Thanks for the in-depth reply and for correcting me.
And you’re right to be dissatisfied, but the tech savvy might not be the intended audience. The burger crowd might be instead. They outnumber the tech crowd by the billion. It’s just more profitable.
Hmm. Not a marketing person, but I’ll try to make an idea that sounds only slightly insulting.
Think of it like this. You’re working from home, a coworker is out in the field doing live research and your boss will be doing a presentation in front of the shareholders. The coworker in the field records data with their phone, sends it to your laptop, you arrange it for your boss, send it to their tablet and the boss just slides it over on the giant TV as they take the credit for your work.
Or a more personal example. You’re at home in the mood for a movie or a game on your budget smart TV, but you’re too lazy to do all the whatever to get it going. So instead just sync your phone, PC/Xbox and TV with a Microsoft/Xbox account and do everything remotely using your phone/tablet as a controller, from the comfort of your couch.
It’s Microsoft NSYNC, baby! And that’s why everything has to be tailored to fit your lovely, greasy fingers. Comfortable comfort. You know you want it!
Looks like they’re going full speed ahead towards their mobile/tablet/TV/PC unishittification.
I believe they want you to seamlessly transfer stuff from device to device, regardless of which, where and why.
And so do these, under the updated parameters.
Yet they do it all the time when a higher specs CPU is fabricated with physical defects and is then presented as a lower specs variant.
But can they neuter it to make it near useless without a Microsoft account tagging along?
Another article speaks about Windows 11 requiring a Microsoft account to install it, no longer supporting local accounts.
The extra extra fun part is to then offer you the opportunity to pay for bigger storage!
This how you realize that there are people around that just want to blow shit up.
I’ve read that Epic is severely against Linux.
Paragraphs are bodies of text. So the second paragraph in this scenario is the one where we are only a few breakthroughs away.
Capitalism depends on the selfishness of the individual and their ability to extract the highest value with the lowest cost. Communism depends heavily if not fully on ethics. We are definitely not an ethical people. So you are correct the former is more preferable to the latter, because it’s easier to implement. You cannot depend on ethics unless those ethics create the highest value at the lowest cost for the individual. So the key would be to make restrictions that inspire the ethical approach over cutting corners. If that is possible, then whichever system is used, they are more likely to be better than the alternative.
It is apt to say capitalism inherently lacks ethics. And in a world where competition is the main attribute describing society, that lack is what breeds success. Which is why one could even exaggerate and say that capitalism fosters sociopathy. Individuals that grow to lose their sense of ethics are favoured and more likely to succeed in positions of power, while those restricted by their morals are quickly pushed aside. So while we say capitalism can be good or bad, it is more likely that it leans towards the bad.
Mostly for myself.
The pointing i’m failing to make is you speak of Capitalism the same way others speak of Communism, of an ideal stateof mind where everyone plays nice and does what they’re supposed to. But few people do. Most play dirty and don’t respect these definitions. Like you say, the imagination is nice, however it’s reality that annoys and people come to hate and harm each other when profit is more important that coexistence.
Capitalism is the concentration of society around capital, hence the name capital-ism.
Here’s a definition of capital:
: a stock (see STOCK entry 1 sense 1a) of accumulated goods especially at a specified time and in contrast to income received during a specified period also : the value of these accumulated goods (2) : accumulated goods devoted to the production of other goods (3) : accumulated possessions calculated to bring in income set capital and land and labor to work —G. B. Shaw see also VENTURE CAPITAL b (1) : net worth : excess of assets over liabilities (2) : STOCK sense 2a see also CAPITAL GAIN, CAPITAL STOCK, EQUITY CAPITAL c : persons holding capital : capitalists considered as a group d : ADVANTAGE, GAIN make capital of the situation e : a store or supply of useful assets or advantages
So Capitalism doesn’t give a shit about free market, workers, ethics, consumers, nation, environment etc, only about capital. Which is why Capitalism is good for the stock holders, yet bad for everyone else. Because stock holders will do anything for their capital.
Arr!
uBlock Origin is quite apt in not showing any of that. I am thankful for the creator’s attentiveness.
I wonder what kind of ads the piracy type of subreddits will be getting.
They must’ve sampled League of Legends players for this study. It’s not called League of Cancer and League of Salt for nothing you know…
It’s bad for us, but it makes them money, so they are incentivised to not care.