Equally serious (and just a bit more deranged of an answer):

Humans are not meant to do work. Physical or otherwise. This slavery thing where everyone, regardless of race, gender, orientation (and almost even age) we have going on is just degrading and nonsensical.

Humans should live in tightly-knit families and tribes. Of course, the woman should do the simpler housework like cleaning, cooking and tidying, while the father should do the more manual stuff like fixing things, growing plants, keeping animals and hunting.

Women should likewise be seperated from books because they are more likely ro succumb to the words of the devil. I’m sorry, but that’s just how it is. Therefore men must educate their heirs (male, of course), while the wife should teach her daughters how to domthe chores.

If you can’t see how exposing a frail woman to the harsh reality of being the man of the house, try thinking of your own daughter.

Well, anarchism in general isn’t a “Get rid of state” nuclear button type of thing just as all communism isn’t a magic “skip the socialism part” ideology. (I’m skipping this part a bit, but if you need/want this explained, feel free to ask!)

There are more and less “extreme” versions of both. And the core idea is to abolish state authority, although the way they go around it is very different, but I feel the percieved reasons (by anarchists in particular) as to why it should be done are the most misunderstood thing about anarchism in general.

One of the core tenants of anarchism is its definition of a state: A monopoly on violence, full stop. And I have to add, this definition is academically accepted, as in, all academic definitions of a state agree on the “monopoly of violence” part, but also add other things into the focus of what “a state” embodies, while anarchists don’t.

The reason for this is that a state inherently takes away power away from the people, no matter how “good” the state itself is. If anything, the bureacuratic process oftentimes harms its citizens and makes misinformed decisions based on procedure rather than the facts and merits of each case (which is a general fact of life anarchism isn’t immune to, but it hopes to avoid).

Another reason is that to save costs, decisions aren’t made by all people in referendums on a local or national scale, but by nationwide election to decide “representatives” who wote in the general electorate’s stead. Or because it concentrates power and money in the hands of the few. But it probably goes both ways.

Anarchism doesn’t believe in “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” as much as it believes people should make all the important decisions. It is also aware of the fact that some compromises have to be made in reality.

This is why a bunch of streams in anarchism aren’t so focused on achieving direct democracy (a general referendum for every little thing imaginable), but rather want to upend the direction of power: all power must be bottom-up, as opposed to top-down: people join into neighborhood councils, which join into larger units of various sizes and names. Self-sufficiency is valued and respected, but isn’t a requisite. People aren’t islands, but being less dependant on others is seen as a good idea.

And it’s not just limited to democracy. People are expected to be members of multiple “home units”, for example a geographic one, a work-related one and one for a social issues they have strong feelings about. In other words, “Anarchism applied” translates strongly into workplace syndicalism and membership in charitous organizactions, i.e. looking out for your own interests as well as helping other members of the community.

These smaller units make smaller decisions. As they form larger ones, they jointly decide their leadership, but the focus is always on the top being more dependant on the bottom than vice versa, all the way up to the national assembly (or even beyond).

The most important idea here is the “social contract”. Individuals “sign off” a part of their “rights” (i.e. give decisionmaking power) to the larger units, in hopes of achieving a stronger, more general impact.

This is the core idea about globak decisionmaking. With power comes responsiblity. The more units join in on this issue, the more accoubtability the newly-formed body has. These are kind of like government-run agencies and departments work today, but are formed by groups “joining in”, as opposed to an assembly “going down” and saying “This town needs a hospital, thus one doesn’t”. Or “The maximum number of hotels in a city is one every 15 blocks” (What is a block? What is a hotel? Why everywhere, etc?).

It’s not quite different from how contemporary democracy works in theory. Merely the accountability in practice is flipped right around. The rest can stay mostly the same.

In contemporary democtacy, there are only a few elections for a few rigid bodies. In anarchism there’d be more bodies which would make up those bodies. Those bodies would retain some of their power*, but the lesser bodies could (and would) exercise some of that power as well.

Decisionmaking bodies are still made up of experts, but not spawned from above, but rather synthesized from bellow.

