I think another piece of the puzzle is making sure a sizeable chunk of the earnings from extraction projects are captured by the government and set aside for remediation, as well as in something akin to Norway's Soverign Wealth fund. It's a shame that we didn't end up in the same boat as Norway given how long we've been exploiting our oil sands. Money like that could be put to use solving all sorts of environmental problems.
If we were talking about a company that makes toasters or bicycles or something I might agree with you. When it comes to an OS though, that's where you store all your personal information and interact with your digital life. An OS can be updated to include malicious features and backdoors. The morality of the executives at the company making the OS could have a direct effect on you, moral arguments aside.
At the end of the day, a society like that would look a lot different than the our current one. Their would likely have to be some sacrifices. Maybe we decide that fishing in the Bering Strait isn't worth it or no one wants to do it, I guess we'll have to go without Alaskan crab. Maybe you couldn't have a sports car. However, I think people would sooner go out and cut trees than go unhoused. We'll just have to decide what we as a society want to put our efforts towards.
Your full days work presumably creates value for your employer, more than they pay you for. That's what they use to cover their operating expenses and profit. Or maybe you work for a public utility that's in debt. Regardless, imagine a society where all the value created by the people designing and producing Nvidia's chips, Elon's cars and spaceships, and the people mining all the materials for them, which we've decided is worth trillions of dollars, was used by society and in the pockets of people that actually spend it in the economy. A society with a work force like ours should be able to house and feed everyone. We already know there are more vacant houses than homeless people in North America, and we throw out enough food worldside to feed everyone. It's hard to imagine how exactly a society would actually distribute all that to everyone like communism aims to do though, but I don't see why it shouldn't be possible somehow. If everyone had enough to eat, a roof over their heads, and time to do what they want why wouldn't they be alright going without Alaskan crab and other luxuries?
Any organisation that needs to operate 24/7 with a work week of less than 40 hours would need to have more workers than they do with a 40 hour work week, simple as that. To oversimplify: we arrived at the 40 hour work week when business owners wanted people to work more and people rioted and formed unions to push back over 100 years ago. In other words, it's arbitrarily set. We could organize society around a different length work week if we changed our goals from shareholder profit to better quality of life for all. Maybe being a lumbejack or alaskan fisherman wouldn't be so bad if you only had to do it once a week or didn't have to go out in storms and you still had food, shelter, and leisure activities provided by society.
I think it's more nuanced then you let on. People in general have vastly different aptitudes, interests, risk tolerance, etc..., as I'm sure you're aware. Not everyone would be a hippie artist given the chance. I don't think it's crazy to assume that when society provides for everyone's basic needs, including the ability to pursue leisure activties, there would still be people that want to work in combined cycle power plants because that interests them and it's something that provides real value to society.
I think another important thing to consider is that when the need for capitalist growth and profit motives are removed from society we wouldn't need as much power and as many combined cycle power plants. People wouldn't be addicted to hoarding shit and consuming, advertisers wouldn't be trying to convince people to do so, and we wouldn't be making as much stuff. We would be allocating resources in a way that is just and equitable for all members of society and the environment. Workers could work a few hours a day or a week a month, because the plant wouldn't demand the maximum amount of labour value they can legally get out of each worker. That doesn't sound like so bad a life to me, I think enough people would think so too.
At the end of the day, it's like a lot of the other comments are saying: it's hard to imagine a world without capitalism because we haven't tried it.
Please keep in mind that I have read very little of the actual literature and am woefully uninformed on the topic of communism. This is just my interpretation of things might work based on the little I've managed to pick up on the subject, but I thought my input would still be valuable.
Edit to add:
The job might not be as dangerous either. Without profit incentive you wouldn't need maximum up-time. You could do more shut downs and preventative maintenance. Take slower/safer approaches to tasks. I've never worked in a power plant, but I don't think I'm too far off what might be posible.
Thanks for the input. I guess putting aside the intended use case, my thinking was getting the best processor the VRM situation would comfortably allow to account for all the unlikely what-if scenarios I might come up with lol. This seems like a case of not letting perfection be the enemy of good enough. Cheers.
It seems I have over thought things then. My thinking was I want the most performant processor that the 50 amps of VRMs can handle without being maxed out the whole time. I might be underestimating modern hardware and getting too caught up in spec chasing.
Lol, I've picked a terrible time to build a homelab. I decided to bite the bullet on the RAM, and now HDDs might suffer the same fate by the time I'm ready to stock up.
They added kernel level anti-cheat retroactively to all the modern Battlefield games like a year ago. It's a game from 2018 that I was priviously playing an Linux, but it doesn't work now.
The porn site operator explained to the court that BitTorrent's protocol establishes a "tit-for-tat" mechanism that "rewards users who distribute the most desired content." It alleged that Meta took advantage of this system by "often" pirating adult videos that are "often within the most infringed files on BitTorrent websites" on "the very same day the motion pictures are released."
Is there anything in the BitTorrent protocal that works like this? I've always understood seeding to be without any incentive other than helping the community.
It sounds like they are describing download/upload ratios on private trackers. Does that mean Meta was in private trackers and so was this porn company watching the traffic on their pirated videos? Either way, that wouldn't be something "in the BitTorrent protocal."
I'm not advocating for a system with infinite growth. I don't disagree with your first point, there's nothing inherently wrong with a country having a stagnant or declining population, but that's an over simplification. You need to look at the demographics. When more people are retired and drawing on services than there are people to work and pay for those services, that isn't sustainable. If you need more care homes for the elderly, than you need more people that work at care homes, for example.
If the housing prices are what they are now, with the current supply and demand, how would stopping new immigration cause a crash in housing prices? The aricle we're commenting under says that 1/5 of construction workers are immigrants. Would you want to stop bringing in more construction workers to build housing given the current crisis? Like I said before, immigration policy is complicated and needs to be nuanced and strategic, it isn't an all or nothing situation.
I think another piece of the puzzle is making sure a sizeable chunk of the earnings from extraction projects are captured by the government and set aside for remediation, as well as in something akin to Norway's Soverign Wealth fund. It's a shame that we didn't end up in the same boat as Norway given how long we've been exploiting our oil sands. Money like that could be put to use solving all sorts of environmental problems.