• 5 Posts
  • 210 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 25th, 2023

help-circle
  • Spzi@lemm.eetoComic Strips@lemmy.worldCapitalism
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    In contrast to a monarchy, where people cannot choose their leader, in capitalism people can choose from which company they buy, or even create their own.

    As another person already pointed out, these are obviously two different categories.

    The question then is, why do people choose the way they do, both when buying and when running a company? To me it seems, they don’t because of some external pressure (like monarchy requires).

    The point can be summed up as a question: Why don’t people run (more) non-capitalist services and productions, and why don’t they prefer them when looking to satisfy their demand?

    These non-capitalist things exist, it’s certainly possible. But as far as I know, they are all very niche. Like a communal kitchen, some solidary agriculture or housing project. Heck, entire villages of this kind exist.

    So the alternative is there, but it requires actual commitment and work. I don’t see how capitalism could be abolished in an armed uprising (in contrast to monarchy). But it can be replaced by alternative projects. Partially. Why are they so small and few?



  • Because religion evolved to thrive in us.

    It’s like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.

    Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn’t have these beneficial traits went extinct.

    Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it’s necessary to spread your belief to others, are ‘somehow’ more spread out than religions who don’t convey that need.

    This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.

    This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It’s funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.



  • An (intuitively) working search would be a great step ahead. It should find and show things if they exist, and only show no results if they do not. That a plethora of external tools exist to meet these basic needs shows both how much this is needed, and how much it is broken.

    I also feel I have more luck finding communities if searching for ‘all’, instead of ‘communities’. Don’t make me add cryptic chars to my search to make it work. Do that for me in the background if necessary.

    It’s been long since I’ve been using it, but iirc, it’s impossible or painful to search for a specific community in your subscribed list.


  • I like that it comes in a can, not a plastic bottle simply because it gets colder faster and stays colder longer.

    If it feels colder in your hand, it means the opposite of what you assume: It absorbs heat from your hand faster, so the stays colder shorter.

    Imagine instead you hold a perfectly insulated container. You could not feel wether the inside is hot or cold, or else the insulation would be faulty.

    So if you really want to have a drink that stays colder longer, grab something which does not give away how cold it is, quite literally.





  • Exactly this. It’s often about finding the right balance between technically optimal, and socially feasible (lacking the right phrase here).

    The nerds brimming with technical expertise often neglect the second point.

    Oh - wow! I was about to complain about how https://join-lemmy.org/ is a shining bad example in this regard, talking about server stuff right away and hiding how Lemmy actually looks until page 3, but apparently they changed that and improved it drastically. Cool, good job!

    Anyways.

    For collaborative projects especially, it is important to strike a balance between tech and social aspects. Making poor tech choices will put people off. But making your project less accessible will also result in less people joining. It’s crucial to find a good balance here. For many coming from the tech side, this usually means making far more concessions to the social side than intuitively feels right.


  • I agree that would be unfair or however you want to judge it, but I don’t see how your conclusion follows.

    It does not matter if the acquisition of qualification is gatekept, subsidized, free or restricted. Either way, you have a pool of people who are qualified for a job, and that pool has a size. Smaller pool roughly correlates with higher pay.

    It’s supply and demand, regardless of why the pool has it’s size.

    I also think it has never been that easy to learn things. Wikipedia, YouTube, social media … sharing skills, following your interests, learning whatever you’d like to learn … imagine you had to ask your dad for permission or be accepted into a guild for it.



  • Yes, talking about is, not ought.

    Something that gets across that it is not an ‘in demand’ labour, which is the real reason it’s low paid.

    Similarly, we see astonishingly low wages for ridiculously high skilled work, for example scientists.

    Maybe it’s really all about unvalued labour. Or surplus labour, as you say. While having rare skills is no guarantee for being valued, lacking those surely doesn’t help in getting more value either. So I think there is a correlation between unskilled and low pay, even if it’s not a direct cause.



  • I find the plateau quite puzzling (lemmy.world, but the total looks very similar):

    There was quite a steep increase, and then it suddenly stopped.

    I would rather expect it to slow down, than to stop that abruptly.

    We’re looking at a fairly large group of people making a decision to create an account on Lemmy. There are plenty of reasons to expect it to be fuzzy. Even if they all responded to one particular event in time, some would have done so immediately, others the next day, few more even later.