Not to be too dismissive but I think that's the problem. Modern SPAs with React et al are very bloated and imo a massive wrong turn compared with the simple boring tech that was before it, with very little gain to show for it as well.

> In every instance I've seen, redistribution does limit mobility - as well as introduces a middleman (the redistributors that steal/war/lie/oppress), corruption, politics, and extreme inefficiencies.

Care to explain? Or are you just being childishly contrarian which your last sentence seem to suggest?

The real outrage here is the millions and millions of people squandering their talents in some shite job due to lack of opportunity, not the handful of billionaires that started from nothing and whose children might now be taxed somewhat.

Much of Western-Europe show you otherwise, I'm not sure how you could have missed that?

The reason why functional languages doesn't take off is because programming languages are tools, not an end in themselves. Carpenters that are obsessed with perfecting their power tools would rightly be out of a job in a very short amount of time. Furthermore most of these "perfections" aren't even virtuous - in the sense of searching for improvement - but just self-indulgence and aesthetics.

Functional languages are dense, hard to read, have a high cognitive load, and are thus unproductive beyond the proverbial garage startup. They are also designed and used mostly by mentioned power tool decorators rather than practitioners, with the inevitable end result.

You should know your enemy better than lazily repeating Cold War rhetoric. 99% of all socialists today are firmly democratic.

Also I think that the source code of his projects in Python pretty much validates the point of writing simple code. He has made great user-facing APIs (flask) but as soon you dive into the code base itself it's imo a rather dense and hairy mess of abstractions.

Do you believe that the newly emancipated slaves retreated to their own self-subsistence farms directly after the civil war or what?

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me at all.

I had to ask, because that's otherwise your MO.

> Because like I already explained, product and brand reputation are extremely important for market success.

There's no brand reputation risk if most large manufacturers have similar durability.

> The example that I gave was how Apple's hard-earned excellent reputation

How can you keep using Apple as an example when it has been one of the most obvious offender and is also one of the giants within the most obviously offending industry - smartphones.

> It demolishes this idea that the market has a general incentive to reduce product longevity.

No, it just shows that technology has moved forward with regards to a advanced industrial product.

> like consumers consciously choosing more disposable products over longer-lasting ones

You've cherry-picked the only type that fits your narrative, preference for disposable products (which I actually agree with you on, but causes of this is an interesting topic in itself). But to pick that and not to explain the type where billions of dollars each year are spent on trying to create new non-essential needs that aren't really there making the existing products obsolete, a.k.a "Perceived obsolescence"? How is this "efficient"?

> but any reasonable person who read your original comment would agree that the latter was what you were originally referring to.

This is my original comment: "Well, yes, that capitalism will cause a production craze is even written in the Communist Manifesto. What "effective" means in practice however is another thing - there's nothing effective about planned obsolescence, great for the current measurement of economic growth though."

How is this inconsistent with focusing on the inefficiencies of all kinds of planned obsolescence of the free market?

> Googling to find a bunch of articles about planned obsolescence and then listing them without checking first to see if they are credible sources or even providing a summary of the evidence they contain to accompany them is completely inconducive to constructive discussion.

Once again, you linked to a single reddit post, eat humble pie.

And that requires information about a groups composition ahead of time doesn't it?

Anyway, I think it's important to remember that this is English speaking folks that are trying to be more inclusive and finding "Latinos" to refer primarily to a group of males. They may even disagree with the original preference of Spanish to go with Latinos over Latinas for a mixed composition.

It would be comparable if English already divided up in Swedish and Swedishess or similar.