I think the situation is more nuanced than that.

Of course, the F-35 program was an incredibly expensive mess (litterally the most expensive weapon program of all time), because of conflicting specs, data leaks, political infighting, cost overruns which are the stuff of legend, etc… At some moments, there were certainly reasons to think the whole program would collapse on itself like wet tissue paper.

But there are operational F35 now. 900+ as of 2023, which is 4 time more than the rest of Gen 5 fighters combined. And performance-wise, it is good, especially on the stealth & avionics parts. On the other side, the J-20 is largely unproven (probably a decent design, but not as good), and the Su-57 is a bunch of glorified prototypes.

Now sure, cost is high, maintenance is time-consuming, availability somewhat below target, but it's not particularly surprising for high-performance equipment. It may fall short of the ambition of the program on the cost part, but by itself it's a dangerous and fully operational fighter.

I'm not surprised by the fact it did collapse, but i'm surprised that libertarians, of all people, did not try to solve the bear problem using extensive amounts of firepower.

While I respect the degree of technical expertise you can get on SO, I am very much convinced this is a failed experiment which will slowly collapse on itself. And I think that because the organization of the site is completely at odds with it's professed goal.

SO is not really a forum, because time is supposed to be irrelevant : a 12 years old answer takes precedence over a question asked now, failing to consider that, maybe, the context of this question has changed. Its ridiculous, especially in the context of software engineering.

On the other hand, it's not a library either : a library is a collection of book, which are relatively self-contained knowledge systems. And in practice, the SO answers are not self-contained. They merely answer a specific point, with no guaranteed coherence from one to another, so a beginner cannot use them to build a broad understanding of a subject.

To take the analogy of the Cathedral and the Bazar, I am under the impression that SO members are trying to build a cathedral out of the stone sold by hundred of bazaar people, and refuse to see that fact that all stones all having different sizes and dimensions is maybe kind of a problem when you build a cathedral.

I don't doubt you had terrible experiences related to sexual harassment, and I'm sorry for you. Nobody deserve this.

But don't try to muddle the issue here. You have been attacked by people. And you decided that the pertinent group to understand these attacks is their gender, so we need to differentiate on this basis. You could have analyzed it along education level, wealth, apparent race, apparent religion, social persona, zodiacal type, car brand, profession, haircut, or anything else.

But you chose to judge the risk level of people based on their gender. Because you think that, for some reason, you have a much clearer perspective than other people you know litterally nothing about but their gender. It is the exact same thing that makes people discriminate others about the color of their skin, or wealth, or any of the illegal type of discrimination. You are using the same logic, and by extension, you are legitimazing it. There's a reason discrimination laws do a blanket ban of this kind of thing, and not "some genders/races/others are more protected than others" : it's because every use of every kind of this arbitrary categorization strengthen every other.

If by “mental illness” this graph refers to the effects on the mind of the person who study it, then it’s dreadfully accurate.

The problem of the “Punch a Nazi” line of thought is not particularly that Nazis are subject to violence : most people (centrists included) couldn’t care less about what happens to them specifically.

No, the real issue here is that people don’t trust the perception of others. You don’t attack a fascist, you attack someone who you think is a fascist. And polarization of the political discourse mean that you can be easily accused of crypto-fascism for pretty much anything (see Hexbear for example). And some people will take it at face value, and hence feel justified to attack you.

I blame the release of both Factorio and Victoria 3.

Well, I think we’ll have disagree here : you take on the calculation problem is the opposite of both my theorical framework and practical experience of industry (I work as an Electrical Engineer).

You can try to predict the demand of course, but the prediction is always fairly different from reality. Often, it’s workable. Sometimes it’s not.

But to be honest, the Economic Calculation Problem is ill-named, because from a Signal Processing persepctive, it’s not really a processing power problem. No, the problem is in the Signal-to-noise ratio of the signals used to do these calculation.

Ultimately, if you have a very noisy signal (and economic signals are incredibly noisy), there’s really not much you can do with just more processing power. And I have good reason to believe (based on Psycho-social understanding) that the way these signals are transmitted in Centrally Planned system (socialist or not), are particularly noisy themselves. Much more than prices-and-market based systems.

That being said, I don’t think we’ll see eye to eye here. Thanks for the discussion tho, it is always interesting to hear how other people think.

I don’t assume that all critics don’t know what they are talking about, but no offense, you did not in fact know the information required to understand Marx’s Labor Voucher system.

My bad, that may have sounded a bit agressive. I just mean that I know people on Lemmy tends to have very… polarized opinions of the political literacy of other people they disagree with, and I know that I’m not immune to that either. That’s more to show my position on this than to point out something you did specifically.

the USSR did in fact try to abolish “money,” but went about it poorly and it failed.

Yep, that exactly my point. Money is kind of central to a complex economy, and the USSR had issues even while still using it.

The USSR planned everything by hand, and still managed to develop rapidly and provide for their people

You may want to look at the opinion of someone like Paul Krugman on that. He makes some interesting parallels in the rapid industrialization of countries like South Korea or Japan and what happened in the USSR before, using the difference between intensive and extensive growth. For him, the gist of it is that authoritarian control of the economy can provide impressive extensive growth (put people to work, mechanize agriculture, provide basic education, infrastructure, etc…), but that once you reach a somewhat prosperous but intermediary state, you need to switch to intensive growth (creating more output value for less inputs) to get to the “next stage”, so to speak. He also argues that South Korea and Japan did this, while the USSR never managed and that’s why from the 60’s onward the economic prosperity of the USSR entered a long period of stagnation.

which aspects of Marx had issues? Do you have any actual examples I can look at?

