There is basically no chance they are going bankrupt.

What is the source for that quote about the cold war?

Not for philosophical or scientific terminology.

try element x, it has been fine for me

Or do this and never deal with this again

 exec-once = while ! hyprlock -c ~/.config/hypr/hyprlock/hyprlock-startup.conf > /dev/null; do sleep 0.01 > /dev/null; done > /dev/null 

 exec-once = swayidle timeout 600 'pidof hyprlock || ( hyprlock -c ~/.config/hypr/hyprlock/hyprlock-screenshot.conf --grace 59 > /dev/null || while ! hyprlock -c ~/.config/hypr/hyprlock/hyprlock-startup.conf > /dev/null; do sleep 0.01 > /dev/null; done > /dev/null )'

It’s actually called brumation, but essentially yes!

And ontop of that, they have no incentive to work on performance, if they made it better you’d have less of a reason to upgrade your machine, they want to slowly make performance worse and worse to maximize this effect

I actually think using something because “it just works” is a braindead take. Most things just work, that’s literally the bare minimum. Plus most things that “just work” in my experience don’t in fact just work.

Is there even one that does? We currently have two (maybe only one) politicians that do.

even if it gave us one more that’d be a lot haha, things are just that terrible here.

Yup, but they at least have political parties that support free healthcare.

you’re forgetting how terrible the american parties are.

That isn’t good evidence, we don’t have a large sample size and the culture can vary highly depending on the conditions at the start.

One country, even 10 countries, would not be a scientific study.

I think in the us it’d be possible to have a party that supports universal healthcare. Sure they’d still be libs but that would still massively help.

All it does is make the political bribery slightly more expensive.

I disagree, i think it makes it possible for 3rd parties to succeed, maybe not in practice, but at least theoretically, which is a worthwhile change. But let’s grant that that’s all it does… that’s still a good thing and not worth opposing.

At a deeper level, representative elections always result in an oligarchy. The wealthy / economically dominant classes are the only ones who have enough money / prestige to finance their campaigns and win the popularity contest. It makes any political system based on elections nothing more than political theatre.

Yup, I agree with all this, but i don’t see it as a reason to oppose better election systems.

You’re right that it doesn’t solve much but the two party system in the US is particularly terrible. Fundamental change is a lot harder to achieve than changing voting systems and even with a socialist state we’d want one of these, so I think there’s no point opposing it even if it isn’t a panacea

…but dolphins don’t all speak the same language?

I think when it comes to popular figures that are relevant in a way orwell is, the best thing for convincing people is to absolutely steelman and not make any debatable negative claims. Even if that’s completely true, you’re going to convince fewer people by saying it simply because it’s a matter of opinion and seems easily refutable in that way.

Bad strategy. Even if you’re not trying to convince the lib people will read that and think your argument is weaker.

I said “decentralize power” in this case, yes, it would be a more centralized economic structure and a more centralized government, but it’s vastly less heirarchical, because it’s significantly more democratic, I think that’s still accurate, socialists don’t want to centralize everything, power in particular is something all socialists want to decentralize, because we want power to be in the proletariats hands, and the proletariat is many.

Even in the case of a vanguard party, the ultimate goal is democratization of the economy/state, among other things.

However, i am probably ALSO being nitpicky so whatever. Communists are a nitpicky bunch.

In this case, I think saying he liked Hitler is actually weakening your argument, even if it’s completely true, it’s clear from the reading that he wished he could personally kill hitler, but found him charismatic, and is saying that charisma is what his success was found on.

All of what you said there might be true, and all of that makes your case that he was a bad man better, but doesn’t make the case that he liked him better. At the end of the day, you don’t like someone you wish you could have killed. Saying he liked hitler when the reading makes it clear he wished he could kill him makes your other claims more dubious, not stronger, you should probably refrain from that in the future if your goal is to convince people.

All of those things may be true bad things about orwell, but none of them means he was clearly a fan of hitler.

Furthermore, I think antagonizing orwell, even if he was bad is just bad praxis for convincing people to be anti-capitalist.

“Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches. I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power — till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter — I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity.”

liked hitler is not exactly true, he just found him charismatic, I think saying he liked him is rather misleading

This is literally the opposite of true, it’s true of highly heirarchical systems, not true of communism.

Socialist systems actually seek to decentralize power, meaning you need to be less reliant on people being saints… not more.

I don’t see why you believe that at all.

their influence on your decision making process does not imply free will

This means that nothing about free will is important in any decision making process, and thus free will is just a garbage concept that has no bearing or meaning in reality.

Even if there was such a thing as free will, it would be completely unimportant in decision making.

it is hard to imagine free will has nothing to do with why you don’t hold the tree morally responsible.

It doesn’t, let’s imagine free will separate from knowledge, reasoning, experience, etc. No amount of knowledge, reasoning, experience would prevent the tree from falling according to the laws of physics, that’s why I don’t hold the tree accountable. The tree has no knowledge, no reasoning, no experience, no morals, so, even if it could freely make the choice not to do it, because it doesn’t have those things, it doesn’t matter at all.