Seems like it would’ve been best for all involved if his community did stay at a 100 users. 🤣

indeed

The trade off is that you end up giving up on a huge chunk of the fediverse at the whims of the developer.

What’s really funny to me is that liberals consistently preach one thing and then do another in practice. Open debate and the whole market of ideas is at the core of liberal ideology. Yet, whenever liberals don’t have the dominant position, they immediately reach for censorship breaking precisely the principle they claim differentiates them from their ideological adversaries.

Very well put, the fact that they have to go to such length to lock people into their bubble shows that deep down they know their ideology has no staying power, and can only be sustained through coercive measures.

In terms of developing an alternative, I don’t really see that of itself as a negative necessarily though. You might want to just play around to learn how this stuff works, use a different technology stack, or try out some new ideas in terms of UX. The real issue in my opinion is with all the dark patterns in piefed.

Serious question, why do people even bother with piefed at this point. Also, I’m not really against libs creating their own bubble if that means they stop being obnoxious all across the fediverse.

neat

I’d argue Krushchev set the stage because he abolished artels which led to all the problems USSR had with light industry. Had USSR retained a mix of state industry and cooperative driven market economy, it would’ve developed in a similar way to China today except without a capitalist class.

It’s an ongoing process that’s currently happening.

Somehow I doubt they’re eager to experience a repeat of Manchuria in 1945.

You’re completely ignoring the contradictions present within China itself here. China still has a capitalist class, and it is still in the primary stages of socialism with the workers having established a class dictatorship over capital, but China is far from abolishing existing relations right now. The collapse of the west is certainly a prerequisite for the transition to any higher stage of socialism, but it will be a long time before relations start meaningfully changing with China itself, let alone the rest of the world.

Let’s not forget that USSR also saw astonishing levels of development under Stalin. The stagnation started after Khrushchev reforms. However, as I noted earlier, China can’t just flip a switch and create some sort of a moneyless society. Dismantling capitalism start with worker ownership of the means of production, and there will be a a prolonged socialist stage where existing relations have not yet been abolished, and the only thing that’s different is which class holds power.

As Stalin correctly explains here, there will be surplus product in a socialist economy and, similarly, the commodity form doesn’t die overnight. Thinking that communism involves slamming a button titled “END CAPITALISM NOW” is just romantic idealist-slop.

when you definitely understand how bilateral trade works

Always important to remind people that none of these problems existed until the US attacked Iran completely unprovoked.

Yup, that basically sums it up. The key part though was that doing the inefficient thing first allowed them to make progress and to understand the problem better by working through it, which later led to a more clever solution. The moral of the story here is that it’s always better to solve the problem even if your solution isn’t optimal, and then reflect on it.

loads fine for me 🤷

And I find this extends to a more general principle of just pushing through solving a problem in order to understand it. Then once you’ve done that work, you can find a much better solution. It’s easy to get stuck in an analysis paralysis loop where you try to come up with the perfect solution up front, but it’s rarely possible to do for something you’re doing for the first time. Doing a ‘dumb’ thing like making a giant mysql db that gets you to a working result is the right way to go about it.

Are there cases of fascists treating others well that you’re aware of?

Sure, but I’d argue good journalism doesn’t have much to do with having a bias. It’s perfectly possible for somebody to write good investigative journalism while having a particular bias. So, it’s not so much about the bias itself, but rather their ability to present the facts, to explain the relationships between the events, and to paint a broader context for the story.

What I think your actual concern might be is regarding deceptive reporting where people try to paint things as something other than what they really are.