u/merc

its

Sure professor. Keep digging that grave.

aims to

Aims to. As in, has never once reached. So, you're suggesting that in a state that has never happened, but theoretically could happen, then it's OK to have a for-profit business.

What about in the real world?

That's an "if" big enough to drive a train through.

There has never been a classless society where everyone's basic needs are met. So, pretending that that's the starting point for this hypothetical is a sign you're pretty desperate.

And which of them thought that communism without capitalism allowed someone to run a for-profit business?

You mean, whatever Marx says.

No, private property is things like a coat and shoes.

If someone owns an industrial lemon juicer, that's part of the means of production, and must be collectively owned. Sorry Jenny, you can't have a lemonade stand.

In fact, Jenny's parents are allowed to own a small lemon juicer as part of their personal property. But, if Jenny tries to use that juicer for her lemonade stand and charges money for her lemonade, that juicer is now part of the means of production (as are the lemons) and she's now operating an illegal enterprise.

The USSR and other supposedly "communist" governments all eventually allowed some capitalism in their economies, because 100% pure communism simply didn't work.

So, you're in favour of private ownership of the means of production?

I'm considering getting one. I currently have a nearly silent computer working as a HTPC but I can't play games on it. I can get around that with Steam Link, but that isn't ideal. So, it would be an upgrade that would let me play games on my living room TV without needing to tie up the gaming computer.

The other thing it looks ideal for is a travel computer. Gaming laptops suck. Often they're absurdly expensive. When they're decently powerful, they're almost always obscenely loud. That fan whine really bothers me. Plus, they almost always have major Linux compatibility issues. The current laptop I'm using with Linux has weird driver quirks. Like, for example, to re-enable WiFi after it goes to sleep I need to wake it up from sleep, turn on airplane mode and then turn it off again. Only then will the WiFi work again. And getting an external monitor to work after sleep... ugh.

Also, I think it's easy to underestimate the value of what is effectively a Linux gaming console. I'm almost exclusively a PC gamer these days, but one thing I always appreciated about consoles is that you never had to ask "will this game run well on my console?" 99.9% of the time, if a game was released for a console, it was optimized for that console. Even when a game was multi-platform like say FIFA, each console got a build that was as good as possible for that console. For PC games, I think that means most developers will have a Gabecube and ensure all their games run as well as possible on it. The fact that it's Linux-first is also important to me. It means any drivers or software updates will be tested and optimized on Linux. It won't be an afterthought like it is most of the time.

So, this machine is nearly silent, runs Linux, and plays most of the games in my Steam library. It's expensive, but maybe it's worth it?

So, no mom and pop shops? No lemonade stands? No independent book stores? No family farms? Nobody allowed to sell homemade quilts or paintings?

Normally that only works if you have DRM that locks the games to your platform, so that people don't get the hardware at a discount then use it to run someone else's software.

But, in Valve's case, it really has no competitors in the PC gaming space. That might not last forever, but it almost certainly will last as long as this PC / console is around.

For some of them it's "if you don't want to risk your life in the armed forces, but really, really want other people to go and murder children and steal land so you can benefit, go study the Talmud".

It's about as narrowly targeted a chant as you can get.

It's not about jews. It's not about israelis. It's specifically the army of israel. If that's not narrowly targeted enough, what's acceptable? "Down with the members of the IDF who intentionally target civilians but not those members of the IDF who are willing to risk a court martial to make sure that they only attack valid military targets?" Doesn't make a very good chant.

AFAIK you can also not join the IDF by simply being extremely religious.

And if he does step down as CEO and sell his shares, the stock will tank anyhow. The only reason it's currently about 100x over its realistic value is that people bought into the idea that Elon was this genius who was going to... well who knows. Nothing he could have done would have justified that valuation.

You use another standard when looking at whether I'm lying.

Yes, I'm using your standard when looking at whether you're lying, and I've determined you're lying.

Now you're lying about what I'm saying? Your standard for "lying" is that someone says something untrue and it's hard to prove that they knew in advance it was untrue. So, clearly you're a liar.

Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying

And so are you. Those are your rules. You chose them, and so now they apply to you.

Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn't lying, and neither am I

Apply my rules and we don't know if the media is lying, but there's no evidence to suggest that they knew that what they were saying is untrue, so it's unreasonable to say they're lying. As for you, who knows.

Your bias is so obvious

My bias? You're the guy who claims the media is lying without any evidence that they knew what they were saying was wrong, and you insist that you can still call that lying. But, when that same standard is applied to you, you want to reject it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, liar.

You didn't present evidence of lying, you presented evidence that what they reported ended up being untrue. That's part of lying, and I don't dispute that part. The key part is that they knew that what they were reporting was untrue and they reported it anyway. You've presented no evidence to support that.

So, based on your rules, I can say you're a liar, because you've said some things that are not true, so I'm just going to assume that you know they're untrue and you're lying.