If it was state funded by a functioning state I would agree with you, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia was kicking these guys a modest living to undermine American social media companies.

I mean, I got banned personally by Dessalines from lemmy.ml for mildly suggesting that a meme felt like it was a Chinese op designed to provoke in-fighting in western countries.

Not rudely, not aggressively, literally just questioning whether it could be in the comments below.

That doesn’t mean it’s not also funded by China or Russia. They’ve been able to work on Lemmy for a while without much public funding.

I think it depends a lot on the specifics of the situation.

Did you buy a single family home / house that you’re living in, and renting out part of to help pay your mortgage? Then it depends on the rent you charge.

If you charge market rates and you can afford to charge less than market rates, or if you hire contractors and maintenance people for the unit that are cheaper / worse than the ones you use for your own unit, then yes, you are being exploitative and hypocritical.

If, however, you treat the unit like your own and charge below market rates then no, you’re not.

If you build an addition on your house, or build a laneway house or something, then it’s more reasonable to charge market rates for rent because you’ve actually added new housing to the area, an act that in itself should help to slightly drop rents. Same thing if you buy vacant property and build rental units on it. However, if you continue charging the most you possibly can long after you’ve made your money back then you’re back into the territory of being an exploitative hypocrite.

And if you’re just in a hot market and buying up houses / condos, and renting them back to people as is, or just doing the cheapest and shittiest job you can turning them into apartments, then yes you are being a hypocrite. At that point you’re just using your capital to buy up a limited quantity item and sell it back to people at exploitative rates. It would be like being stranded in the desert and buying up the remaining water and then selling it back to people for a profit. You’re providing no value to society, just using past success to force people into a corner where they have to pay you for a necessity that’s in limited supply.

Oh I would not trust software from a developer who does not understand the importance of MFA.

I mean, there’s probably nothing wrong with it, but that’s such a basic security issue that I would have zero faith they built the rest right.

Honest question. How?

Proton Mail is built in a way that makes that near impossible.

The developer is kind of just a sack of shit. I’m 90% sure Lemmy development is funded by either Russia or China, and I suspect Russia.

Honestly, pretty motivating if you think about it.

I mean, whenever you’re sitting there at work, thinking that your job is stupid and pointless, just remember that there are people out there trying to use the American court system to get fair and sensible rulings. Your job will never be remotely as pointless as theirs.

Huh, TIL

It’s similar and associated with affection like that, but that’s cheek rubbing. Head kisses are closer to their head bonks which aren’t scent related.

I honestly cannot fathom why people buy body wash… Shampoo is basically the same thing.

Follow them and find out.

You’re not gonna discover what your particular cat wants from you in this particular moment by consulting the internet, you’re gonna find out by listening and communicating back with them.

Coral?

Oh no, another one of these “there are only anarcho-capitalism and socialism and nothing in between” types.

Not at all what I said, I explicitly, and repeatedly, referenced the real world systems being more complex and nuanced than the model systems that show the basic pros and cons of the system type.

There is no viewpoint-independent logic behind capitalism because capitalism wasn’t designed. It’s a natural function of trade. As soon as you have the concepts of property and trade, you have capitalism. The ancient babylonians had capitalism, and so did the ancient egyptians.

So in your mind only things that are intentionally designed by humans can have viewpoint-independent logic?

There are no naturally arising systems in nature that have viewpoint-independent logic?

And you think that modern trade and capitalism is completely and 100% just natural and would always occur no matter what and has no basis in the work of capitalist theorists like Adam Smith and Karl Marx?

Again, if you do nothing, capitalism will emerge. If you continue to do nothing, monopolists will emerge. If you continue to do nothing, these monopolists will take over the government, and you get feudalism.

So you’re arguing that stable trade networks and relationships have never existed and are impossible to exist or maintain?

It’s a fundamentally wrong understanding that capitalism follows ideals or a viewpoint-independent logic.

I have just explained the viewpoint-independent logic behind capitalism.

You are stating problems with our current system, that is different from the underlying ideals and viewpoint-independent logic that people use to justify and advocate for capitalism.

You are no different than a capitalist pointing at Soviet Union bread lines and being flabbergasted that anyone could possibly support any form of socialism.

At it’s core, capitalism is system of resource distribution. It’s in contrast to other resource distribution systems, such as how indigenous people and early human tribes are often thought of as using various system of resource distribution that are collective in nature, where everyone shares all resources and people take only what’s needed (though this was far from the only resource distribution system used by those peoples), and it came about primarily in contrast to feudal systems of resource distribution, where powerful kings and lords would collect resources from the broader public and then spend them however they wanted.

Let’s say you have an anarchist / libertarian resource distribution system or lack thereof, where most people live in small individual plots of land, grow what they need, and in general don’t share or distribute resources. That means that each individual family / plot can be strong, but as a collective they will struggle to move as one when they need to. If an invading army shows up and they need every single potential soldier to fight to their death or risk conquering and enslavement, they’re going to have a hard time convincing everyone to do so. If they need some people to stop planting crops so that the soil can rotate, they’re going to be unable to because that’s the only land and resources those people have. These systems fundamentally lead to game theory coordination problems, and inefficiencies because resources aren’t shared.

In contrast, feudalism is a centralized system where one person controls everything (it’s more distributed in actuality, but that’s the basic structure it takes). This creates the opportunity for efficiency, and to move quickly, but also creates massive opportunities for human fallibility to waste and ruin everything.

Capitalism on the other hand promises to be a distributed, decentralized resource distribution system. Everyone just has to behave according to their own self interest, and resources will flow to where they’re needed. If I make a better product than you, that should prove out that I’m better at making products, and should thus get more resources so that people who are better at making products make more than those who are worse.

Does it work out that way in practice? No, not always, this is an incredibly simplified model system, but the core idea behind capitalism, is basically the same core idea that’s behind lemmy and the fediverse. Decentralized, distributed systems. They’re hard to design, and they require everyone agreeing on standards, but they are more flexible and don’t have the fallibility of central authorities.

I don’t expect them to come to market faster than that, I expect people to not believe and post headlines about a battery technology revolutionizing things when it’s early stage research and most likely will not.

If you spent your time reading about every novel research battery since the dawn of Li Ion and today, all you’ll have succeeded in is wasting a lot of time.

Yes, progress in the manufacturing and refining of Lithium Ion batteries.

This is not that. This is a research lab trying a new idea that will go nowhere and then issuing a press release that talks about the positives and ignores the showstopping negatives.

Bruh I’m an electrical engineer. I’m interested in new technology and specifically battery technology. I’m not interested in journalists regurgitating mindless research paper fluff. This is just self aggrandizing boosting, not anything meaningful.

Yes, Lithium Ion batteries did. Do you know when their lab experimentation happened? The equivalent stage to what this article is describing? The 70s and 80s.

Do you know how many labs have experimented with new battery types that have some benefits in some areas since then? Literally thousands and thousands and thousands. Most go nowhere and revolutionize nothing and never will because they’re impractical for other reasons.

My current batteries are Goodenough.