Did you know that the US does not have a capitalist system? In fact, it's silly to think of "capitalism" and "socialism" as systems at all. They aren't. They are broad systemic feature sets. You've probably heard the phrase "mixed economy". That's actually what nearly every nation has, a mixed economy, meaning that we have socialist, as well as capitalist, elements. In fact, without socialist elements, the capitalist elements of our economy would have self-destructed a long time ago. You clearly have no idea what capitalism or socialism even are. That's fine, most people don't, it's pretty much the norm, but now that it's been pointed out to you, you have a choice: learn, and grow, or be a stubborn fool. Hopefully you choose well.
docAvid
joined 2 years ago
Capitalists depend on the threat of hunger and homelessness. UBI undermines that.
It's also just a ridiculous proposition. So much media tells us this is possible, but no, it's not, not even if you find a virgin jungle. Professional survivalists who train and study for it still wouldn't be able to actually live a full life - at some point you're vulture food without society. We're cooperative, tribal animals. That's our strength, and we've built economic systems designed to take that strength from us.
Theirs was better, but I salute (and upvote) your effort, it's good to try and improve our messaging.
This other commenter did pretty good though:
Lol I came so close to downvoting. You really need a /s in there.
Capitalism depends on the threat of homelessness to function. UBI can definitely ameliorate the problems of capitalism, but capitalists will constantly fight it. UBI is also a great idea within socialist economies, where there would be no force against it. We should be doing both - eliminate capitalism and provide UBI.
Oh yeah, and anybody else who had fetched in those commits may still have them as well. It's hard for something to be gone-gone, but it may be annoyingly-hard-to-recover-gone.
Orphaned commits can get garbage collected at some point, though.
No, we have to actually fight that in material ways. Voting third party or abstaining is accepting it. That's exactly what the party leadership wants angry voters to do. If you don't want to accept genocide, organize and take over the Democratic party. We need to win congressional seats, committee seats, control of local clubs, everything from the bottom up.
I get the feeling you feel like I was somehow calling you out. I want to clarify the the intent of my message was more in the spirit of "wow must be nice" than "you're making that up". But also I'm just interested in how different your experience is from mine.
Who said anything about only requiring 1 reviewer?
I must have misunderstood. You said "If no one has reviewed your change within 24 hours you are allowed to approve it yourself." To me, that sounds like, after 24 hours of no review, one self-approval is considered sufficient. That, in turn, seems to imply that before 24 hours, one non-self-approval is probably sufficient, no?
You should try working for a healthy team where everyone takes collective responsibility and where the teams progress is more important than any one person's progress.
I've had team members in the past who are very self-focused, they tend to close a lot of tickets and look good, then get promoted out, leaving an unmaintainable mess behind. Allowing that is generally a failure of leadership. But right now, that's not our problem, and what you describe is pretty much how we operate.
I'd love to work on a team where everybody took code review a lot more seriously, believe me, it'd be nice, but my team does generally get everything approved, with at least two non-self approvals, in under 24 hours. If something is getting ignored because people are busy and it's a large change because we aren't perfect, and there is some reason to get it in soon, it just takes a quick request on Slack to get the needed attention.
What I found surprising about your description was more that the potential of a self-approval coming up would, in itself, get people's attention, rather than somebody reaching out personally and asking for a review.
Our big weakness is review quality, not quantity. It's crazy the number of times I look at something and see the two or three approvals already, start going through it, and find issue after issue. I see that on other teams as well, where there's usually only one or two devs who ever really make any comments on a review, it seems to be very common.
Yeah, people are so angry, so ready to screw themselves and go down a dark path to prove a point, so do you think that telling them they can't even make that point in the primary is going to get them on board for the general? It's absurdist, antidemocratic, nonsense.
Undecided voters aren't influenced by anything as far out as the primaries. There are, however, a large block of angry voters who are tired of holding their noses in the general election, who will absolutely be influenced, badly, by people telling them that now they aren't even allowed to vote their conscience in the primary.