roastpotatothief

joined 4 years ago
[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 203 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (10 children)

It is useful to have lots of stupid laws. It makes people feel powerless and frustrated. It means the police can always find excuses to persecute you.

The technicalities of the individual laws are not important. It's the psychological effect of the whole body of laws on a people.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 25 points 2 years ago (8 children)

Why would you think it's difficult to keep a secret that big? It happens all the time. Look at all the secrets that have been kept for decades before they were leaked. Then think about how many more there must be that will never be discovered.

I think leftist organisations make an effort to be open. Keeping secrets would be against their philosophy.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Yes you couldn't change something so widely used. Look what happened with python 3.

Fortunately there's already a tradition among Git users of building a UI on top of the git UI. My project is just a slightly better version of those. It lays a simple sensible interface on top of the chaotic Git interface.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (7 children)

Git is a great invention but it has a few design flaws. There are too many ways to confuse it or break it, using commands that look correct, or just forgetting something. I ended up writing simple wrapper script codebase to fix it. Since then no problems.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you know how to start a wiki? Is there a very easy way just to start writing? I saw that github has a wiki section, so I could do it from a github account. But I don't that that's a real wiki at all, because random internet people couldn't contribute to it.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

There are good reasons to want to collaborate with ideological enemies.

Conservatives are generally good people, and are right about many things. They are just misguided on a few economic points. I know many people like this. They just haven't read widely enough, or can't think creatively about economics, or have never heard any other theory convincingly expressed.

People will generally stay in their boxes and read only their own wikis. Conservapedia people will remain conservative and misguided forever. But maybe you want to influence people outside your box. That's where you want to share a space with other groups. If it's equally easy to read any perspective, people people might read a few and change their minds about what the truth is. This is a good thing for a very niche but very true perspective like marxism.

For this to work, the new shared wiki has to be widely read. That means it has to become bigger than wikipedia, to supplant wikipedia.

The most important thing is to make it obvious to close-minded people that there are always different valid perspectives on every issue. If the go-to encyclopedia has this concept built-in, many people will start to understand it.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

LOL

Yes of course. Just because this other project is possible doesn't make your project less valuable.

I would like to make this. It would replace wikipedia with something more better. I have a much simpler encyclopedia project I'd like to do first, for practice. And I don't even have the skills to do the simple project yet.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (9 children)

Yes that's all true. Wikipedia deals with this as every encyclopaedia does, by feigning being neutral, feigning that it is possible to be neutral, and posting some version of events as the truth. That was fine for 20th century naïve readers, but not tenable today.

Prolewiki can give the Marxist version of events and that's a valuable addition, another credible perspective. But it will always cover only niche topics for niche readers.

Better than this would be a project bigger then Wikipedia. It would be more useful and credible to readers, because it shows diverse views. It could replace Wikipedia.

On day one it would show exactly the same content as Wikipedia, but would quickly grow to be broader.

Imagine Wikipedia, prolewiki, anarchistwiki, neoconwiki, keynsianwiki, all on the same website on different tabs. People can flick from one to the other.

People who start off looking only at the neocon version will one day flick to the prole one. They might find it more convincing.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 years ago (11 children)

i can't believe that nobody has made a fork of Wikipedia to give a broader and more neutral perspective.

It would be a very simple project, because you would simply add to the existing database. You would have tabs. "mainstream" would be a usual Wikipedia content. You could switch to the "Marxist" tab to see modified content.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

That seems to be normal over in the USA. The authorities are totally willing to do this whenever it suits them. But fortunately they are aware that more people have cameras these days.

[–] roastpotatothief@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Just use schwalbe marathon. They are puncture proof and last forever. I once got home and picked a shard of glass as king as my fingernail out of one.

 

In Ireland we used to have a violent police force. They often killed people. They were kind to the majority and abusive to the minority. They protected the government, not the people. It was just like France.

The people protested, for many years. They forced the government to disband the police. In 2001, a new peaceful police was created.

It worked very well. Today, Ireland is peaceful.

Change is possible.

 

This was interesting. Her real innovation was structuring the hospitals she managed hierarchically. She made the nurses fully subservient to the doctors, which was not the case before. This was maybe or maybe not good for medicine, but certainly good for the people at the tops of the hierarchies, who celebrated her. Other people who did more valuable work were ignored by the history-writers.

 

We thought the hydro was the answer, but it destroyed river environments.

We thought wind was the answer, but waste turbines consume too much landfill.

Could geothermal be the answer?

 

I've noticed a pattern, that wealth is privacy. If you take for example how people live.

  1. Homeless, outdoors. No privacy at all.
  2. Shared apartment
  3. Private apartment with shared outdoor space
  4. Private house
  5. Gated community
  6. Gated private estate

Or how people travel.

  1. Walking in the street in full public view
  2. On a bus or train or aeroplane
  3. In a car
  4. In a private convoy surrounded my staff, or in a private jet.

The poorest are always in public, in everything they do. The wealthiest are never seen, except when they choose to appear. There is a continuum in between of increasing wealth meaning increasing privacy.


But there are other possible perspectives. Wealth is the freedom to waste.

With wealth you can buy many things and leave them idle or dump them. You can travel and live and eat in wasteful ways. You can hire people to work for you, doing things you don't really need.

Things which are expensive are (to a large extent) so because their production is wasteful. The rich can utilise more expensive things.

So the problem with too much global consumption - too much emissions, electricity usage, mining, etc - is really a problem of too many rich people. There is no point restricting or banning these things - people will just find other ways to be wasteful - maybe even worse ones. The only way to solve these crisis is reduce wealth, by reducing inequality.


Wealth is power over people. Wealth is required to compel people to do things, to directly pay them to do your bidding, or to access the fruits of hours of labour through purchases. There is also bribery, access to lawyers etc, which allow more wealthy people to exert more power over their peers and society.


Are there other ways to understand wealth?

 

Quote of the day

We live in a world where we are constantly being reminded that we must pay attention, though the things we are being asked to pay attention to–political corruption, the erosion of human rights, climate change, systemic racism–are all, ironically, things that cannot be combatted solely by knowing a lot about them. The result of paying attention is either stunning yourself into paralyzing anxiety or sinking deep into depression or rage, or both.

0
Electric vehicles and tyre pollution (www.nytimesn7cgmftshazwhfgzm37qxb44r64ytbb2dj3x62d2lljsciiyd.onion)
 

As car engines are getting cleaner and tyres wider and softer, pollution from tyres is already as high as pollution from engines. But:

Levels of nitrogen oxides, byproducts of burning gasoline and diesel that cause smog, asthma and other ailments, have fallen sharply as electric vehicle ownership has risen.

But there is still a problem where the rubber meets the road. Oslo’s air has unhealthy levels of microscopic particles generated partly by the abrasion of tires and asphalt. Electric vehicles, which account for about one-third of the registered vehicles in the city but a higher proportion of traffic, may even aggravate that problem.

“They’re really a lot heavier than internal combustion engine cars, and that means that they are causing more abrasion,” said Mr. Wolf, who, like many Oslo residents, prefers to get around by bicycle.

 

If you have seen this piece of news, and are a Lemmy user, it might look familiar.

view more: ‹ prev next ›