The guy I'm talking about operates out of Portland.

https://x.com/kevinvdahlgren

All that to say, you can give normal "down on their luck" people homes and that solves the problem. Those people generally do pull themselves out of it somehow anyway or can take advantage of available assistance. But give an addict, or someone with schizophrenia housing and it will either be destroyed, or they can't live by the rules (usually staying clean or not using) and it won't workout. Letting them live on the streets hurts everyone, giving them houses just has negative results. The solution, sadly, the only one that "worked" despite how cruel it was, is to either incarcerate or isolate them from the public or treat them where possible which with an addict or mental health person requires voluntary choice or an asylum. Simply gentle parenting the problem and letting them live how they want to naturally is not working, as what they want is often harmful to everyone that lives around them. The only solutions that worked were often cruel, but skid row isn't kindness either and comes with its own cruelty, and leads to worse situations.

All that to say, there's no perfect solution, and the only working solutions might be ones that are considered cruel by some or tough love by others, but doing so in the least cruel manner and with treatment options where possible is probably the best way.

I actually do this, but into a personal google doc.

If they're building the data center in the desert or a drought susceptible region, where fresh water usage is way past its limits, fine, but if the data center is in the Upper Midwest or parts of the Pacific NW, the consumption of water there isn't going to have any impact on the areas that have a consumption issue.

A reminder that Meta tried to go green/nuclear, but couldn't because some bees were on or near the proposed location. Another example, of letting the perfect environmental ideal that isn't feasible be the enemy of the good.

Few people imagine something like a Department of Mis/Disinformation not being such a good thing if its their person in charge and don't imagine a situation where someone else takes over later on something like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict where there's a schism within parties about what is "misinformation". Instead they'll cheer lead it and downvote or debate detractors and accuse them of being an otherside shill because its immediately good for them. They don't take an adversarial view of how can this be abused, and if not by whose in power now, who maybe 5-10-20 years from now.

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-intellectual-dark-web-is...

tldr; Public discussions carry too much risk if you discuss anything honestly, you get brigaded or doxed, or things are taken out of context or re-framed by someone based on their own biases of "what you really meant". So people have gone more towards sharing their views or having honest discussions in smaller more trusted groups.

The point of many of those companies is to get bought out and then get enshitified or stripped for its IP and integrated into for profit products.

Discord is very much in the same boat of build user base, then either sell or lock people in and charge a lot. It's current model is unsustainable. It will get bought out or enshitify eventually, there's no other sustainable model unless every user starts handing them money every month like its Netflix.

People here used to know this, are we getting an eternal September? Comments are getting more and more "reddit" like.

Kind of stinks of less than valid motivations based on the timing of bringing this up over a decade after the fact.

The fact that you are okay with the defacto slavery/trafficking because "its always happened" says a lot, and why I generally dismiss these arguments, because at the end of the day, you just want to pay less for things, while you live in the nice part of town.

You saturate the labor market with workers, it depresses wages, plain and simple. It's in the interests of shareholders to saturate the labor market to increase profits.

Go look at a political compass. Authoritarianism is when you use force to push your ideals, whether they be radical/liberal (left) or orthodox/conservative)(right) ideals on a populace with extreme authority. Communism is considered left/radical, if you use government force to make people adopt it, that's using authority, hence authoritarianism. Please learn definitions and political axis before making silly arguments.

China isn't really communist because they tried it and people starved, then they had to go back to capitalism or some degree of it, but kept the authoritarianism, and effectively became some hybrid version that leans fascist.

Communism simply never works at scale, socialism can to an extent, assuming its not abused and there's a homogeneous society with shared cultural values and purpose that includes to contribute and to not abuse it. Hence Nordic socialism, which of course breaks down when you bring in those that don't share those values as its doing now. I've heard enough Swedes bitch about Eastern European migrants abusing their social welfare to say nothing of now to see the idealism fall apart when self interested parties without the same cultural values enter en masse.