Power corrupts, so all power must be spread as democratically as possible. Holders of concentrared power must be personally and fully accountable to those under them whom they represent (and not, say, view those underneath them as pawns on their personal chess-board).

Don’t worry. That will only happen when (and more importantly, if) this genocide rightly finds itself on the wrong side of history like the one from some 80-ish years ago did by 75-ish years ago.

However, that unfortunately doesn’t seem too likely to happen.

Some countries are currently doing quite well on the morality front, but most don’t give a shit while certain ones still have only shits & giggles to give.

What a world.

Oh, he most certainly does. Although he got the supranational body that should be abolished wrong.

It’s the US.

If someone were to tackle that little bureaucracy and let its people go their seperate ways, those people might actually feel a positive impact.

And to top it off, the rest of the world won’t need to listen to everything Mr. Orange Clown says!

Well, that sounds very undue-processy of them. Obviously what a same, civilized society would allow.

I know I write essays which is a weak point of mine. One I should address, but I see the gist of my message didn’t get to you.

For one I use (and like) Inkscape and have strong negative feelings towards Adobe (and run Linux). Just like most of the folks here. That, however, should be pretty clear-cut from my original message.

They have a point.

I’m kind of the other way around:

I’m used to Inkscape since forever. I’m no graphics design expert, but do know my way around Inkscape for simple SVG editing, mostly stuff shamelessly taken off Wikimedia.

Way back in college, I enrolled in an elective “graphic design” course. Of course, being a course, they used Illustrator.

That thing works nothing like Inkscape. It was a long time ago, but I remember being baffled by it, to the point of being unable of doing basic stuff.

To be fair, I had no need for learning Illustrator and no wish to do it either, so I quit the course while I still could and exchanged it. I just felt like i’d be losing my nerves on switching, when I had better stuff to do than becoming dependant on Adobe and losing my minf in the process.

Both programs may indeed sport menus in the same spots, but the menus aren’t the same. They may look like the same thing, but they’re really not.

It’s kind of like a bus and a train. Illustrator (the bus) sports all the nice stuff (i assume) from other Adobe stuff. Just like a bus uses the same road like cars do, with the same signalization.

Inkscape is more like the train. It does things differently from say Krita or Gimp, but it also does other stuff than either Krita or Gimp. Which (dare I say) makes it more effective at what it’s meant to do.

I know.

It’s just that kicking Russia out for doing war stuff but not Israel for the same sits the worst with me.

Had they said “we never kick out anyone”, they’d have a case keeping both. But I feel if they kicked out Russia, Israel should be kicked out by the same criteria. Both wage war nad neither seems like a good side of a war to be on to me, an outsifer to both conflicts.

It really does read like you said, though. Kicking out Russia and having Ukraine win that year was a very popular choice. Keeping israel, while not as popular still seems like the “right” thing for someone minmaxing viewership to choose. My bet is Israel wins. If not them, then a german-speaking country like Germany, Austria or Switzerland sibce they mostly support Israel.

A free alternative is an old phone you don’t use anymore, permanently in airplane mode and with just the regular camera app. Can be one where the battery doesn’t hold a charge anymore that you just have plugged into your car.

How is it supposed to be recording?

AFAIK dashcams are usually connected to the car so they run when it does. Having tp manually turn it off and on (and having to wait 20+ seconds for Android/iOS to spin up) & fiddling around the phone to start recording seems like way too much work. Or am I missing something?

Yes. Keep the event apolitical by doing the most political thing oit there: kick Russia out, but not Israel.

History will remember.

Because historically (and for the most part today as well), it costs money.

Sure, today stuff like ChatGPT and the somewhat older Google Translate exists, but that doesn’t solve the cost issue. (And I’m skirting on the huge elephant in the room called quality for a bit of brevity).

There’s a huge chance someone paid a good chunk of money for all the books you find dirt-cheap at a flea market, check out at a library or happen to find in your own house.

Printing physical books is expensive. Publishers also want a margin, and a lot of authors want royalties.

In the end even if the publisher and author are both good souls demanding nothing, someone needs to foot the cost of printing. But before that, you’d need to go through non-trivial talks with most authors’ publishers and/or authors themselves.

