Thank you for providing a source. I am not who you were replying too, but this exchange is a funny little microcosm of the conversation.
I doubt many will read the full piece, I doubt many know Roderic Day, and the text shown was fully opinion. There were not detailed citations in the text that would require checking, this wasn't a study, there is basically nothing to the point outside the text itself, except the notoriety of the author, but the knee-jerk reaction seems to be to ask for a source. Would it change their opinion if it was written in the comment itself? Does it make it more legitimate if had been a published book? What level publisher does it require to make the case meaningful? Would it suddenly be a worthwhile point if this was taken from a New York Times op-ed?
To restate the point of the text, to a degree there is no reason to expect them to study the source of the quote, because they wield "Source?" like a club.
Hey that's not fair, they recently added tabs to their file explore. I mean sure it has a shared history, so if you open a new tab and navigate, then return to the previous tab back takes to you their useless 'home screen', but still, there are tabs kinda!
What about this, instead we just take that 1.5 mill a year and put it towards things that actual solve problems, rather than making sure we have the best and brights super soldiers doing traffic stops and taking notes on your break in.
Electoralism in this context means the idea that elections are the solutions to the political issues of our time, that the primary focus of energy from the left should be in winning elections so the elected officials can do as they were selected to do and solve societal ills.
Many Marxists and other leftists ideologies disagree and feel that the four options you've given show that electoralism is a trap for the political energy to change.
My understanding is that this is not true. The big factor seems to be infant mortality, as that drops so does the average number of children per breeding pair.
That's a valid concern, and it seems much of the function of the fediverse only exists because it's not worth treating it too maliciously. I guess the question how could one combat that?
How much active development does a browser engine need? If Mozilla died would I quickly be finding a larger chunk of websites that aren't supported? Because as it sits, Firefox feels like one of the most corporate pieces of open source software I use daily, and I need to know just how tragic it would be if Mozilla died.
Really it’s actually that businesses with that structure tend to perform better in a market economy
Yes dumping industrial waste into the town water ways, buying up all competition, off-shoring labor, and paying employees as little as they can get away with, are all well incentivized market systems.
Individual business being allowed to be cooperatively owned does not equate an economy where individual ownership of the means of production is disallowed. And as every facet of society seems to being increasingly enshitified while we barrel towards climate collapse, I don't really feel the need to argue that strict market only economic systems are fundamentally flawed and have outlived their use.
Or the more likely case, they know exactly what they are doing and are complicit.