anarchy brother. we self select pretty hard.

thats almost certainly the deal. poor dude.

I think picking one domain for fact checking purposes is the best option just for clarity purposes. I could see using archival links are a general ‘banned domains’ approach worth considering in the future.

communism ends up top down in every implementation we’ve seen in the wild. but maybe you should think of the question not as ‘who is doing the planning?’ and instead as ‘what do we actually need to plan centrally’. i think you’d be surprised about how little you actually need to plan centrally. I ended up settling on worker protections, health, and safety.

classical communism’s take is its the economy and the state. both which means its ripe to collapse into corruption/authoritarianism and its very hard to protect. particularly once the system has established itself and is relatively stable. gives time for bad actors to start needling into the processes and abusing them.

You’ll never be able to control ‘who is doing the planning’ in a reliable manner over a long term in a centralized system. just take a look at every tech company that gets majority market share. soon as it happens they begin abusing their control as people within the company shift. can also use political parties in democracies as an example, even with voters deciding on the final candidates there isnt really a choice. this is why communism in the wild has never had the bottom up result you’re claiming it has, and no i don’t care about the purist written version of communism I care how it plays out in practice.

and the distinction between public servant vs executive is fairly immaterial if they’re both functioning as ‘making the final decision for the group’ what matters isnt who the decision maker is but how that decision maker was chosen to speak for the group.

Its not just wordplay. A business requires profit or it crumbles because it cant pay labor. A CEO is just a final arbitor of decisions for the business at the end of the day.

You dont need a central authority to setup that infrastructure you described.

And centrally planned economies are the rarity rather than the norm most economies are not centrally managed. That fact you think my statement about them existing without central planning seems like you have a lack of understanding about the basics of these systems.

As for your name drops who cares? I Hardly give a shit about Liberal economic policies nor am i advocating for them. Fun fact the US is a centrally planned economy for the most part.

You have yet to demonstrate why you need your centrally planned economy or why its something we should ever be looking to do. But honestly i dont particularly care to hear more lenin/marx regurgitated without critical thought on why its even relevant in this day and age when we know we can do the same things without the centralized government they advocated for.

Honestly itd be wonderful if communists moved on to the more moreern approaches to socialism.and stopped wallowing in the past.

Disagree. On all counts. Ceos dont have to make a profit. A business needs to make a profit (otherwise it isnt a business.) you fundamentally misunderstand the role of a ceo.

You’re too focused on the monetary policy you dont understand the power dynamics at play. If you have a centralized authority over the economy then you’ll have a monoculture. Just tossing ‘democratic’ in the name doesnt change this fact. Having elected officials doesn’t change this fact. Claiming not profit oriented doesnt change this fact.

The fact is you do not need a centrally planned anything and having one actually prevents improvements.

its inherent in any system with a monoculture / top down approach to planning. its not a problem that’s unique to capitalism.

think of it in terms of decision making: who is making the decisions? are there methods for unique approaches to be tried without consent from said leadership? if not then you’ll have boom/bust cycles due to errors in decision making by the leadership group because there isnt a way to allow alternate approaches that would amortize out the errors.

any system with ‘centrally planned’ is no different ‘ceo runs company’ and will have the same behavioral outcomes for the system.

it has nothing to do with profit motives. its about the motives of the individual making the decisions. just ‘removing profit’ from the list of motives (which profit is never the motivation, its power/ability to do whatever you wish) doesnt in any way impact the behavior of the individuals it just changes the justification used. but the system will still see the same behaviors / outcomes because you havent fundamentally changed the system

also if you look at the chart the last two stages of communism are pretty horrible with ‘completely planned economies’ those simply dont work and are unstable systems their essentially equiv to late stage capitalism were oligarchs are making the market decisions.

Oh child, you’re the one who walked into this conversation with a grade school take. Ive worked on software for these systems before i retired from the industry last year.

I never said solar and wind were anything like fusion beyond they’re all used to generate power and varying ranges of energy density per area. But I’m certainly better grounded than you in both the economics and ongoing challenges with fusion.

If you want people to take you seriously maybe don’t start the conversation with a grade school take on the situation and you wont be dismissed.

oh boy another economics dweeb who thinks they know what theyre on about. those were a lot of words for a false premise. There is no doubt that fusion can produce more energy than it costs to maintain. we have literal empirical examples of this occurring in nature. You forgetting a significant factor in your analysis: time.

The problem with fusion isnt the science behind its energy production. its the engineering behind the design of plants, unfortunately for fusion it suffers from being fairly unique in that its a high radiation, high heat domain which makes the engineering incredibly difficult to get funded and there isnt anything else comparable to piggy back off of. That’s currently your C value and those costs are one time. solar and wind also suffered from this for decades. fortunately those tech could piggy back off discovers in other domains.

The cost of fusion plants and the energy production they’ll eventually unlock will disappear soon as we figure out the containment issues, and we’re getting close. the reason you’re hearing about fusion more and more is because we had a break through in 2010 on superconductors allowing for stronger containment fields.

We’ve probably spent less than 500 billion globally on fusion research over the entire lifetime of the field. the ‘C’ value is actually remarkably low economically speaking for the return we’ll get.

moar energy! there will never not be an application for energy production. specifically fusion has the benefit of being highly dense large scale production. which makes it attractive on a number of levels.

ah sorry 8 days ago. ;) my point about self-pity was in reference to your original assertion about there not being realistic paths forward. didnt mean to imply anyone here was. point was that just because you dont consider a path realistic doesn’t mean it isnt.

uh huh and what side of the fence is that? and what side am I on apparently? and who precisely is wallowing in self pity?

it’s a matter of ‘violence costs lives’ and you don’t change a system to one that you prefer and most other people don’t without organised and persistent violence

uh huh, and who are most people in this situation? because most people seem very fine with mr thompsons death. otherwise the media moguls wouldn’t be spending their breath trying to tell people it wasnt okay.

first question you’d need to answer is how joe-bob got into the web of trust in the first place. in order for them to abuse their position they needed to be added to your web.

literally what bluesky is doing with their filters.

if you want to automate it… run statistical analysis on the user for how many people ban them. you eventually find the people who are heavy but accurate with the ban button and can use them as inputs. and can use them as early gauges for new accounts. combine that with account age and you’ll eventually get a fairly robust and automated platform for banning misinformation accounts.

easiest path would be to sample from the group that voted. other options would include allowing anyone to vote, and split the pool of selected votes 50/50 between subscribers/general population.

example: 10000 votes are cast 1000 contributors, 9000 general pop. you sample both pools for 1000 votes (ensuring every paying person voice is heard) and tally them up. you can run the process a few times on the same pool of votes and take the average result to ensure that you didnt get a wild card rare result.

this way you balance both groups voices while still giving subscribers definite voice. reservoir sampling is the algorithm for vote sampling. it allows you to pick N elements from a set of M elements in a single pass.

Indeed, think about adding random sampling into the mix. Random peocesses belp reduce corruption/ bias’ in self selected pools. Obv doesnt eliminate them if the population is too lop sided but helps.

dont need AI for this. its why we have systems like webs of trust and peer verification. standard crypto + some social communication solves a lot of these problems.

Zuckerberg, trump’s new butt boy, announces meta will stop fact checking.

you’re preaching to the choir (minus calling social progressives radical, they’re fairly benign wanting whats best for others hardly radical.)

my point was the democratic party does not represent left wing politics and the person i was responding to was bitching about the democrats and blaming left wing politics.

just because the left isn’t represented in the US political parties doesnt mean we dont exist. =)