IriYan @ joborun @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

49

Joined

2 yr. ago

I’ve found it to be surprisingly stable

It sounds like you have used it extensively then, because the myth is spread by people who never tried.

Arch users HAVE to know

They do know this is a popular myth spread around by the antiquities of debian/mint/ubuntu users who wait a few years for Arch users to locate any bugs.

I’ve had to switch to mint.

That bad, huh? I am sorry, I hope you get better.

What’s a distro

an Americanization of the word distribution (software that is).

you guessed it, I use joborun, like arch without systemd, runit optionally s6/66

may randomly become universal, like the Nokia BL-5C

I still use a small light old Nok with no camera, with my use I can go a week between charge, and have a few more and took the batteries out a few days and recharged them all. I can probably hike in remote areas and have a month of talk time now :)

By hating android the only ones I have are friends' old phones and tablets whose batteries died and costed too much to have it replaced. I would love to try a pinephone though to install my own linux on it.

It is funny you can identify people proposing solutions to be from the US just by the attempt of solving a "non-problem", or a problem solved nearly everywhere else on the planet except for the US. Being home to the world's near entirety of energy trade, the earliest mass production of private vehicles, has a toll. The world's most faulty by design transportation systems.

Just looking at a US bus in comparison with buses anywhere else (like a 20 ton truck trying to move 2 tons a mile away) or even a schoolbus, tells you there is something seriously wrong here. So a stranger to the US tends to ask, who tried to solve whose problem here and ended up with this monstrosity.

There are people in Europe/EEC who work full time and make less than it costs an average "worker" in the US to go from home to work and back. And I am not talking about personal costs but general social cost.

First you have to define the problem you want to solve then attempt to present a solution. You appear to want to serve the ultimate in convenience and service to a passenger, to have the passenger to do less walking, less waiting, while still be "economically feasible". For who? For everyone? If we all had limo service but not dedicated, we agreed we can all share limos, all passenger vehicles would be taxis and a significant part of the workforce were limo/taxi drivers, but we would have less cars on the road. Can we afford this as a society or is it going to be just for the few that can, and the rest would walk?

Minibuses and minivans end up being less efficient than anything else. In countries where cabs are allowed to pick up 2-3 different passengers if they find someone down the road going in the same general direction, end up with passengers avoiding to get on someone else's cab due to the routing, time, and ending up with about the same cost. There are 7-9 passenger minivans, imagine all going to different places and imagine being in the back and having to get out. Even small buses on local satelite routes end up being very costly due to single door multiple stop routes. EVERYONE wants to be next to the door and not have to rub and push people to get out.

Trains, multicar trains with more than 45' between stops, are extremely efficient. Small local trains and metro/subway is much more costly pass/distance than trains. Fewer cars, exponential energy cost, tremendous infrastructure. Large buses beat small trains overall, in urban environments. (Raising a train on ramps over the roads costs 2-3 times more than having them on street level. Putting them undergroun on an already built city costs 2x more than raising them up. Trains take an enormous amount of energy to accelerate to cruising speed, little energy to maintain it, and another huge amount of energy to stop them again (mostly heat realeased, little generator energy recovered). To have them accelerate and stop as frequently as bus stops they become as costly as passenger cars.)

Cycling for able bodied passengers in a priority to cycling transport system beats everything. Just a video clip of Holland urban centers is proof of concept.

So what is the problem you are attempting to solve?

(For the record, that actually was the cause, I’m not trying and don’t want to spread tankie propaganda like Lemmy’s devs are. We need libertarianism.)

For the record, libertarianism till 50s-60s. when US anti-communism spread like a disease, is, was, and will be, a specific part of anarchism/anarcho-communism, a proposal on how people/workers can organize according to libertarian principles. Libertarian principles are such that seek to protect and maintain all forms of equality in decision making among the members of the body that is making the decision. Emma Goldman, Luigi and Luce Fabri, Errico Malatesta, are among the most essential writers where libertarian principles are described.

This other monstrosity of an ideology associated as libertarianism is pure propaganda for the masses to diffuse interest from the original, to the extent that it is diametrically opposed to true libertarianism. It only appeals to the uneducated and to those who lack any form of critical ability. Capitalism, unleashed from the constrains of the superstructure of state (dialectically formed between the upper class and working class struggle for better conditions) is a short lived dead end situation and the quickest way to ultimate fascism, where the wealthiest can control every aspect of the lives of the lower class. In other words, under such proposals or this other form of anti-communism called anarcho-capitalism (yet another manufactured ideology from the depths of US state agencies), capitalism implodes to its final state, fascism and totalitarianism. The true essence of fascism is anti-communism, it is why fascism was created, to control and suppress communism. An earlier form of a manufactured propaganda to counter what is a threat to capitalism.

The support for what I am talking about is simple logic. It takes enormous political power or brutal force to maintain inequality for a long time (state) and this is all the capitalist state is; the maintainer and enforcer of inequality. A powerful state knows well enough what it takes to prolong its own existence, how far to take things, when to take a step back, to maintain social integrity and prevent uprising and revolt. Without a state, or with a lesser state, capitalists as individualistic as they are, they will suck it all in, and leave everyone else hungry and miserable. Then they have nobody to sell to but it is too late to realize it. It happened in the US in the 30s and spread across the industrialized western world like a fire. Since then they decided social democracy was necessary "to the capitalists" to maintain this great inequality, where 2% have/control 98% of land and resources. Private property can only be maintained by a state (laws, judicial system, police/army) otherwise it is just an immaterial idea.

Outside the US, and its puppets of English speaking world where propaganda spreads the most, people only laugh at US libertarianism as a silly joke. It is also the US that gave birth to distinguishing labels such as libertarian-left or libertarian-socialist etc. True libertarians are true anti-capitalists to the core.

There are 2 proposals against capitalism, the so called (in the US tankie) m-l authoritarian proposal, and the libertarian proposal. The one is pro-vanguard revolutionary the other is anti-vanguard social-revolution oriented. The one mandates economic only equality while building an enormous political inequality (similar or worse than the one in capitalism), the other builds on political equality where economic equality is the obvious logical result (we can't collectively agree on our own economic inequality). Some will also argue that a powerful modern state can not help but reproduce capitalist relations in society, as the modern state itself is a fabrication of capitalists. Pre-capitalist states have significant differences and organization.

Both proposals (m-l and libertarian) though differ on values and principles, not on content or logical explanation, although there has been enormous debate on whether that is or not. The synthesis of the two can only be found on the necessity of a vanguard organization but not to rule and govern but to serve, protect, and obey those who choose to exit capitalism (zapatistas). It therefore promotes collective/communal autonomy organized by a communal assembly as the highest form of authority, which serves the members and not the other way around. The vanguard protected the uprising and the process of autonomy construction, does not intervene and does not act without the decisions of the communities. The antithesis of lib/m-l can not survive too long (1.5 centuries) without a possible synthesis.

To take it a step further, the most vicious and dangerous defenders of capitalism are reformist liberals and pseudo-socialists, who project some fake liveable-sustainable capitalism that is easy on the "losers" of their gambling game. They will always be the best friends to capitalists who feel threatened by the class they exploit and suppress. A large part of the state apparatus is there not due to necessity but due to class insecurity (the ruling class).

Religion, sports, entertainment, ethnicity, are all aspects of the state as a mechanism to prevent uprising and revolution. It pre-occupies people with non-problems so they don't seek a collective solution to their true problems.

All this just for the record :)