Welcome to reality, most people use cheap $20 chinese screens.

Oh, Brian, we meet again, and we disagree once again. Taxes and the labor code are not what is making things expensive.

- The labor code is not even close to being the one reason companies do not hire : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2871900?sommaire=287202...

- Countless fiscal advantages have already been given and tried, effectively the same thing as lowering taxes on companies. That includes the CIE, CICE, CIR, the reduction of TVA in restaurants, fiscal benefits for life insurance holders, lowering the ISS to 34.6%, removing taxes on plus-value, the globalised worldwide profits regime, and the countless things that can be listed here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_fiscale

All of these happened, and the costs have not changed. Some of them were given in exchange of promise of jobs (the change of TVA in restaurants being one of the most notable), and none happened. Profits went up, though.

I would rather have microwave repair costs go up to 80€ than lower our living standards.

>I certainly wouldn’t be happy if I had to pay several hundred euros more for a microwave because of a law mandating the type of screw holes that must be used.

hyperbole.txt

...You do know that communism advocates for a society where control is something done in collaboration with others? Because China, or the USSR calls itself communist does not mean it is. A simple reading of Marx & Engels' work would clarify that.

The congested road network still happens with Google cars.

Except for having to build an, uh, entire airport.

>The notion of no longer blowing up the Middle East and treating Russia as a villain, was impossible for them to stomach re Trump,

Ah, yes, which is why he's threatening North Korea, attacking airfields in Syria, selling weapons to Saudi Arabia (which is currently in a war with Yemen), bombing in Afghanistan, in his own words giving the military "total authorization", authorized a raid in Yemen, and the list goes on.

You were _sold_ no more nation building, by a man who has interests in having his fingers everywhere in the globe. That you bought it hook, line and sinker is yet another problem.

In the same way, the Vietnam war was reasonably popular at first. It was barely around 67 and after countless deaths that the opinion was overwhelmingly negative, forcing the US to go back tail between its legs.

Maybe Americans no longer want war. Every single leader they are electing certainly doesn't share that opinion though. So, either they actually quite enjoy playing world police, or they're quite frankly so manipulable it becomes scary. But go on ahead and blame "the globalists" and "the deep state" (which, intended or not, is very much an InfoWars term, not exactly a reputable source), I am certain that'll do a lot of good.

... It's probably not worth $200 though.

If I facepalmed any harder, my hand would go through my face. A properly setup server, with caching and a backend not written in node, will go a hell of a long way. You can scale to tens of thousands of concurrent users with a single server.

Spoiler: your startup will most likely not even scale up to that level.

These posts are stuck in a tiny little world, made up of hackernews and what is currently hyped on hackernoon and smashing magazine. In the reality, JS still hasn't won, IIS is still powering half of the servers, and Java is still winning. Javascript has gotten better, and if you use Typescript it even becomes a good language. There are certainly some very good things that came out of it (and some very, very dumb wheel reinvention), and I dare say there is not a single UI toolkit that gets close to Vue/React, thanks to the composability and CSS being good enough for theming. Animations are still a major pain point. Serverless will cost you an awful lot past the beginning point, much more so than renting servers, or even having them on-place and paying sysadmins when you are at that stage between medium and big.

While being optimist and non-flamey, which is a good read, it is also a sad state of affairs. The backend, database and "native" side of things boils down to "I don't understand servers, I don't understand databases, I don't understand that bringing a browser along with my application is a bad thing.". I get it. We are asked to push ot feature after feature after feature. But it is genuinely holding everyone back. It's making our software worse. Electron applications are a 15 years jump back in the past, except that they look pretty.

Funnily enough, React + Redux is "Global god state + functions", with a bit of dispatch sprinkled in. Not too far away really.

I definitely see the benefits of having a functional approach to defining UIs. My code is _somewhat_ clear, clearer than what it would have been with say, WinForms or something of the like. Going purely functional everywhere is just devs cargo culting.

No? Capital is absolutely meaningless in a society. Capital doesn't give society anything. Actual, physical goods do, services do, a healthy population that protects us through the herd effect do. Capital in itself? It is on the brink of being nefarious for society.

