can’t prepare well enough.
It doesn’t need to prepare well enough, LOL, it did that anyway.
Just like with your things. However much they’ll steal, I think they’ll do the prisons too. Worse and more expensive, but yeah.
See, when a prison hasn’t been built, it’s not their problem in a holocaust scenario. It’s the problem of the prisoners who’ll be crammed like sardines into spaces intended for smaller amount. Or kept under open-sky tent camps. Or something else.
This is exactly the Nazi playbook from the 30s. And the American public is letting him do it.
Technically this is American playbook. Between USA and Germany one country doesn’t have a history of facilities for returning slaves to their owners.
But honestly I’d expect these and other people to do whatever they want until stopped.
They have the technology for a concentration camp of the future, with such a degree of control that it can be relied to guard itself and arm its owners. They are using it. Want to fix something - look for holes.
I would say the future is in pooling resources.
Like it happens with torrents. As one p2p protocol very successful.
Self-hosting not applications, but storage and uniform services. Let different user applications use the same pooled storage and services.
All services are ultimately storage, computation, relays, search&indexing and trackers. So if there’s a way to contribute storage, computing resources, search and relay nodes by announcing them via trackers (suppose), then one can make any global networked application using that.
But I’m still thinking how can that even work. What I’m dreaming of is just year 2000 Internet (with FTP, e-mail, IRC, search engines), except simplified and made for machines, with the end result being represented to user by a local application. There should be some way to pay for resources in a uniform way, and reputation of resources (not too good if someone can make a storage service, collect payment, get a “store” request and then just take it offline), or it won’t work.
And global cryptographic identities.
Not like Fediverse in the end, more like NOSTR.
Yeah, but taxes can pay for all of that.
For prices set by whom? A moneymaking machine, see? Unless libraries are nationalized.
But if you intend to nationalize everything, then there should be a damn good plan at basically building a commonly-owned corporation to maintain nationalized services.
A paid library is fine as a concept, but only if it doesn’t decrease the availability of free libraries.
Yeah, except there’s one country where subsidizing paid services with taxes instead of fixing laws has both turned into a moneymaking machine for cronies and didn’t make the services more accessible. The country of origin, well, of all those tech companies.
It doesn’t matter how complicated the rules are, if the rules don’t permit money to play into it.
This is self-contradictory. Unless you forbid lawyers to work for money.
But sometimes a more complicated law is required because the situation is more complicated.
The situation always changes, so laws become more and more complex rapidly with a long tail of legacy that doesn’t solve its initial goals anymore.
So no, this can be solved with starting anew too. Just start anew every 5-10 years. If life requires something specific and the real world situation changes, I think one can wait that long. And this keeps the process simple enough.
And the most important part is that this doesn’t allow malicious parties to carefully build up legal traps over many decades to subvert democracy.
Just clean the house completely once a few years, leaving only the constitutional law. Accumulate political knowledge, not rituals and procedures most people don’t understand, with surprises hidden by crooks.
Like mowing the grass.
Quite the opposite. Give too much power into one central authority and that allows power to affect representatives. More distributed power at the local level, with restrictions on the abuse of that power coming from a higher level, is a much more equitable solution.
This is not exactly what I said. “Too many levels” is when representatives of one level elect other representatives, hierarchically. That shouldn’t happen (the first level might reminisce the buildup of opinions in the society, the following ones degrade to be comprised of the members of the most uniform plurality, not even the majority). I meant exactly more distributed horizontally as an alternative. Functionality-wise too.
That said, compulsory voting works wonders. We’ve seen it quite clearly here in Australia. Make everyone vote, and surprise surprise, the impact of a loud minority gets drowned out! Combine that with a voting system other than FPTP and you’re well set for a much better democracy.
Agreed.
Politics should not end at the ballot box, however, and getting people more involved in political life in general would be a great thing. Through communicating regularly with representatives. Through joining a union. Through attending protests. Etc. I’m also quite a fan of sortition.
Actually necessary. Ballot box is almost a scam by now, since you are offered a limited choice based on limited information and can’t just, say, press “+” and write in your own candidate. Almost the first time I see the word “sortition” used by somebody else on Lemmy.
At some point I thought that it’s good that people not interested can avoid participating, but then realized that this is the simplest way to hijack anything.
We’ve seen first-hand how terrible it is when someone who thinks the government is “too much professional bureaucratic entities” comes into power, in the US. This is absolutely terrible anti-intellectual rubbish.
No. One can have constraints on from whom such organs are formed. Just no bureaucratic institution should be allowed to self-reproduce all by itself and have its secrets. Only that.
I don’t much care one way or the other about 3, it’s an insignificant irrelevance.
Couldn’t be further from truth. So, your representative is supposed to represent you, right? If they don’t do that, what’s better, wait another N years until another vote, or, if they failed notably enough already, call a vote with enough signatures and elect someone better immediately?
This also makes lobbying a far less certain thing, since the person paid might be recalled a few days after. Which is good.
Except there should be some practical limitations to prevent what Stalin did in 20s (pressuring the specific small initial constituency of his key opponents to disrupt their groups ; this was in the Soviet system with a hierarchy of councils electing members to upper councils and so on, so - with not as many levels this isn’t really a vulnerability even).
7 might be the only genuinely fantastic point.
At some point it was normal in western countries, even more than unions. There’s a risk, of course, since, well, customer associations and unions might sometimes press in the opposite directions.
But when actual violence and half-legal pressure are denied by the law and the enforcers, these work just fine.
the oligarchy as it currently stands precedes the capitalist state as we know it today. some of them even come from the very same families, like they are fucking kings (they are)
I mean, these are terms with vague borders - oligarchy, feudalism, capitalism …
About same families - I guess in France/Italy/Germany or in Japan maybe.
and that’s nothing, if you consider feudalism lasted even longer
Same problem. Arguably in Britain a lot of it still lasts, and in Germany.
