I’m in my 40s and I’m really glad I got into martial arts back in my 20s and kept up with it.

🤣

I’m perfectly calm and nobody is upset here. I’m simply explaining to you that your argument does not make sense. If you want to look at negative sides of the trade-off then come up with some arguments that make logical sense. It’s quite telling that you start making personal attacks when you can’t actually address the points being made.

I genuinely don’t know what you’re arguing anymore, because your logic is completely backwards. You’re blaming the GPL for “enshitification” and bloat, which is utterly nonsensical. The license has fuck all to do with how lean or bloated a piece of software is, that’s a result of developer priorities and corporate roadmaps. The GPL’s entire purpose is to enforce freedom, and a key part of that freedom is the right to fork a project and strip out the bloat yourself if the main version goes off the rails. You then admit that corporate contributions are valuable, but your proposed solution is to letting them keep their work proprietary which is the very thing that accelerates enshitification. You’re arguing that to stop companies from making software worse, we should give them a free pass to take public labor, build their own walled gardens, and contribute nothing back. That’s just corporate apologia that encourages the exact freeloading the GPL was designed to prevent. Your entire point is a self-contradictory mess.

No, GPL does not force companies to do that. It forces companies to make their source code available. There is zero requirement that it has to be contributed to the original project, nor do the maintainers of the project have to accept changes they don’t want. You’re completely misrepresenting the how GPL works here.

Centralization, bloating, and GPL are all orthogonal concepts that bear no direct relation to each other. A centralized project does not necessarily become bloated, nor does GPL play any role in whether a project is centralized or not.

GPL because abstract freedoms are meaningless. The goal should be to ensure that the code stays open and that corps aren’t freeloading of it.

Frankly, I’ve never really understood the logic of bailouts. If a company is not solvent, but it’s deemed to be strategically important then the government should simply be taking a stake in it. That’s what would happen on the private markets with another company buying it out. The whole notion that the government should just throw money at the failing companies with no strings attached is beyond absurd.

ah makes sense

Russia actually operates 8 nuclear powered ice breakers right now, and they’re making more. https://www.thebarentsobserver.com/news/here-comes-yakutia-russias-newest-nuclear-icebreaker/422559

that’s right, authoritarian just like your bedtime

kind of yeah

To make sense of our current political moment, and to understand why electoral politics under capitalism is a stage managed by and for the wealthy, we must turn to one of the most consequential political thinkers of the last century: Vladimir Lenin.

If you were educated in the US, you almost certainly never encountered Lenin. Not in your high school textbooks, not in your university lecture halls. You will not see his ideas debated seriously on the corporate news channels. No mainstream politician, not even the most progressive, would dare utter his name.

It’s rather is a curious omission, is it not? For a man whose ideas shook the world, inspiring millions of workers to shake off their chains and establishing the official ideology of some of the largest countries on the planet.

So, in the land of free speech, why is the work of such a globally monumental figure treated as a forbidden text? Why is a thinker who provides a master-key to understanding modern imperialism and state power so diligently scrubbed from the curriculum?

Even at the most elite universities, in political science departments that posture as fonts of rigorous inquiry, you will not read Lenin. You will not be asked to critique him.

You might find a sanitized, fleeting reference to Marx, often dwarfed by the required reading of boosterish pieces from The Economist. In fact, at places like Harvard, the curriculum often reads less like political science and more like a corporate training manual. So why is Lenin a forbidden subject of study even in an adversarial way?

The answer is not complicated. Lenin’s genius was to lucidly dissect the rotting core of the capitalist system, exposing contradictions that cannot be patched over with mere reforms. And he did not stop at critique. He was not a moralist or an utopian, content with moral posturing.

And that is his unpardonable crime. Lenin wrote about the actual mechanics of seizing power, about smashing the bourgeois state and building a proletarian one. He provided a concrete analysis of how to win. This is the kind of dangerous knowledge the system cannot abide. It cannot be refuted, so it must be disappeared.

Consider the irony of how we would rightly condemn the Soviet Union as a brainwashed society if its citizens were taught to hate capitalism without ever reading Adam Smith. We would call it crude propaganda. Yet, millions of Americans are taught to reflexively recoil at the word communism by a system that ensures they will never encounter its theories.

What we find in practice is not free speech and academic freedom, but ideological policing. The very question of whether we could organize our economy differently is rendered unaskable. Those who advocate for a world beyond capitalism are systematically excluded from every institution that shapes public thought.

So, if you have any genuine belief in free inquiry, you have a duty to seek out the ideas that the guardians of power have placed beyond the pale.

Resources on Lenin:

State and Revolution https://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm

What Is To Be Done? https://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism https://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm

I mean if you have a verifiable set of steps that build from the answer to first principles, that does seem to enable trust worthiness. Specifically because it makes it possible for a human to follow the chain and verify it as well. This is basically what underpins the scientific method and how we compensate for the biases and hallucinations that humans have. You have a reproducible set of steps that can explained and followed. And what they’re building is very useful because it lets you apply this method to many problems where it would’ve been simply too much effort to do manually.

It’s like watching a grand master play chess with a toddler.

Cory Doctorow had a good take on this incidentally https://pluralistic.net/2025/10/16/post-ai-ai/

Which aspect of their approach do you doubt?

@cypherpunks@lemmy.ml kind of related to your recent post about hallucinations https://lemmy.ml/post/38324318

Big corps never really wanted people to be able to run their own software and have control over their devices. What they want is to sell appliances as opposed to general purpose computing devices.

Think of it this way, the investors are basically like people going to a casino. They start with a bunch money, and they start losing that money over time. That’s what’s happening here. Right now, they still haven’t lost enough money to quit playing, they still think they’ll make their investment back. At some point they either run out of money entirely, or they sober up and decide to cut their losses. That’s what’s going to change between now and when the bubble starts to pop. We simply haven’t hit the inflection point when the investors start to panic.