Physicist: All I see is a bunch of particles existing

FYI it’s a toggle in about:preferences (a.k.a. Settings).

There’s nothing against central systems in anarchism, only against central_ized_ ones.

I agree, anarchism is very unlikely to affect any meaningful change. It probably won’t be able to get the critical mass necessary to do things since most anarchists are the laisez-faire type (in the sense they will not “force feed” your ideology - they’ll just tell you it exists and what it is and leave it up to you to decide, NOT in the capitalism sense).

Is that good? Depends on your outlook. It’s always a good defense to let people decide for themselves, but how big of a reason is this for “the anarchist failure”?

The real problem with leftists is the unending infighting. Disagreements on a non-fundamental level have caused many movements to fall into obscurity, and whenever a revolution did happen, it was always an auth-type that got rid of the anarchist types through underhanded means.

Call this wishful thinking, but: It’s only a matter of time until a positive velvet revolution happens with no real ideologue leader that will be based on intelectualism rather than a personality cult and authoritarianism.

Frequently the auth-types took over the means of power by stabbing the anarchists in the back (eg. Stalin).

A revolution, while requiring guns, requires an incredible mass of people from all walks of life to happen - the current means of government must be unworkable for at least a quarter of the population and the vast majority needs to be at least indifferent to the change.

Central organising is a concern, but anarchism isn’t opposed to its very idea, it’s opposed to running the central aspects with an iron fist.

Since that causes silly problems like people desagreeing, the bane of any movement which, if it wants to be successful, absolutely has to get shit done as opposed to endlessly polemicising about meaningless details. Having a meaningful arbitrable solution is a good way to deal with that.

About the media: I agree, western propaganda is bad. But, you have to know this little fact: much of the propaganda (western or otherwise) isn’t created as propaganda - it isn’t created by someone woth the explicit goal of “I have to paint xy as good and z as bad”. Most of it is indoctrinated people creating something they like and want to create. Any such creation follows from the creator’s material conditions, including their outlook on life, which is shaped by propaganda they themselves consumed.

Essentially, Hollywood is a giant echo chamber. The US is. Any other society is, as well. It just depends on how strong the echo isself is - does it die down immidiately or does one sound create an undying cacophony?

While there are pieces of target-created propaganda coming out of Hollywood, I dare say that most are, in fact, unintended propaganda - people come up with stories they like, think up some “what-ifs”, a plot, heroes, villians and conflicts.

With the US being as individualist as it is, no wonder that the vast majority of heroes are solo players, not even fanatical members of an organization. They’re almost always painted in this US-ian individualist manner becuase the artist is a product of the US culture, mentality and media. Hiwever, the same applies to any other place.

A notable counterexample is the priest - be him good or bad, he’s not a “solo player” - he’s always a member of his church and acts accordingly, which isn’t the result of the church’s unending current effort to propagandize all priests as members of a highly hierarchical organization - they did that a long time ago, and it’s paying dividends even now: people know priests to be just “a cog in the machine”.

As the saying goes: don’t attribute to malice what you can to stupidity or ignorance.

Manufactured consent is a hell of a drug.

Typed up on mobile, please forgive any sausage finger induced typos.

I’d say putting up cameras violates the person’s dignity, but knowing how hellish these places can end up I’m not surprised well-meaning people have to do that to protect their loved ones.

Linux definitely has a learning curve but

I’d like to interject here a bit.

For a “normal” user (read non-tech, perhaps even a bit lower on the “tech literacy” scale) any change requires a learning curve. While we Linux people don’t have too big of a problem switching distros and UI setups, someone “non-techy” finds the switch from Win7 to Win10 challenging, as well as from Win10 to Win11. We’re not in the 95/98 era when a “name” upgrade meant you don’t have to install USB drivers off a floppy - the UI stad the same. (which just means Greg won’t need to bother with that while he sets up your new computer)

Nowadays, the move from 10 to 11 is anything but “painless” to me - and for me it’s just annoyances. For people less tech-savvy it’s an enigma at times.

So, my point is - the switch from Win10 to Win11 will probably be worse than Win10 to Mint for old people (mostly). Those deeply rooted into varous ecosystems aren’t the focus of this comment.

Is it just me, or do the two thugs look way too much like thugs?

Playing devil’s advocate here: maybe they were trying to be inclusive by not specifiying gender but haven’t heard of they. The US education system is a joke in a lot of places so the (hypothetical) teacher may have to think twice before suggesting they change the it’s to their. But hey, at least the apostrophe is where it should be and I’d take that as a win for education.