If you don’t let them in they just break in and claim they own the place

Regardless of what you or I believe, most workers and even many comrades are still religious and the last thing we want is to be push them away, as long as they accept a materialist framework for organizing society and we work together to progressively reduce religious harm over time they can pray all they want imo. The only reason why reactionary religion is so powerful is because capitalists have overfunded them for decades, and even then you have examples of anti-colonial resistance led by priests and imams. We can and should work together as much as we can, of course without compromising analysis or praxis.

While building more is obviously necessary, there’s still more than enough houses in the US to house all the homeless, but it’s less profitable, and in a profit driven system this is just the cost of doing business. Like, sure, people normally want to live in more urban places, but I don’t think many would want to stay homeless if offered an empty house elsewhere. Building more under neoliberal capitalism won’t do anything to fix homelessness, unfortunately.

Read communist leaders rather than accept whatever a school book that whitewashes colonialism and ignores Churchill’s genocide in Bengal tells you. You may disagree with them but you’ll notice most of them were fairly literate and understood dialectical materialism.

Right? People who are familiar with proprietary software assume them being used to navigating that mess means the UI there is better

Angry upvote

VLC: I know that and I love you

You can disagree with my opinion, but at least point to where the fashy-ness is in the original statement or their policy so I understand what you mean.

How on earth is taking a pro human stance for ethical reasons “fashy”?

That’s pretty much where I’m at with this, whatever usefulness comes out from this kind pf tech will benefit professionals and end users so much more the more open it is.

You do see how saying whataboutism to deflect accurate criticism is unhelpful regardless of whether it’s to defend your side or not, right?

You need evidence.

Sounds like another edition of fearmongering about China because of geopolitical reasons rather than evidence. The bit about digital sovereignty is really funny to me, outside of China and sanctioned countries we’re all tied to US digital products whether we want to or not, but if the US want to remain the most powerful player there they can open source their own models and compete in the free market.

Adding to your comment, in social sciences it’s also much harder not to be biased as the resources used in training will have been produced in accordance to the dominant ideology of the institution producing knowledge, so even if/when we agree with a bias (ex: liberalism) we need to remind ourselves to be critical if we want to understand and/or produce good science.

If Google wasn’t directly incentivized to screw us over for infinite growth and profits I’d also believe them here, it won’t stop here, they’ll keep making it harder for us to control our own devices

Collective punishment on the homeland to own the libs