You could perhaps still have enshittification in a worker owned organization. It seems more likely to happen when the decisions are being made by rich ghouls and absent shareholders, rather than the people who actually made the product.

A big problem is often lack of competition.

No one needs that much money. The people who could deserve it don’t get it. We’ve got teachers in poverty and this fucker has more money than he’d ever need. Fuck him. Fuck his enablers.

I’m pretty sure local models still induce pyschosis and hallucinate. Maybe the cat’s out of the bag, but they still suck.

My job told us all to use AI more, as its own metric. I had it walk through how capitalism is unjust. Not exactly a secret but probably the ghouls in management would probably be mad.

I accept that your job likely has different cadences than software development, in addition to personal preference.

Most software engineers I’ve talked to don’t like being interrupted in the middle of some deep thought. Especially if it means shelving current work to check out something else

I didn’t mean I need them to keep it digital. I meant I don’t want my train of thought interrupted. A “take a number” and “now serving” sign would work fine, if it gated the conversation until I was ready. Or just they send a message asking to talk and wait for me to say “ok come on over”

• poor heating/cooling. Usually offices aren’t a comfortable temperature for everybody.

• not getting compensated for the commute. It’s a pay cut. Fuck you, management.

• people that just walk up to your desk and start asking questions. Send a message like “can we talk about XYZ?” and I’ll get to it when I get to it. Though this maybe is a learned behavior from people who are bad at responding to messages.

I had a pair of coworkers that would chat over slack all day. One of them had a laugh. My other coworker at the other side of the large office would message me “what’s so fucking funny over there?”. I never knew because they never shared.

I think we agree, then? What I was saying is you have to talk to people like your family. You have to have bonds with people, whether that’s from being a family or just spending time together.

I just to debate them enough and provide them with the necessary examples that they can form their own actual opinion.

This will be fruitless if they don’t trust you. That’s another way of saying you’re in-group.

In-group pressure and trauma are the only things that change minds. Traumatizing people is often rude, and maybe a crime, so it’s safer to try to get people to see you as trusted in-group and then work on changing their minds.

Make it progressive. First $x is untaxed, $x+y is taxed at some percent, the next $x+z is taxed higher, and so on.

Also build more housing in general.

The people who do work don’t keep the profits of work. People who “own” stuff do.

You have a guy who “owns” a factory. He pays some dudes to make widgets, market widgets, sell widgets. They all get $10 a day. They sell $200 of widgets a day. The guy who owns the operation, who’s probably just sitting at home, keeps all those profits. Capitalism.

The workers decide they want more rights. Get paid in real money. Sick time. 8 hour days. Owner says nah. Workers go on strike. Owner gets the police or the army to break the strike with violence. Arrest any leaders they survive. Historical context of capitalism.

Also the guy who owns the factory, maybe he just got it because his grand dad was friends with the king or something. Maybe they killed some natives and the state said the land is yours now.

The only thing that makes it harder is the elections are staggered. They’re all popular vote. You can do that without a senate. Removing lifetime appointments for 9 people and replacing them with a rotating pool has its own advantages, including not locking in control of the court for decades due to luck.

Well, the executive was historically civil servants that persisted beyond administrations, but the project 2025 people don’t believe in that.

This is important to remember. Grand juries are simple majority. No defense is present. If they don’t get an indictment it’s because they didn’t want it.

Remember that every time a right wing darling (like a cop or maga drunk) gets away without an indictment.

That’s how it works now with extra steps. The system doesn’t provide any defense when people are working as a party regardless of their branch.

The judicial is still separate in what I proposed, so there’s still at least two.

I don’t really think the separation of powers really holds up when they’re all elected in the same way, anyway. Not in a two-party system. We have a sort of incidental defense via staggered elections and terms, but as you can see the republicans are happy to collaborate across branches.

No? It’d be similar to today, except without the senate giving undue weight to low population areas, and the president doing whatever he wants. You’d probably also want to change the voting system to support ranked choice or similar, while you were waving your magic around.

In what way do you think it would be easier?

Vice president doesn’t have much power. Wouldn’t accomplish much.

Should probably get rid of the presidency and Senate, and just have a large house. Also reform the supreme court so it’s like a rotating pool of federal judges instead of lifetime corruption magnets.

We’re not far off from The Smith Act making a comeback. That “we’re going to arrest people who attended a meeting once” stuff is in living memory. The US has never lived up to its stated ideals.