balsoft
joined 2 years ago
There is no good economic reason to colonize other planets. We have plenty of space here on earth, with conditions already much more hospitable than that of mars - deserts, for example. The resources needed to turn these into habitable land is so much less than the resources required to make even a tiny part of Mars inhabitable (i.e. establish a colony that relies on life support systems) it's insane to go for Mars first. The reason colonizing Mars is talked about at all is because a rich white dude wants to go to Mars, since deserts are too boring for his spoiled ass.
I actually agree that it would be cool if we went to Mars, not to colonize it but just to be there. But comparing it to white pillaging of the Americas is just incorrect. Mars is not inhabitable by humans, the Americas very much were. The external resources needed to colonize America were zero, in fact pillaging local lands meant a lot of resources for the Empire. Mars is going to be a much more expensive and much less profitable endeavor.
Actually I replied to you before, pointing out the very same fallacy: https://lemmy.ml/post/33824723/20134917
This doesn't really tell me anything, I'd have to compare it with other charts. E.g. what does the chart for agriculture look like? Airplane manufacturing? Internet in early 2000s?
What do you think we should call vegan sausage? And why is it a problem to call it vegan sausage?
This is in a very literal way not a problem though. They were just bribed by the meat industry.
I've not read the article, but if you actually look at old code, it's pretty awful too. I've found bugs in the Bash codebase that are much older than me. If you try using Windows 95 or something, you will cry and weep. Linux used to be so much more painful 20 years ago too; anyone remember "plasma doesn't crash" proto-memes? So, "BEFORE QUALITY" thing is absolute bullshit.
What is happening today is that more and more people can do stuff with computers, so naturally you get "chaos", as in a lot of software that does things, perhaps not in the best way possible, but does them nonetheless. You will still have more professional developers doing their things and building great, high-quality software, faster and better than ever before because of all the new tooling and optimizations.
Yes, the average or median quality is perhaps going down, but this is a bit like complaining about the invention of printing press and how people are now printing out low quality barely edited books for cheap. Yeah, there's going to be a lot of that, but it produces a lot of awesome stuff too!
I swear I've seen his post-split works still referring to his movement as social-democrats.
Ответ на этот вопрос должен разъяснить очень важную разницу в буржуазно-демократической и социал-демократической постановке вопроса о религии.
The answer to this question will serve to explain the very important difference in the way the question of religion is presented by the bourgeois democrats and the Social-Democrats.
I think you are right that by 1920s that term was mostly associated with Mensheviks but I swear I've seen bolshevik references to it even in 1910s, so it wasn't as clearly defined as it is now.
I think Social-Democrat back then meant something similar to what "Socialist" does today. Lenin was, by his own words, a Social-Democrat.
I respectfully disagree -- fully automated luxury gay space communism or bust!
Lived like that for a while (but with a working shower and not-so-fast internet). 10/10 would recommend. Will do again when I'm done with $CURRENT_LIFE_ISSUES.
Ships, including ocean-going ships, were a thing long before 15th century. Europeans have travelled to North America in the 10th century. What happened around the 15th century was the creation of empires willing and able to colonize (plunder, steal, enslave) on a continental scale. The idea that the amerikas were somehow "the new world" rather than land stolen by massacring natives is imperialist propaganda. I think this is the reason why a lot of people fell for "colonize mars" bullshit - they subconsciously think that the land now occupied by the US was a barren wasteland which couldn't support human life until brave europeans came and covered it in McMansions and fast food chains. From that mindset it makes sense that we can do the same again, but with mars.
The parties are not the same. One is an openly fascist party and the other is full of meek center-right neoliberals trying to keep the status quo for their wealthy donors. However neither is trying to "fix the damage" or "make it good again", except perhaps for the top 0.001%. Most working-class people are shafted either way. If the republicans get their way, most non-whites will be deported on enslaved in prisons, women will be enslaved at home, and the remaining working-class white men will struggle to sustain themselves and their (non-working) wives and families under the christofascist dictatorship of the capital. If the democrats somehow claw back from that, there will be less abject racism and sexism but the working class will still struggle to survive in an increasingly monopolized dictatorship of the capital.
Ask yourself this question: which democrat policies from the last decade directly benefit the working class? I can name maybe 3 very compromised policies that are about 60 years behind most of the world.
To paraphrase an old meme, republicans want 100 rich white men to rule over the entire world with an iron fist; democrats want 30 of those people to be LGBTQ+ women of color.
Are democrats better? Sure, a bit better. But it's not like just electing them will save you.