True, but Its 100% possible for us to get knocked back into the iron age, and if that happens, there’s a very real chance we won’t be able to climb up again.
Easy to access sources of a lot of the resources needed to rebuild a modern civilization are gone, the only reason we can get to the remaining deposits is because we already have the advanced equipment to extract it. It’s entirely possible that if we get knocked back down the tech ladder, we may never climb back up again
Can you elaborate for those of us who don’t know shit about Judaism?
The less centralised things are the less vulnerable they are
I’m sorry, but how do you arrive at that conclusion? If I roll in with a giant, powerful military from my centralized state, how does being less centralized make your position easier to defend? The less centralized you are, the less capable of a coordinated defense you are, and the more likely it is that your territory will be conquered without being able to present a meaningful resistance.
And if you were referring to an internal threat from a populist leader, then that’s assuming that the individuals involved don’t let said populist leader make them more centralized for easier control - if you’re just relying on the individuals always making the right decisions, then frankly you’re doomed.
they’re guaranteed to hold on to it for very long
Absolutely, and judging by history the typically dont. But a wannabe tyrant can do a lot of damage through their rise and fall, and tyrants have descendants.
, if you’re interested then there is a lot of ink spilled on the subject. Either from the perspective of actually existing anarchists or theoretical books.
And I’m sorry but “just devoted weeks/months of your life to read anarchist literature” isn’t a replacement for an actual rebuttal to my points, I have done some reading on anarchism, hence why I understand the concepts well enough to talk about them, but of course I’m not going to spend huge amounts of time reading up on a political system that I think is fundamentally flawed, and I’ve yet to come across any argument in your comments or others that actually negates any of what I’ve already said, most of it boils down to “we’ll just figure it out bro, trust us”
The history of the Spanish civil war might be quite interesting to you, as the anarchists had to fight the strongly backed fascists, obviously eventually they lost but they did pretty damn well! lots to learn there.
Completely irrelavent scenario (and if it was relavent, the fact that they lost would support my point), the Republicans of the Spanish Civil War weren’t from an anarchist society (nor were they all anarchists). They were residents of a non anarchist society who rebelled, using existing infrastructure created by the existing non-anarchist society.
The closest real analogue is what happened to the native Americans during the colonization (though even that is a very loose analogue, as many tribes were very very far from anarchic, though some were very very close to it), and we all know how that ended from our history books.
Ultimately this is the core problem as I see it - a hierarchical society will always be militarily stronger, practically by definition - and if history has taught us anything, it’s that weak neighbors get eaten by their stronger neighbors.
Additionally I think most of these idealized community structures are overly optimistic about the likelihood of a charismatic leader coming along and getting people to follow them, and then not letting them withdraw that power. Anarchists talk about hierarchies without formal power structures, but what is actually stopping someone whose already effectively in charge from turning that power into something more permanent, especially if they’ve convinced the populace that they want that?
Its happened an endless amount of times all throughout history, and I really don’t see why it wouldn’t here. Ultimately it just seems like a fragile system that relies mostly on every single individual being perfectly rational and immune to the draw of populist leaders. Aka - completely unlike actual humans
Irrelevant, since my critique actually has nothing to do with Ukraine, but about constitutions in general.
So you’re advocating for him to break the constitution he was elected to uphold, to hold an election that would have to be incomplete and unfair - all so that you, a person who isn’t even a Ukrainian can feel better about the situation? Despite the fact that there’s no call for this from the actual Ukranian public?
That’s certainly an opinion to have lol
So, in your opinion - in order for Zelensky to not be a dictator, he has to break all the existing rules of law in order to completely replace the existing constitution? And he should be allowed to do this unilaterally? And this would make him not a dictator? He’s not a fucking monarch dude, he’s the elected head of state - he doesn’t have supreme authority to do whatever the fuck he feels like.
The foundation of democracy is the idea that our elected officials have to abide by the rules of law that are already in place, including (and especially) those laws that concern how other laws are made. Otherwise any elected official could just declare themselves the new supreme ruler and toss out every law that limits their power.
And that’s all putting aside the question of how you would even hold an election in war ravaged Ukraine right now, a significant portion of which is under hostile occupation lol
What exactly is the process for a complete replacement in the constitution in Ukraine? Is it something that can feasibly be accomplished during wartime?
Edit: apparently the process is “you can’t” https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/389-19#Text (Article 19 Section 1)
So basically there is no way for Zelensky to change anything about the situation without just fraglantly breaking the law (or declaring an end to martial law during wartime, which would be beyond stupid). Pretty hard to argue he’s a “dictator” when literally all he’s doing is following the law that was out in place well before he was elected.
