It’s worth pointing out too that we aren’t using newer designs as much, which incorporate inherently safe features.

It’s actually ironic. If we built new reactors we could build breeder tractors to generate fuel for them from nuclear waste. This fear mongering of nuclear energy prevents us from reducing that number.

Bastards killing civilians one direction. Bastards killing civilians in the other direction.

If the bastards could fucking kill the other bastards and not involve civilians, that’d be pretty swell. If the IDF and Hamas actually fight each other and no civilians are hurt, everyone wins.

I just saw a report that the US is going to agree to a UN resolution to let more aid into Gaza. I wonder if this is why.

You just told a woman genuinely afraid of getting raped to get over it and that she actually hates xyz people.

You need to pause for a moment and ask yourself where you’ve gone wrong.

Keep in mind the Holocaust was all Jews, and Israel here in no way represents all Jews, as much as they’d like to.

It fits in perfectly with history unfortunately. Members of group A inflict horror on members of group B. Some time passes, and some members of group B choose to inflict horror on group C and/or group A.

It’s all just radical subsets of the population, who would love nothing more than to represent their whole group.

My first reaction was just “what the fuck”. I still can’t believe what I’m reading, although I probably should have. I thought the IDF was better than a mass execution of civilians, but apparently not. They really want that Nazi comparison.

That’s a fair point actually. Competition can only exist if there’s an influx of new companies that’s roughly the number of them going out of business.

Even then though there’s an issue, because the companies which have been around the longest will have all the necessary equipment, which may be really expensive.

I’m not sure how we address this, but it’s clear the government needs to step in.

It’s interesting, because wanting to grow to supersede the corporations can become just like the corporations wanting to grow for profit. The ends don’t justify the means here.

The idea would be that as people here and see about it more, more people would join, but there’s a lot of assumptions baked into that, including that these people are actually people you want on the platform. Like you mention at the end, racists are going to find a “corporate, government free” space to be their own paradise. And we can’t let that happen.

I wonder if this would be possible: content from Facebook is not shown on Lemmy, but content from Lemmy can be shown on Facebook. Facebook users can join Lemmy, but there’s an application process for them so we can vet them.

I’m fine with however things end up, but I do want us to keep in mind that we risk becoming too insular and developing a groupthink. I don’t think it would be a danger to society like conservative ones tend to become, but I don’t want to think Jill Stein has huge support because Lemmy castigates anyone else, for instance.

I don’t think we’re in that position right now, but it’s one to be wary of.

That is a good point actually.

In the absence of regulation, absolutely. If we had more stringent anti trust legislation though it might be possible to avoid.

Exactly. We’ve let them become way too powerful. They shouldn’t be able to do this.

There’s a difference between lab bench research and discoveries and then actually making them into usable products on a mass scale. That’s a big part of where engineering comes into focus, on that scale up. There’s a lot of research that proves impractical in reality because the synthesis of a material is really finicky or the purification of it is exceedingly difficult.

That said, I actually agree that private industry shouldn’t be part of this space. Companies shouldn’t be sponsoring research and picking winners like this. We need something analogous to national labs that’s focused solely on the scale up of discoveries – taking something discovered in a university or national lab and making it usable for the everyday person. And from there companies can get licenses from the government to offer the technology to consumers and make their own innovations, all of which must be reported to the government.

… So I think I’ve just convinced myself that you’re right and I agree with you, actually.

I see that as a consequence of the absurd monopolies we have. The best product should be what’s the most popular, and enshittification is counter to that. It tanks the product quality, and in a market with lots of competitors, it would be punished.

I’m of two minds about this. I have no love for Facebook and Zuk can go fuck himself. I want Lemmy to be free of the same fucks that ruined Reddit and formally corporatized it.

At the same time, I want Lemmy to grow. I don’t want this to be our little corner of the Internet that’s tucked away. I don’t want an information bubble. I want to see user-managed spaces like this grow and overtake the corporate ones.

So I choose to stay neutral. The two philosophies I described are at odds with each other here. I’ll go with what the majority decides – that’s the whole point of it being user-managed after all. I’ll just say that I think we should give ourselves options to reverse and monitor any changes as time goes on. We need to see how things progress, regardless of what decision we make, so we can course correct if necessary.

Capitalism has one positive, and that’s the notion of competition leading to the best outcome as they try to win over consumers.

We’ve lost that though with how unfettered it’s become in general. Companies merge and conspire, eliminating competition.

We should carve out the freedom to live in peace when we’re unable to.

Fair enough then, but I think your viewpoint might be better described as “America kept them in ruin” instead of “America ruined them”. Semantics though, I’ll admit.

Oh I agree completely. It’s not a miscommunication, but evidence that they’re just paying lip service.

Well I’d certainly say they dodged a bullet

the fact remains that America ruined Afghanistan the last 20 years. Before that it was the Russians.

There’s an inconsistency here. You cannot ruin what it already ruined. If the USSR ruined them, then the US kept it in that state, but did not cause the ruination itself. The only other possibility is that the USSR ruined them, then they recovered, then the US ruined them again.

Things were already bad before the US got involved. Infant mortality was extremely high. That rate actually went down during the US occupation. The world isn’t so simple that the US is to blame for every issue. I wish it were, because that would create a simple solution to every problem.

The sad fact is that some places are fucked up by no real fault of any nation, but by regional warlords and religious extremism. And it behooves us to look critically at these things so we can identify possible solutions.