This comment seems to have a negative understanding of how accounting and taxes work.

You’d lose money if you do this. And your tax rate is unaffected since revenue and cost go up identically.

Reality has all of them. But the quality competitors are expensive and this keeps it to a niche audience. Then you have the race to the bottom competition that does business in quantity over quality and likely the one you grab since you’re also likely to value price over everything else.

I’ve seen enough combat footage of real people dying to real bullets to know that they do just drop down.

Free market per wikipedia definition:

In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.

It’s not equal to lawlessness, but it is lawless within market. These two are not equivalent. Still, that is not to say it is without order. Free market is entirely an economic system and not a social system nor any other plethora of systems in a country. So the topic of those other systems are simply out of the scope. Therefore, laws can exist in the society.

Robbery is part of the free market. Along with whatever happens like tornadoes, fire, murder, etc. Including the cost to hire your own security if necessary. Police is against free market because it is an intervention by the government. There does exist a grey area like if a robber becomes a gang and becomes a businesses’ external authority. Then they are impeding on the free market.

This is how free market is defined. So, to reiterate, if there exists any body that is redistributing your profit, it is against free market.

Communism is not a share of labour profits. Communism is more than just an economic system. It’s also a social and philosophical one. But assuming we’re only talking about the economic parts, it still doesn’t mean to share labour profits. Quoting wikipedia once again:

Communism is […] a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.

The keyword here is common ownership. Everyone owns the entire chain of production together. Your view on the concept of profit even existing is out of line with communism. From wikipedia:

Monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest, and wage labor would not operate and apply to Marxist socialism.

If we go with Marxist version, you already own everything together and nothing has monetary value. You can’t have profit because there is no such thing as selling, and there is no money, so you can’t profit on anything. The concept of the profit sharing would be anti-communism.

If we go with Lenin’s view on state capitalism (which he said is not communism, but may be a necessary transition state to communism) where we accept that things have value but that only the state engages in capitalism, people still wouldn’t get profit. Because people still wouldn’t have money. You would simply have better status in livelihood in hopes that the state has used that money well for the benefit of the people.

Communism is not profit sharing, its very core purpose is to remove the concept of profit.

Sharing of labour profits at a nation level is called “labour share”. And at a company level, it is called “co-operative business”.

I think the person you’re replying to is trying to say that:

It’s NOT just pressing a button for the people making it

But to the outsider that look at it thinks it’s just pressing a button because they only see the final ending.

Complete communism can’t have free market by definition. And complete free market can’t have laws to redistribute profits. That is the definition of these words. The theoretical maximum definition obviously differs from actual application as nothing is applied in a complete sense.

Revolutions and socioeconomic systems aren’t human nature. Along with all your above examples. My entire point is that there is a difference between individual human nature and the societal nature. Your point of human nature wanting feudalism is opposite of my point. I’m stating that EVERY SINGLE social construct you can imagine or think of is not of the individual nature but the societal one, including feudalism. And that less of construct you require is closer to human nature. More construct required is further away from human nature. That is, communism requires greater management by the society than the free market to exist, and thus is further from human nature. You may choose to define “human nature” differently, but this is how I see it.

Yes, it’s stupid. But it’s so ridiculously commonplace when talking about animals exerting force of any kind, especially “bite force”. Even in scientific literature to nat geo. They seem to actually mean force but I have no idea why they use the word pressure. I’ve seen some supposed experts on tv even interchangeably use words force and pressure in the same sentence.

I hate it.

That interpretation seems more like your own opinion rather than the opinion of those who actually say that. I see little causal relevance between charity and trickle down economics.

You have to think more impartially to understand why these two train of thoughts have little to no intersection. Do you know why these people you’re characterizing are saying “people are generous”? Because like you said, greed is simultaneously said. If you get it, you’ll see it’s not about trickle down.

Additionally the general right wing argument for the structuring society around volunteer charity over forced social care is that volunteer format is enough from the view of the giver, not that they will get enough from the view of the receiver. If that happens to be nothing, they’re saying so be it. If that happens to be a lot, that’s great. The argument is also about having the option to choose where they help rather than a government body choosing it… Though I don’t think individuals could possibly know though to choose well.

I am not making an argument for the right or left. I’m just fixing the polarized viewpoint of the other party.

Communism is against human nature.

Along with every social construct that we make including laws and traditions. We make these rules precisely to counter the human nature in an attempt to create a better society, though not all are by intentional design. What is good for an isolated sole single individual is very different for a whole society and a prosperous society benefits individuals to have different opportunities than a lone actor. For example, a society where you aren’t constantly worried about theft allows you to engage in trade more freely and thus able to trade more. The act of limiting personal freedom (nature) to steal, in turn, allowed society to have an increase in ability to trade.