Now, if the war ends and he still refuses to hold a election, I’ll be right with you in calling for action, but I fail to see any fault with his current course on this specific issue
Swappable batteries was the big one for me
Back in the day when they were actually focused on putting features into phones instead of stripping them out…
I’m pretty sure the whole “iPhone as a status symbol” thing is a thing of the past - I literally can’t remember anytime in the last 5 years that anyone expressed envy at someone owning a iphone.
I’d argue that yearly upgrades regardless of phone brand are more of the status symbol now
on this site at least - you’re absolutely right, and the fact that you’re getting bombed with downvotes is pretty solid anecdotal evidence of that if nothing else lol
Don’t get me wrong, I get just as annoyed by those who insist Apple can do no wrong as those who insist they can do no right. I just find it weird how pseudo-religious people can get about Apple. It seems like you’re not allowed to just view them as another tech company. You have to either crusade against them, or else you’re a paid apple shill
Yeah I think a better answer would’ve been “an ad with a black man smiling at his white wife”
For bonus points, make it clear in the ad that the man is a house husband and the wife is a working professional lol
They 100% did
Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty to gripe about with apple, just like every tech company, but I swear half the complaints I hear about Apple products on lemmy are either outdated or just plain wrong
For some reason the anti-Apple circle jerk is supercharged on Lemmy. I’ll never understand why people get themselves so worked up over a brand they never have to do business with
So, what? We’re just straight up making shit up about Mac now when trashing it on Lemmy?
Its literally been over a decade since the last time Apple charged for an OS update
feels a bit like cheating given that the man in the picture is clearly being presented as a server, not a consumer
You are though.
I’m not, reread my previous comment. Last time I’m going to say this before I just block you without giving you the courtesy of even replying, stop deciding for me what I’m advocating, I’ve laid out the strategy I’d like to see in my previous comment, I’m advocating for absolutely no action beyond that.
So pitbulls will still breed even if you tell people not to do it.
Yes, of course - do you actually believe this is where a majority of pitbulls come from though? No moral strategy will completely eliminate the breed, but restricting breeders will mean that your average person can’t get one, which means your average Joe/Jane is far less likely to run into them on the street.
How do you come up with pitbulls having health and aggression issues?
I never said they have health issues (maybe they do, I’m not aware of it though) - When I talk about breeds with health issues, I’m referring to breeds like Pugs that live their whole lives in discomfort because of how much we fucked up their physiology.
In over half of all dog bite cases, the breed is unknown
True, that’s why we only look at the cases where the breed is known for these discussions, without making any assumptions about the dogs whose breed is unknown.
It’s not anyone’s job to count dog bites by breed
I guess true? In that people don’t get paid, they do however report breed information as part of the reporting of the dog bite. And as I’ve said in other comments in this thread, I’m entirely sure that there is a margin of error in the reporting of breeds for dog bites. However, even if you assume as much as a 5x overreporting for pitbulls, that still puts at about double the chance of an individual pitbull biting someone as opposed to a mixed breed dog.
anyone purporting to have done so is basically lying.
Ah, the ole “I don’t like it, so it must be made up”, very scientific.
And when you talk about banning dog breeds, yes you are talking about rounding them up in euthanizing them. Period.
I’m absolutely not. I’m advocating restrictions on breeders, not owners. No one should have their dog taken away, and pit bulls in shelters should still be adoptable in my view. I just don’t believe we should be deliberately breeding more dogs with known issues, whether it’s issues with their own health (like pugs) or issues with aggression.
Please don’t presume to tell me what I’m advocating.
Yeah that could be it, or maybe they’re doing the math as literally “is your monthly take home less than the cost of the monthly payments”. In which case I could see 180 qualifying, but that isn’t how any sane person would define affordability lol
There must be something wrong with the math that they used here, because I’m familiar with a few of these markets and have a higher salary than what is listed and definetely couldn’t buy a house in those markets without it being more expensive than would be responsible - both in terms of down payment and monthly cost
For example, I think you’d need a lot more than 180k to buy a house in LA
Dissappear? No, of course not
Fall out of repair, and be unable to be repaired effectively without tools, resources, or knowledge that are no longer accessible?
Abso-fucking-lutely
Take a deep sea oil rig. How long do you think it’ll be operational without maintenance with all that sea water? After not too long you won’t be able to repair the damage without serious industrial capabilities, and that’s assuming you even know how to fix it.
Really even as relatively little as a few decades of total chaos and disorganization would be enough to make crawling back really hard. A century and more and it really could be impossible, or at least improbable - especially given that the humanity that comes out of the other end of the crisis is the same one that got us into it. So the remaining pieces of major valuable infrastructure left will probably get wrecked as the survivors fight over them