i do think that “voluntary” is a pretty clear term. would you still do it if it didn’t cost you anything, and it also didn’t get you any physical reward?

The tendency of the rate of profit to fall will soon mean that an industry will stop producing said commodity. It can’t anymore if it’s unprofitable. This is where the state has to step in and start subsidizing that industry or buying the commodity themself in order to articially inflate demand in order to keep that industry afloat. See e.g. the “butter mountains” of the EU.

ahem i just so happen to be very familiar with the whole concept of the tendency of rate of profit to fall (TRPF) and you’re misunderstanding it here. it turns to be unprofitable in the sense that the profit rate approaches zero (for example, exponentially), it does not go negative! companies continue to produce stuff as long as the profit is larger than zero, which it always stays. so they continue to produce stuff indefinitely, according to the model. no state subsidizing involved here.

this is maybe a subtlety here. something can converge towards zero while also always staying positive. check out this function:

what you’re describing is just capitalism with extra steps

first time?

Because women only want what that don’t have. If they have big tits they want a reduction, if they have small tits they want a boob job, if they have blonde hair they want brunette, if they have brunette hair they want blonde, if they have curly hair they want strait…

Every… Single… Woman I’ve dated has bitched about something they didn’t have naturally. The same with men, all these women that “never met good guys” have, they just ignored them because they could have them.

i think there is a term from chinese philosophy … called Diyu is a state of permanent unrest, where the people can never find peace because they’re constantly driven by something that feels off … it’s considered the opposite of a calm, “fine with how the world is” so called “buddha nature”.

yeah last time i checked (january this year i think) lemmy had maybe 30k users in total (there’s statistics here: https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/stats ) and it’s better than nothing but definitely has a higher ceiling than present.

7 separate posts to the community within an hour of each other

nah that’s fine. we need content anyways.

the user did post a whole lot of … icky content in the past (just generally bad takes about things, some unhinged things about religion, some “we’re better than them” posts). i’ve seen them a couple of times. username “grumpy” checks out

uhh, yeah, travel takes a whole lot of resources, but you’d only need to transport very few elements around, like a seed of a tree. and when you land on a new planet, you have more resources to utilize and go on. so your image is too limited here.

going offline to live in a hut in the forest?

coz of the shitty ai blog/info sites

SEO existed before chatgpt

yeah we have the same in europe for e.g. potato salad (price has to be listed per box and per kg) but that doesn’t apply to toilet paper i think … not a food item.

cannot confirm. have used chatgpt many times to check my physics homework (after doing it myself first) and it was basically correct about 90% of the time.

these were not standard exercises (i think)

were before they started just writing a mini-python script for every calculation and executing that.

i’m still not-in-the-know and i prefer to keep it that way

Mamdani seems to have a favor to improve supermarkets somewhat? Already showing this with the city-owned grocery stores (allegedly for food deserts). I assume the philosophy is somewhat like “you can only have a strong population if they’re properly fed”. which is true.

I’m just saying, from a purely mathematical point of view, the city would do more good by building cheap and efficient social housing, and public transport etc.

whether your government only makes chaor or actually helps, depends a whole lot on the government and especially on the people in it. there are good governments, for example here in austria.

the issue is more, whether your government represents you and whether they care about you. that is something that depends on your local context.

so i can tell you from an example why private companies exist that do things that are typically done by public companies … here in austria, there’s a railway operator called WestBahn. They provide passenger trains on the route from vienna to innsbruck (roughly). That’s the only route that they service. Why do they do it?

because it’s one of the most provitable routes in all of austria. it has many, reliable passengers. servicing that route turns a profit. servicing many other routes, for example bus lines in some remote village, is still necessary, but obviously doesn’t turn a profit as it has maybe 3 passengers at a time.

so, they pick the 1 route that’s actually very profitable, only service that, and leave every other route to the state-owned alternative. that’s what’s happening.

train networks, schools, healthcare, heck even social housing, here in central europe

“seize the means of production” as if that’s an easy/good thing to do. then what, the employees own the company? and they get paid depending on company profitability? well, not every company turns a profit. what if the company has a bad year? will the employees go hungry? who says that it will turn a profit next year?