OK. So my point was specifically about modern regress and tech corporations. Not all of history.
That “treated like a utility” approach involves reliance upon the state, which is sometimes controlled by the hostile parties. This is what I don’t like in Internet political discussions, such solutions feel as if they assumed that you make it good once and it remains good.
I don’t believe in nationalization. I only believe in a simple, small and very firmly enforced set of laws.
It’s not about for-profit or not for-profit, it’s about laws being used to force you to pay to a certain kind of businesses. And not to whoever you like.
Because a paid library is kinda fine as a concept. A library has to function, repair chairs, change lightbulbs, pay security guards and, ahem, librarians, pay for new books and electricity and so on.
So - laws forcing you to predictably pay to someone involved in making laws. Copyright laws, surveillance laws, other laws. And the state having its secrets, and doing a lot of that funding and pressure and what not in secret.
And the more complex your set of rules is, the more it turns into “money buys right”, because it turns into a game where the side with more money on lawyers and technical solutions to loopholes wins.
The rightmost parties which want to defund public services are perfectly complemented by the left-center parties which generally want to have unaccountable funding of some public service. It’s not a left\right\yellow\blue issue. It’s an issue of a political system where only those representing some power interest are able to act. Just there are some power interests in replacing a public service with a private monopoly\oligopoly, and some power interests in feeding from the public service itself. I’m pretty certain that, similar to hedge funds, these ultimately end on the same groups of people.
One can even say that this is a market dynamic.
So - the political system is intended to ideally function like a centerpoint, not the milking mechanism described.
The problem is
in a too complex set of laws (honestly I’d suggest a limit on the total amount and a limit on the length of one law, and a referendum week once in 5 years on every law from the list suggested for the next 5 years, dropping all that was before ; when the laws are so complex that you can be right or wrong in any situation depending on being poor or Bezos, it means that the idea of having a specific law for every situation has just failed),
in too many levels of representation allowing power to affect representatives,
in there being no process to at any moment initiate recall of a representative,
in not wide enough participation, it would be best if the majority of population would participate a few times as a representative in various organs, this can be made with making those organs more function-separated and parallel, with bigger amount of places and mandatory rotation, so that one person could become a politician on one subject once for a year or so,
in there being too much professional bureaucratic entities inside the government,
in no nationwide horizontal organizations allowing to 2A through any situation,
in trade unions and consumer associations (there was such a thing too, ye-es) being almost dead.
So just have to fix these 7 points, and life will be better.
LOL, this is something averaging the classical (as in ideal, never really existing) American Republican ideas and the classical (as in functioning for a few years in early 1920s and late 1980s) Soviet system. Why do they mix so well, LOL.
yes that’s precisely what i implied, because they control it in the first place. companies like amazon are more powerful than nation states, and they exercise that power.
And I’m trying to say that the state helping them was first.
this has been the capitalist state’s modus operandi for more than 100-200 years. and the oligarch’s power precede it, they shaped it that way back then.
Not really. Every month, year, decade is different.
aaron schwartz was literally just a dude, not remotely comparable to oligarchs.
He had the right ideas of how to solve one particular industry which is the spearhead of barbarism. And he somehow committed suicide in jail.
I think it’s the other way around. See, hosting a service on the Internet carries some obligations.
The state treats them so that those are much easier to fulfill for these platforms.
The state gives them very expensive projects.
The state kills Aaron Schwartz, purely coincidentally also the author of the RSS standard. That thing that comes the closest to a uniform way of aggregating the Web, which would kill a lot of what platforms provide.
The state makes some of their products standard for the state, making those commercial things necessary to interact with the state.
So, the state does a lot to give them that monopoly in the first place.
Yes, because without one government that was helping them out, punishing their competition and funding them, also making regulations convenient for them, Alphabet, Meta and others would be even more powerful. /s
GNU Taler is supposed to be a solution. Sort of a federated one. If I understand it correctly.
Power finds a way, so I wouldn’t hope for nationalization itself to be anything good.
Maybe the idea of BTC was fine. What wasn’t fine is the idea of mining.
And maybe payments over the Internet or over PSTN are fundamentally different from messaging, conferencing, downloading files, all that stuff.
But what’s important is the ability to pay for a service with something resembling cash IRL in the sense that an ATM machine from which you took that cash can’t take it back because you are paying for an adult journal with it.
But at the same time how can there be so few payment processors that they can affect a platform’s decision to do a kind of business?
That’s where we should look. Why is it hard to be a payment processor.
What else do people use itch.io for?
It makes perfect sense, the resistance of having Windows legacy software etc becomes smaller the more of that goes out of use, the resistance of everyone only knowing Windows becomes smaller with nobody even knowing Windows, and the resistance of corporate interests becomes smaller because it’s all in the Web, and the Web has been corrupted and Chrome works on Linux.
So. Listen to me carefully. If Linux domination happens without FreeBSD and Haiku normalization, then things are bad.
OK, so now it’s important to create collegial democratic project government for Linux, and freeze Linus in carbonite as a memorial. Before Linux has become too important, and before Linus lost his marbles to become a geriatric dictator.
Actually in the age of Android I think it’s already too late, but this should be done regardless.
As, eh, someone living in Russia - comparisons of the Russian military with the IDF are at this point unjust. It fights a war of aggression, and it does that the Soviet way, which is imprecise and costly in lives of civilians. But it doesn’t intentionally starve a whole city, shooting at those coming for aid it pretends to provide and intent on “deporting” them entirely.
Just to make it clear, the whole situation sucks, and there is a right and a wrong side, but not comparable with Gaza.