Then you need to arange for translation, typesetting and printing if you’re not doing it yourself. That takes both time and money.

And if you were to do all that yourself, it’d be a huge time investment, with a potential lawsuit if you don’t do those damn talks. So most just don’t bother.

Businesses are incredibly inefficient, even though some are “successful” and have a lot of cash to burn. They need to pay workers, bills, buy and fix equipment, and of course, a cut needs to go to the top people. Usually the “golden” 80-20 rule applies to almost everything: 20% of books make 80% of money, 20% of employees make 80% of money, and a different 20% of people do 80% of the work, etc. And of course, in this world, it’s all about the money.

A translation is usually initiated by a publisher that has a manager who wants to get his section’s metrics up to go cry to his own manager about how good he is to get a raise or not get fired. This is a daily grind. Sometimes (but quite rarely), that leads the manager to the decision of publishing a new book. Usually such actions are guided by things like bestseller lists, reviews and personal biases of the manager and the company as a whole. Sometimes the publisher hires an agency to try to approximate the demand for such a book (even more money spent). Then they do the talks. This also costs money, and the result is also a cost of money (the royalties to be paid). Then comes translation, then printing, then distribution to bookstores, and finally advertising.

These are just the steps that come to mind. All cost money, and all the books you see for sale in a bookstore went through all of these steps. For a library, not as much (but still the vast majority) did.

Sure, not every situation is the same, so there are companies that specialize in providing translations of well-known works or companies whose manager at one point said they need to publish 25 translations yearly (instead of one individual one), so they kind of “flood” the market.

But sometimes it’s just the whim of a newspaper whose management thought printing classic works of shorter length and bundling them with their newspaper would drive up newspaper sales.

It’s incredible how each document (edition of a book or otherwise) has multiple stories (of the author, publisher, translator, seller, advertiser, buyer, worker in logistics/delivery driver,…) that shaped the life of it. Some lasted a few hours, and some took hundereds of man-hours. All of this somehow translates to money.

That’s the long answer.

The short one is: 80% the economy and 20% human laziness.

My main gripe with this travesty of a “Start menu” is that it isn’t the Tom Hanks movie of a similar name.

The other is that even if it were, it won’t just play, but rather send you to the shiniest new subscription service to subscribe.

It’s a both-ways situation.

They allow only the Fisher-Price version of phones so less-than-power-users don’t do something stupid.

They also allow only Fisher-Price so power users can’t beat Celebrite as easily.

It isn’t misleading (that’d be a technically true headline, which this isn’t). This is a downright lie, or as some might say, “fake news”.

Asskissing.

Decisionmakers at MS are divorced from reality. The cognitive dissonance is incredible. They make shit up as they go along and the rest eat it all up and re-spew some new godawful incarnation of the terrible ideas.

None of the decisions are based in reality or quality market research (what users want). Their market research boils down to AI is god and we need to make it even more ungodly.

Which isn’t that surprising. When you have a single company dominating a market niche (say, desktop OS-es on PCs), the focus isn’t increasing, retaining or in any way satisfying customers. It’s making shit up as you go along, trying to get your department’s lines a bit higher than the other one so you as a high-to-mid level manager get that sweet, sweet bonus.

It’s not limited to MS and OS-es. The same thing applies to Google and the search and browser markets, as well as Nintendo and their ecosystem, or HP and printers.

You don’t even need a monopoly for this shit to happen. You just need to be “too big to fail”. Luckily, such unsustainable behavior won’t be “too big to fail” forever, but it’s impressive just for how long a company with such rotten echochamber decisionmaking behaviour can keep chugging along just fine, all the while hurting the customers and the economy in general through knock-on - or shall I say trickle down - effects.

Unlawful detention, obstruction of justice, overstepping bounds,…

Wait, qualified immunity.

What a joke.

Nor does it “read” its input. It doesn’t even process it.

It’s built/tuned using it. Or as AI techros would say, trained.

This.

Regardless of the up and downsides respectively, it should be the penis owner himself to decide.

But a “backdoor” which is swung wide open if you don’t secure it isn’t really a backdoor. It’s more akin to an open window.

You need to have a good hairdresser. Or multiple if you want your “problem” under wraps.