Anarchists develop structures and agreements that discourage concentration of power

MLMs believe that they must use the state, capitalism, and by extension coercive control

Are these not different words for the same fundamental concepts?

I fail to see how “the state” and “capitalism” aren’t just a more developed form of “structures” and “agreements”. And if the community decides punishment is an appropriate response to breaking an “agreement”, how is that any different from “coercive control”?

And if you’re community gets large enough (say even like a couple hundred people), how are any decisions gonna get made even remotely efficiently?

Feel like you’re a hop skip and a jump from a representative democracy. And as soon as bartering becomes too inconvenient, I’m sure a new “agreement” still be made to use some proxy as a form of current and boom now you’ve got capitalism too.

Star Trek is the only reason I’m paying for Paramount+.

If Lower Decks and/or SNW go, I go.

If someone makes a dangerous product, it is reasonable to expect them to include appropriate safety features to reduce the risk their product poses to society.

The “victims” here aren’t the automobile manufacturers, they’re the people whose cars got stolen and those who were run over by a reckless joyrider or shot in a drive-by enabled by criminals having easy access to insecure, easy-to-steal vehicles. These are all people who wouldn’t have befallen harm if these vehicles had standard anti-theft features.

The reason nobody’s talking about suing bike manufacturers is because nobody was stealing bikes and riding around shooting people or crashing through the sides of buildings.

I think there is absolutely a legal argument that anti-theft features are critical safety features in cars, specifically. Not sure whether that argument will hold up in court, but it’s not anywhere near as straightforward as “bike manufacturers don’t have to care about theft, why should car manufacturers?”

Why does a car manufacturer have to care about theft at all?

This argument doesn’t make any sense to me. Why bother with keys and locks then? Is it more practical to expect society to eliminate literally all crime?

I’m sure there are good reasons to dislike this lawsuit, but this isn’t one of them.

I really hope stepping down as CEO leads to Linus surrounding himself with people he trusts to call him out when he’s missing something.

He strikes me as the kind of person who is susceptible to a few certain mental traps you kinda don’t want to see in a leader of a large influential organization:

1. Taking an “ends justifies the means” mindset (e.g. stepping on the “growth” gas pedal and accepting sloppiness because it will get better later with Labs)
2. Letting “objective facts” justify big subjective decisions w/o much consideration (e.g. thinking the Billet Labs video didn’t need to be re-shot because the “objectively” product rec conclusion wouldn’t have been different)
3. Substituting actual solutions to problems w/ commitments to solving them (e.g. implementing “Accuracy KPIs” instead of slowing the pace of video releases)

None of these constitute outright malice, IMO, but boy can they lead to a problematic working environment.

I’m sure there will be quite the flame war as a result of this, which I think is a bummer. Linus strikes me as someone who’s acting in good faith, but has an unshakable habit of making rushed decisions without considering the full scope of their impact, and is (or has been) lacking the appropriate feedback structure to help him learn to either a) make more thoughtful decisions, or b) fully delegating those decisions to folks who are better equipped to make them.

Here’s hoping this leads to positive change.

This.

I think of buses as the caterpillar to a tram’s butterfly.

You can start with a comprehensive bus network, and as a particular route stabilizes and the bus starts struggling to meet throughput needs, that is an indicator that a tram may be worthwhile.

Starting w/ a tram line is a pretty big financial bet that it will be useful/needed, as once you build it, you’re locked-in to that specific route.

There definitely have been, and continue to be, some great experiences in my life that would have been impossible without a car.

But they happen so infrequently that owning a car myself is completely nonsensical from a cost perspective.

Much better to spend a couple hundred bucks a year renting/borrowing a car the 2-3 times I need one, than $10k a year on payments/gas/insurance/parking just so it can take up valuable urban land to sit unused 99% of its life.