I mostly disagree with the extreme reductionism of historical materialism, which affirm that the whole of history is the history of the possession of the means of production. That mean that while I understand that the bourgeoisie/proletariat dichotomy as a useful heuristic about social analysis, I don’t belive it is necessarily the most useful one in all cases. From there, the notion of the superiority of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” becomes very shaky, so the political theory of action all goes downhill from there. And globally, the whole problem of Economic Calculation make the whole theory of the working of communism I extremely difficult to solve (but to the credit of Marx, this problem would only emerge due to a better understand of market-based economics, half a century later).

In that case, that means that the only workable economic system for Marx is a centrally planned economy (which, from what I know, is not the position of the majority of communists). Otherwise, you’re going to have severe information transfer/cooperation issues at the system boundaries. Which is already historically what happened in the USSR and most strict application of central planning. And unless I’m mistaken, they still had money.

As for Marx… It’s more that I read a subset of Marx works, found too many issues within the theories themselves, and honestly don’t have unlimited time to see if he corrects it in some other works. And despite looking a bit for it in other forms (including discussion with some very left-leaning friends), I never found any answer I found really satisfactory.

And to be honest, I understand why you assume this is a propaganda issue : communist/socialist/anarchist theories are largely misrepresented in common discourse. That being said, don’t make the mistake of believing that all critics don’t know what they’re talking about. Or even that mainstream theories are immune to this type of misrepresentation (because they most certainly are not).

Meh, this distinction seems largely artificial to me. Modern fiat money is already created and destroyed through use of debt, and I hardly think that’s what communists think of. And a strict “non-transferability” would beg the question of why would the “productive forces” (companies, cooperatives, or whatever) try to do produce things if they can’t accumulate value based on consumers spending preferences (which is an issue which happened in the USSR).

Even worse : if vouchers don’t fulfill the roles people want, you’re still going to have a kind of informal money (gasoline, tobacco, seashells, etc… as said above), just with vouchers in parallel.

That being said, I never had much respect for Marx’ political theories, so I would totally understand if you wanted to drop the point.

If you go by the definition of money : “The primary functions which distinguish money are as a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value and sometimes, a standard of deferred payment.” (Wikipedia, but it’s a workable definition).

It’s a medium of exchange, because people can use them to buy things. It’s a unit of account, because it will be used as a metric for economic calculation (ie accounting). It’s a store of value too, because people don’t have to spend it at a particular time. And the “standard of deferred payment” part is also fulfilled, as it quantify the work-time debt society (or simply a company) owe to a worker.

I honestly fail to see what difference you are trying to make.

That’s money too.

Because public programs were somehow even more expensive for the same externalities and service.

I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what Proton actually brought to Linux gaming.

I had been running Linux exclusively for some moths in 2013-2014, and trying to get games to work on Linux felt like this : Wine is likely able to run it if you can found the right configuration, but good luck with that. I think the only game I managed to run without issues was Civilization 4, so I rolled back on Windows some time later.

Of course, Valve contributed to Wine, and projects like dxvk and others are major achievements (if a team effort), but that’s not their main contribution. Valve understood that gamers may be somewhat more tech-litterate than other people, but that making games work on Linux should be easy. And that’s what Proton was made for.

Nowadays, most games I buy on Steam work out of the box. I sometimes forget to check protondb before buying a games, and I rarely had an issue. Even if in 2018 you had to tinker a bit, you rarely needed more than to choose the correct Proton version (big up to Glorious Eggroll).

I think it’s symptomatic of the situation of the Linux Desktop : technically, it’s where it needs to be. But there is still a gap in accessibility and easiness. Tinkering is nice, but you should not have to do it to have something that works.

No. You could reasonably argue that the LFI program is social-democrat, but their internal democracy is a joke, and JLM himself consider the Venezuelian political system to be a model while being remarkably tolerant of Russia’s imperialistic moves. This guy’s a crypto-tankie.

As for the RN, there are a fair number of fascists in the party (and nazis too, but that’s different), but they mostly seems there because there are no legal political formation further right. The voting base don’t particularly support them, and even the high management is annoyed by their presence/visibility… Even is their tolerance of it is far too much for my taste.

This government is getting dumber every day. Goddammit.

Using “Moderate leftist politicians” to depict Melenchon and its party is a very dubious take. And I won’t ho into the use of “nazi” for convenience, refardless of the truth of the matter.

I don’t particularly want Lemmy instances to become echo-chambers, but “good faith disagreement” require a degree of trust between people.

Here in this thread, we see Hexbear users worried to be silenced because of political opinion, while Lemm.ee users seems to be mightily annoyed by Hexbear users as they act in in way that would be at home on 4Chan.

I’m not convinced that these actions are one of a minority within HB, but even if it is the case, it’s going to be difficult to establish a basis of trust for these discussions…

There are already plenty of leftist in the non left-centric instances. Hell, if you really want a far-left perspective, there are others which doesn’t consider obnoxiousness a virtue, which seems to be a core tenant of Hexbear.