>There are plenty of places throughout the United States where the only viable means of transportation is the automobile (or a motorcycle, as you point out). The consequences of not having auto insurance is also bankruptcy. Would you characterize the auto insurance market in those locales as similarly coercive?

Aside from the fact that you will rarely suddenly end up in such a place without warning (which cannot be said when it comes to health), I would say that it's a problem of society. Why is there no public transport that could do most of the job of your car?

It's genuinely hilarious how much you seem to take everything at face value. Better keep my gulag jokes then. To be completely fair, ideally, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. If we could have a perfectly functioning society, where everyone understands the value of collaborating, I would not want to have to do that. I really don't.

Unfortunately, privation of freedom, is in 99% of the cases the only thing that works with this kind of people. You could try explaining, in depth, the value of contributing to a greater purpose than just amassing wealth for you and your family, but in the end, you're very likely to just end up facing a brick wall. The choices are either waiting until they leave your society (which they won't, because they enjoy the benefits it brings while still wanting to not contribute), or making them respect the rules.

> I suspect that this is a result of cognitive dissonance: you realise that you cannot rebut their arguments rationally, and thus wish to 'rebut' them physically, by appeals to the majority.

I could suspect you're full of shit, but that doesn't get us very far. You seem to be believing that only your (or their) arguments are rational. Mine, however, are not because... it goes against your view of the world, I guess ?

>51% of the people can vote to piss in the cornflakes of the other 49%. That doesn't make it right.

Since you want to start making parallels, let's take these at face value too then. This implies that:

a) Only a 51% percent majority wishes our society to be this way. Which is blatantly false. b) You are part of this enlightened 49%. And dear God, if that isn't the mother of all cognitive dissonances.

When it comes to this subject, you are a minority. You are a blip on the radar. Worse yet, this is nefarious and actively harming society.

I impatiently await the inevitable "So it is okay to harm minorities as long as the majority wants it? What about slavery?" argument, which can be so easily refuted that it's not even fun.

I also impatiently await the "but rules are not fair right now, look at imprisonment of black people in the US" argument, which is already answered by the previous "Fix your damn system, don't burn it down" answer. Yes, it isn't fair. Yet people fought for things before. People fought against laws that were unjust. And when they were truly unjust, these people usually won. Do the same thing with your convictions. Maybe in fifteen years, you'll have won.

If your desire is to go live in Libertopia, please do so. Renounce your citizenship. There's no justification in my mind, you have the choice. Unhappy with paying your taxes, or having to give away some of your money for the good of society? Then leave behind _everything_ this society has brought you. Let's see how you do. The amount of selfishness behind those comments is astounding. You are perfectly happy with reaping the benefits of said society, while not wanting to contribute back through the rules that have been established.

Yes, it's tyranny of the majority. Do you know why? Because it is the best system we have, for now. Do you want to live in a society where taxes are a thing of the past? Then educate. Educate your fellow man, try to make him understand why this is (according to you), a good thing. And maybe you'll convince him. And maybe you'll convince more. And maybe, one day, your grand-grandchild will live in such a world.

In the mean time, we have agreed upon these rules for decades, and since it hasn't changed, it seems like your ideology isn't what people want.

>When seemingly intelligent and articulate people so easily rationalize imprisoning their fellow man and woman, it's horrifying to witness.

I mean, if you want the punishment to be rubbing your face in the dirt until you understand _why_ things are the way they are and why this is better than your idea now, I'm down for it. But since the two things you seem to value are wealth and freedom, and you're not willing to give up your wealth when you have to be punished, we can only act on the latter.

You're advocating for throwing down all that's on the table and burning everything, because you want your money. I'm trying to make society go forward and improve life for everyone.

Please review the highlights of what an organised society has brought us. If you need a very long list of examples of how selfish, greedy people has damaged our world, just look outside your window.

An estimated 160.000 cars driving for Uber in the US, many of which doing so as a full time job will pollute less. Right. Riiiiight.

By allowing it to willfully break laws in dozens of countries, contributing to lowering standards of living and high stress at work, tracking users at all times, having a hostile workplace, then becoming the most important provider of such services in the world?

Yeah, that's totally capitalism doing its work, and not the painfully obvious "throw VC money at it until it works" scheme, right