Human psychology being about protecting and serving the interests of your tribe and things like "Dunbar's number" and the limit of the number of people you can literally care about and prioritize makes it impossible at scale. Families can be communist, even a small group of 10-50 people (more or less a cult or small tribe), massive populations can not. They simply are not going to work for the benefit of others without receiving something in exchange, unless you use a gun to their head, which is why all communist regimes start out authoritarian, but holding a gun to someone's head for 10-50 years won't change 200k years of evolutionary programming. Hence why Marx is good at pointing out capitalism's flaws, but he's naive and even more fundamentally flawed when it comes to prescribing a solution that does way more harm in the end.

Truth is most successful societies adopt a hybrid solution, socialism at the community or local level where everyone works for a shared purpose and contributes to the local community, whether that be through a church, small local government, etc. with capitalism that allows trade and mutually beneficial deals to happen with those outside of that community.

He also fundamentally misunderstands human nature and our ability to care about anything outside a "tribe" or rather put aside our own desires for those not in our immediate tribe. It simply breaks down at scale.

Just because someone can adequately critique and point out the flaws in a system does not make them qualified to architect a working solution. Especially first draft. The problem with communism is will always devolve into authoritarianism, because its the only way to enforce people putting the needs of others over their own, not to mention those in charge will do whats best to serve their own ruling tribe.

It's how we evolved, its human psychology, and at mass population scale you can't escape it. Capitalism or trade at least to some extent incentivizes mutual benefits on a basic level, but Marx tosses out the one thing about it that works, otherwise the same problems that occur in capitalism as it devolves come about the same way they do in every other form of human governance, with groups/organizations with a shared purpose or identity (tribes) jockeying for authority and power to serve their own interests.

It's either free and supported by ads, or self hosted or comes with a cost and doesn't gain mass adoption.

When did the comments here get to the point they can't think past 1st order magnitude effects or remember genuinely how things actually were. Your grandma didn't have a blog to follow the grandkids. Yeah, there's a one off exception or two, but nothing at the scale of MySpace and later social media companies.

The middle finger is by a larger portion of the working blue collar middle class that has had their economic base wiped out by free trade or trade policies like negative tariff's (ex: China subsidizes shipping of products to the US, hiding the true costs and incentivizing higher carbon/energy consumption practices like shipping raw products overseas to be processed and shipped back, its why you can ship something from Shenzhen for 30 cents when it costs $50-$80 to send the same small item the other way). The few manufacturing facilities and industries here view this as a hostile predatory business practice, similar to when Walmart or chain moves in, cuts prices to cost/loss, drives local competition out of business, then raises prices after they're gone to at or above what the prior businesses sold at. You'll never see this reported on because its a practice that benefits the very rich and people in cities who like cheap goods and don't care where it came from. They view this trade war as a return shots to a war or attacks that's been ongoing for 20 years.

If you frame this as anything outside of working class politics or rural vs metropolitan you're still viewing politics from a view point of 30 years ago. People in rural or less populated areas don't care if people in NYC pay more for goods. They've had their entire economic infrastructure ripped out from under them and were told to learn to code or move to an expensive city or something after they're already barely surviving. They've seen the cost of living raise as they're outcompeted in lower cost housing segments by an influx of migrants who need housing and buy up/rent out the few affordable lower cost areas of a city or location to live. Meanwhile everyone living in the nice neighborhoods thinks its all racism and enjoys the novel new ethnic restaurants popping up. They're experiencing none of the downsides and all of the upsides so find it easy to say its entirely xenophobia. People not affected by it at the same levels in academic or corporate jobs are able to talk in idealist terms about how great these things are because they don't have to deal with the base realities of the issue or fentanyl epidemic, etc. So yes, that segment of the population is very much in a mood of "if we have to suffer, you'll suffer too until you start giving a shit about us instead of entirely what just benefits you". Whether or not this is entirely correct or nuanced doesn't matter. That's the overwhelming sentiment. If you still keep thinking of politics from the viewpoint of what's discussed in bars and dinner tables in cities with a population >500k or everyone in your friend group has a 4 year degree and gets their politics from major outlets, you're dealing with outdated information and context. Even highly educated conservative pundits who live in high population density areas don't get it and have struggled to catch up with the huge shift over the last 10 years.

PLA has been around for a while, its not new with 3D printers, its just commonly used for 3D printers because it has excellent properties for 3D printing.