Yeah, I agree

While I agree, it’s a pretty lame thing to say “This doesn’t work for your use case? That’s because your use case is wrong” If the distro doesn’t support PIA, then that is an issue with the distro, not the user.

My neighbors planted blackberries on their side of the property line. It takes a good few days each year for me to cut them back off my side. Please, if you want blackberries, plant them in their own little zone, and be mindful of how they can spread

Hey now, artificial neural networks aren’t always the bad kind of AI, they’ve been around a long time and I really enjoyed playing with them back during my time at University

It’s common in big tech companies to have a small internal team that has the full-time job of contributing to the FOSS software they use. That is how this should have been handled. Google wants a new feature/bug squished? You’ve got your team that can make the change, that’s literally the whole point of FOSS.

I partially agree. I think not voting is a vote for whichever candidate you like the least, since if you had voted somewhere else, the candidate you like the least would have gotten a smaller percentage of the votes. If you want to cast a blank vote, vote for whichever party would do the least damage., since that will actually have a measurable outcome. If you think all candidates are equally bad, including 3rd party, I think voting for someone who has some level of cultural relevance and holds the same views you do makes the most sense, since that makes the statement that you would vote for candidates like that person.

You make it seem so black and white. I don’t think it’s as simple as the lesser evil choice is 100% wrong full stop. For instance, I support the lesser evil mindset over the not voting mindset. However, if one exists, I support voting for a politician that genuinely supports your views over the lesser evil mindset.

Not voting makes no sense to me, because a null vote has the same effect as a vote for whichever candidate you like the least.

I guess the fundamental difference between your perspective and mine is that I don’t see it as refusing to play their game, I see it as just another move in their game. I think there is no way to avoid playing the game, and so you should make a move that leads to the least bad outcome. It doesn’t take much effort, maybe a day of research at most to pick whoever you want to vote for. Not voting is technically a vote for whichever candidate you like the least, at least it has the same outcome.

That being said, I agree with you in that that won’t result in change on a larger, long-term scale, and that actions must be taken outside of the system to get what you want. But that stance and my stance on not voting are not mutually exclusive.

I don’t agree with this, but I understand the sentiment. While I think, at the core of it, the folks at the top of both sides have the same goals in mind, I don’t think the elections are rigged to that degree. Also, while voting 3rd party feels like a waste of a vote, I don’t see it as one, since third party votes are counted, and can have some semblance of social sway. Not voting and voting for a party that you disagree most with will have the same effect however, since both pull the vote towards the candidate you like the least.

Oh, then I think we agree with each other. I’m specifically wondering why someone would abstain from voting

I don’t know if I understand what you are suggesting. Are you saying the working class should vote third party, or each person should vote for themself? Or when you say vote for our own parties do you mean not vote at all?

I don’t think I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that the time it takes to look into a candidate is the damage being done? I was thinking on a larger scale. All 4 options lead to a politician getting sworn in, who will inevitably, directly cause people to die. Picking the option that appears to be likely to kill the least people would theoretically cause the least damage in their 4 years. I’m calling 4 years the short term here.

I’d love to have a discussion about this. I am a socialist through and through. I believe that the system needs to be dismantled to achieve any meaningful change, and that no progress can realistically be made within the system.

I’d argue that there are 4 actions within the system. Vote red, vote blue, vote third party, and don’t vote. I’d argue that all 4 options will never lead to meaningful change. However, given this, every American who is eligible to vote is forced into playing the game, there is no way to abstain. Even not voting leads to a meaningful outcome within the system, and thus is still playing the game.

If no actions within the system can change things, I pose that the only way to disrupt this system is by dismantling it from the outside via revolution.

This however, cannot be done overnight, even if you are consistently acting on it. These types of things take a general sense of civil unrest to get kicked off. I believe that under capitalism, this unrest is inevitable, and once it hits a tipping point, the revolution will start. In the meantime, I feel we have two actions we can take.

First, we should be ushering in the revolution. Organize, make people aware of the alternative, disrupt the system in any means you reasonably can, try to get people to be sympathetic to the cause, etc. Don’t slack on your responsibility to prepare and eventually initiate the revolution.

Second, since we have no choice but to play the game we’ve been dropped in to, you should vote for short term damage mitigation. If you are forced to take an action within the system, I feel people have a moral obligation to try to reduce the harm to others as much as possible. This involves making a vote, since not voting results in almost the same outcome as a vote for the candidate furthest away from the one you considered least harmful.

I have yet to see an argument that shows how not voting is going against or dismantling the system. However, considering so many people believe that not voting is the right choice, I’m really interested in hearing someone explain it to me, as there must be some reasoning behind it that I’m not seeing.

For a minute I was confused, but the left is so much an improvement to the right I came to that conclusion before checking the comments. That’s some great progress, keep it up!

That’s fair, but as someone who likes to contribute to FOSS projects with features that I want, I’d like every tool I use to be FOSS, so I can make them work exactly the way I want them to, while also providing something to those that don’t want to/can’t pay for a tool like this, or just don’t want to have the inevitablity of having spent hundreds of hours getting used to a tool, only for the owning company to make it unusable for you.

In FOSS projects, if a project starts to go a route you don’t like, you can ignore all future updates and still get the exact experience you wanted.

I think this is what Louis was going for. He doesn’t want to ask for no more companies, just companies that make a product (doesn’t even need to be a good one) where its sole purpose is to try (doesn’t even need to succeed) and be useful to the consumer.

I think he hit his mark pretty well for the symbol, but whether or not I agree with his view on things is a different story entirely.

I’m guessing you are only in programming communities, I’ve seen it talked about in plenty of circles outside of programming

Not sure if you are aware, but foundations give you a grid system to use. A lot of players will build foundations up high, and build on a large, floating platform. I came from Factorio, and I actually really liked the factory size/shape constraints in Satisfactory, as it doesn’t let me use the same design solution for every resource node. Some places trains can easily get to, others require trucks to get the resources to where the train can pick them up, and others still require drones. I felt like in factorio, I could use the systems I came up with early throughout the entire game, and the only thing I needed to change was how to pump resources into my factory and scaling up my defense system.

I pay for the streaming services, but don’t stream. Maybe this is me trying to justify “theft”, but how I like to think about it is this: I pay for the streaming services. I have the technical know-how to either download directly or rip (screen record) any shows I want from any of the popular services, as well as to write the scripts myself to roughly automate this. I also have spare computers to do this 24/7. However, it’s actually better for the streaming service that I don’t do this myself, since they still get my money without me using the bandwidth. I pay for AMC Stubs A-list but don’t often see the movies in theaters, so I don’t feel bad pirating new releases. As for movies/shows not on streaming services, I could buy used dvd/blurays, rip them myself, then sell them back, but that would ultimately result in a near-net-zero cost anyway, so what’s the point of going through all that? In my mind, as long as I’m paying for these subscriptions pirating feels like it’s no longer an ethical/moral gray area.

Note that I only do this because I can afford to. When I was younger, I would pirate everything without worrying because if I couldn’t afford to pay the streaming service, they didn’t lose a potential customer if I pirated anyway. Now that I am better off and would definitely be paying for these subscriptions, I might as well, but still get to own the content I’m paying for. 120TB and counting!

For those with preexisting lifetime memberships, things haven’t changed yet (outside of basically trying to make Plex a social media thing), but in my eyes it’s only a matter of time. Made the switch to Jellyfin this week after having used Plex for 5 years. If I wanted to invite new users to join my server, they’d have to pay $2 a month to be able to watch on their phone instead of the one-time payment of $5.