What is closer to human nature is going to be more easily accepted by humans. And free market is closer to nature than communism. That is why it was invented first and what has set place first. If communism is indeed what society as a whole feels is better for society, they will constantly shift towards it. Some may argue similar to Canada or Scandinavian countries. Though I wouldn’t define what they’re shifting to as communism because countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc. score higher than USA in economic freedom index (free market). But, that discussion would go off course from topic of what is true communism which has no end.

Last 2 panels of the OP’s memes refer more greatly to individual actions rather than societal actions. I’m sure certain individuals will help and be charitable. Though as a whole would be obviously less than communism since certain definitions of communism would be a mathematical maximum of reduction of poor due to equalization.

Improbability principle states that the odds are fairly high. Highly unlikely events happen all the time, and as a sum of all the events it becomes a high chance. Among the masses, someone probably watched that episode and someone is going to post about that episode. Both happening together isn’t unlikely but highly probable because there are so many individual probabilities combining together due to many actors.

If you get a fancy expensive knife with super pointy tip, this temptation only increases.

I currently have a setup where both AMD and Nvidia simultaneously run on a single computer with Linux. It wasn’t too complicated, only took like 10hrs of troubleshooting to run.

You should also tell your past self on when to sell. Not just buy.

Need to buy from dictators?

I didn’t realize Australia and Canada who has highest uranium reserves are dictators. Canada also used to be highest uranium producer until relatively recently.

There is no need. Though Kazakhstan and Russia may be cheapest if you’re near there.

Actually statistics show that an encounter with a bear is orders of magnitude more dangerous than an encounter with a man. Obviously. I encounter 1000s of men as I was down the street and I’m not dead yet.

Yes, it’s very unlikely to run into a bear. But if that’s the point you’re making, you’re missing the predicate of the question where the encounter is already assumed.

I think hyper polarization is one of the greatest societal issues we face currently. Whether it be war of genders, politics, etc. We are losing the calm middle ground that should be the majority without outside influence.

It’s so incredibly easy to polarize. We see it in this thread too. The top of this comment thread is a polarization too. Essentially dividing men into 2 distinct set of groups. You’re either good or a villain. This dichotomy is ridiculous and every social community eats it up like crazy, this Lemmy included. These create effects of over abundance, as you mention of caution, fear and hate.

If anyone actually thinks that they’d be better off with an encounter with a wild bear than a man, they’re just stupid and insane. Just walking down the street, I encounter 1000s of men. If there were 1000s of bears, I’m sure no one would go there. But we’re not appealing to logic. We’re appealing to feelings that’s been derived from these polarizations and sadly I see no way for this to end.

I haven’t been part of the modding scene for a while now. But most likely, none of their public APIs were changed. Naturally, I could be wrong since I didn’t read the patch notes, but that’s typically not where it goes wrong.

Many modder, and I mean many, do not find Bethesda’s provided APIs to be sufficient for their goals. So people extend those APIs further with their own libraries and scripting engines. Then other modders build on top of that extensions. These work against the binary code of the game and contain a list of pointer addresses in binary. So even the smallest changes to the game binary ends up making all of these extensions to stop working.

These mods have a headache anytime any kind of updates are pushed. It’s an API thing, but it’s not the API Bethesda made.

There are multiple incorrect interpretations you are picturing. I did not say every behavior that came to existence are moral. Nor is evolution itself moral. I meant that morality came to existence because of human evolution as a whole, because it allows greater growth of humans and what is greater is selected through natural selection. Well being of humans is also not well being of singular or a single family. They would often be at counter to each other. Eating and killing others is obviously detrimental to humanity even if it would have benefited a single individual.

Benefit of humanity extends indirectly to other animals. But not directly. That is, the benefit of other animal does not matter, cats and dogs included. But these animals, including farm animals, or wildlife, do bring positive value to humanity. As an hyperbolic example, if skinning cats alive somehow benefited humanity, I would consider that a moral act and our perception of that act would follow. Furthering this example, we don’t consider annihilation of mosquitos (which humans actively partake in) to be immoral (just questionable consequences) because they seemingly bring no benefit to humanity.

My view on morality is not arbitrary. It is a question of what is good for humans as a whole. If yes, it is moral. If not, it is immoral.

Morals is not religion. If anything I vehemently dispute religion claiming any ownership of morals. See Plato on morals for more details. But I would say that highest of morals is the highest well-being of humans. This would apply not only from philosophical approach but also from an evolutionary one.

Having said that, I don’t believe eating meat is immoral. It is how we evolved, and eating meat is part of what is to be human.

Just pay for a good offline sudoku app. It probably costs less than a cup of coffee. Then we’ll all be happier.