openpgp4fpr:E0C3497126B72CA47975FC322953BB8C16043B43
Musk may blame any problems on a made up cyberattack again, painting himself and his political associations as victims of a censorship campaign and denying the real technical issues that have been appearing and worsening since his takeover and which might otherwise scare away even more advertisers.
I understand your comment as implying that Trump will make Musk eligible for the US presidency. If that is what you mean, I agree with you there.
Most of the ultrawealthy seem to prefer having someone else in the political limelight and pulling the strings from the backstage, probably to keep a semblance –however faint– of democratic legitimacy. Musk is being a loud exception, meddling in broad political daylight all over the world, and I would not put it past Trump to enable him as his successor if the two of them stay on good terms and Musk does not become too much of a toxic asset.
Germany, too, is poised to follow suit at the upcoming elections in February.
Since the US election I have been hoping for a fallout with Trump as Musk’s Icarus moment, but I would be willing to forego the symbolism. I like your direct approach to the matter.
Please, I beg you — South Africa has enough problems as it is. Can he not go to Mars instead? He has always been very enthusiastic about the planet and he would be safe from the “woke virus” he so dreads — a win for everyone?
the one who should go to the slammer over this […]
Why not both?
Don’t underestimate capital’s ability, through owned press and social media, to create the next Trump. The incentive is there: although the man himself, with his incredible ego, would likely reject any form of successor, the political phenomenon he has spearheaded, with its seemingly boundless capacity to divide and rule and weaken checks and balances, benefits billionaires too much for them to just let it fade into history. In any case, the social soil that has been such fertile ground for Trump will not just disappear when he dies, and the party has been irreversibly remade, with Republicans either falling in line or getting pushed aside. I wish the nightmare he represents would die with him, but I doubt it will.
Git is overrated.
That’s interesting to read; I wasn’t even aware of the existence of Darcs — or any other alternative to git supposedly worth considering, for that matter. Would you elaborate on it?
The price of goods going down is not contained to one country. […] Deflation would be global.
That contradicts both present reality and future expectations as far as I understand both.
In the past two years, China has been grappling with deflationary tendencies at the same time that much of the world has been experiencing extraordinary inflation.
China’s current deflationary tendencies stem from a combination of relatively low domestic demand and an ongoing decrease in exports. This decrease in exports was mostly caused by US protectionism, which is set to expand in both rates and scope under Trump.
Looking forward, the divergence I aluded to –deflation in China, inflation elsewhere– seems poised to continue. Further protectionism and the looming tariff war –not only with China, but possibly with Canada, Mexico and others– are expected to both fuel inflation in the United States and further reduce imports of Chinese goods. That would strengthen deflationary tendencies in China unless the government pulls off a stimulus package for their domestic economy more effective than the ones deployed thus far.
On the one hand, one Raspberry Pi would not really suffice. As @theherk@lemmy.world argued, you would need legitimate email addresses, which would require either circumventing the antibot measures of providers like Google or setting up your own network of domains and email servers. Besides that, GitHub would (hopefully) notice the barrage of API requests from the same network. To avoid that and make your API requests seem legitimate, you would need infrastructure to spread your requests in time and across networks. You would either build and maintain that infrastructure yourself –which would be expensive for a single star-boosting operation– or, well, pay for the service. That’s why these things exist.
On the other hand, although bad programmers might use these services to star-boost their otherwise mediocre code, as you suggest, there are other –at least conceivable, if not yet proven– use cases, such as:
You seem to imply bad programmers use these services to star-boost their otherwise mediocre code. That might be the case, but there are other –at least conceivable, if not yet proven– use cases for these star-boosting services, such as typosquatting, the promotion of less secure software as part of supply chain attacks (with organizations sticking to vulnerable libraries or frameworks in the erroneous belief that they are more popular and better maintained than alternatives, for example) and plain malware distribution.
If I understand them correctly, @geography082@lemm.ee’s point is not that it is wrong to monetize FOSS, but rather that companies increasingly develop open source projects for some time, benefiting from unpaid work in the form of contributions and, perhaps most importantly, starving other projects from both such contributions and funding, only to cynically change the license once they establish a position in their respective ecosystem and lock in enough customers. The last significant instance that I remember is Redis’ case, but there seem to be ever more.
For reference, there is codeberg.org, operated by a German nonprofit and based on the open source Forgejo, among other open alternatives.
Thank you for expanding on your point. What I did not and still do not understand is the following part of your original comment:
China owns large parts of the debt of the US. Deflation makes them stronger.
Deflation in China –that’s where deflation might occur or even be occuring– would not make the US Treasuries held by China more valuable, would it? Only deflation in the US, with the dollar appreciating, would have that effect, right?
I think we both agree that capitalist logic is inherently extractive, exploitative and generally unhealthy. What I’ve been trying to point out is that we should not cherish deflationary tendencies in China or seek deflation in our own economies as a solution of sorts to the cost of living crisis, but rather pursue the power to increase our wages to at least match our ever rising productivity. In my opinion, unionizing –hard as it is– is more feasible than changing our monetary system –necessary and desirable as that would be– or overcoming capitalism.
Maybe we should see increasing prices for energy… And let “the free and open market” fully control how much consumers pay for fossil fuels at the pump?
Although I’m all for letting free market advocates get fisted by the invisible hand they worship, high energy prices have arguably contributed to the wave of obnoxious populism sweeping the world. I’m not saying we should keep fossil fuels to cater to the angry and fearful; I’m saying the transition should be more managed, because the sudden economic disruption you suggest is politically fraught.
My understanding is that a slight and stable increase in the money supply is beneficial regardless of the monetary system in use, because it incentivizes economic activity. That said, I’m only somewhat familiar with our current fractional-reserve banking system and don’t know enough about other systems, historical or hypothetical, to present my understanding as fact.
If money should never become an asset worth holding, how can inflation be better than deflation for the working class?
It’s deflation that turns money into an asset worth holding and thus slows down economies. Too much inflation isn’t good either, for different reasons. A slight and stable inflation is the sweet spot.
Proportionately, the rich hold a lot more money assets than the poor, who generally don’t hold any or very little.
Indeed, the rich do proportionately hold a lot more money than the poor, but it isn’t much. The rich mostly have shares in corporations, bonds and real estate.
Inflation is generally worse for workers than for the rich because the latter have more pricing power. If both your living expenses and your income after taxes increased by 20%, you’d even end up with more money than before, assuming your living expenses were a fraction of your income. Unfortunately, prices haven’t risen equally; the cost of living increase has generally outpaced real wage growth. The rich have been able to set higher prices; workers haven’t been able to extract high enough wage raises.
Neither high inflation nor deflation are good for workers. What workers need is pricing power through strong unions and political support.
Let’s say a company makes X amount in profits in 2024, and everyone—employees, shareholders, stakeholders—are happy and well-compensated. Why should the expectation be that profits must increase in 2025, even if the company is already performing well?
Many of the products and services that businesses depend on will or might raise in price. This is by design; most central banks target a low inflation rate, often around 2%. Without an increase in profits, raising prices on inputs will eat away at a business’ profit margin.
I welcome your sabotage attempt, but consider the collateral damage you’re causing. I sprained a few neurons reading your comment.