At the end of the day, a society like that would look a lot different than the our current one. Their would likely have to be some sacrifices. Maybe we decide that fishing in the Bering Strait isn’t worth it or no one wants to do it, I guess we’ll have to go without Alaskan crab. Maybe you couldn’t have a sports car. However, I think people would sooner go out and cut trees than go unhoused. We’ll just have to decide what we as a society want to put our efforts towards.

Your full days work presumably creates value for your employer, more than they pay you for. That’s what they use to cover their operating expenses and profit. Or maybe you work for a public utility that’s in debt. Regardless, imagine a society where all the value created by the people designing and producing Nvidia’s chips, Elon’s cars and spaceships, and the people mining all the materials for them, which we’ve decided is worth trillions of dollars, was used by society and in the pockets of people that actually spend it in the economy. A society with a work force like ours should be able to house and feed everyone. We already know there are more vacant houses than homeless people in North America, and we throw out enough food worldside to feed everyone. It’s hard to imagine how exactly a society would actually distribute all that to everyone like communism aims to do though, but I don’t see why it shouldn’t be possible somehow. If everyone had enough to eat, a roof over their heads, and time to do what they want why wouldn’t they be alright going without Alaskan crab and other luxuries?

Any organisation that needs to operate 24/7 with a work week of less than 40 hours would need to have more workers than they do with a 40 hour work week, simple as that. To oversimplify: we arrived at the 40 hour work week when business owners wanted people to work more and people rioted and formed unions to push back over 100 years ago. In other words, it’s arbitrarily set. We could organize society around a different length work week if we changed our goals from shareholder profit to better quality of life for all. Maybe being a lumbejack or alaskan fisherman wouldn’t be so bad if you only had to do it once a week or didn’t have to go out in storms and you still had food, shelter, and leisure activities provided by society.

I think it’s more nuanced then you let on. People in general have vastly different aptitudes, interests, risk tolerance, etc…, as I’m sure you’re aware. Not everyone would be a hippie artist given the chance. I don’t think it’s crazy to assume that when society provides for everyone’s basic needs, including the ability to pursue leisure activties, there would still be people that want to work in combined cycle power plants because that interests them and it’s something that provides real value to society.

I think another important thing to consider is that when the need for capitalist growth and profit motives are removed from society we wouldn’t need as much power and as many combined cycle power plants. People wouldn’t be addicted to hoarding shit and consuming, advertisers wouldn’t be trying to convince people to do so, and we wouldn’t be making as much stuff. We would be allocating resources in a way that is just and equitable for all members of society and the environment. Workers could work a few hours a day or a week a month, because the plant wouldn’t demand the maximum amount of labour value they can legally get out of each worker. That doesn’t sound like so bad a life to me, I think enough people would think so too.

At the end of the day, it’s like a lot of the other comments are saying: it’s hard to imagine a world without capitalism because we haven’t tried it.

Please keep in mind that I have read very little of the actual literature and am woefully uninformed on the topic of communism. This is just my interpretation of things might work based on the little I’ve managed to pick up on the subject, but I thought my input would still be valuable.

Edit to add: The job might not be as dangerous either. Without profit incentive you wouldn’t need maximum up-time. You could do more shut downs and preventative maintenance. Take slower/safer approaches to tasks. I’ve never worked in a power plant, but I don’t think I’m too far off what might be posible.

Bypass paywall:

https://archive.is/ngweO

Also the day Avicii died.

Thanks for the input. I guess putting aside the intended use case, my thinking was getting the best processor the VRM situation would comfortably allow to account for all the unlikely what-if scenarios I might come up with lol. This seems like a case of not letting perfection be the enemy of good enough. Cheers.

It seems I have over thought things then. My thinking was I want the most performant processor that the 50 amps of VRMs can handle without being maxed out the whole time. I might be underestimating modern hardware and getting too caught up in spec chasing.

Lol, I’ve picked a terrible time to build a homelab. I decided to bite the bullet on the RAM, and now HDDs might suffer the same fate by the time I’m ready to stock up.

They added kernel level anti-cheat retroactively to all the modern Battlefield games like a year ago. It’s a game from 2018 that I was priviously playing an Linux, but it doesn’t work now.

Yes, once you pump it full of mods for playability and bug fixes.

I was surprised by its depth and story devices. You have to find the 2.5D graphics charming though. Also, you have to enjoy exploring the procedurally generated dungeons. It’s totally doable with the 3D map viewer. I personally enjoyed it. I was often impressed when I found new terrain features or big room types. It’s understandable if people find this tedious though. For those people there’s a mod to shrink the size of the dungeons.

If you want to give it a try look into the Daggerfall Unity port. Also, use a guide on Steam or something to create your first character because Daggerfall is old school and you need to take care to make a good character and get started properly.

Mulan. The live action remake was so bad, but I had high hopes because I like the original.

You’ll still be a shit person, likely with no meaningful friendships. That’s gotta factor into the equation somehow.

Proud victim of the Powertoys to Linux pipeline reporting in

Giant stadium style human writing that can be seen from a helicopter perhaps?

I’m not advocating for a system with infinite growth. I don’t disagree with your first point, there’s nothing inherently wrong with a country having a stagnant or declining population, but that’s an over simplification. You need to look at the demographics. When more people are retired and drawing on services than there are people to work and pay for those services, that isn’t sustainable. If you need more care homes for the elderly, than you need more people that work at care homes, for example.

If the housing prices are what they are now, with the current supply and demand, how would stopping new immigration cause a crash in housing prices? The aricle we’re commenting under says that 1/5 of construction workers are immigrants. Would you want to stop bringing in more construction workers to build housing given the current crisis? Like I said before, immigration policy is complicated and needs to be nuanced and strategic, it isn’t an all or nothing situation.

I’d say that’s a fair assessment of things. No worries, I’m happy to get more context on matters I should be better informed on.

As I understand it, immigration is always a balancing act. We have a demographic problem in Canada. As more boomers retire there needs to be workers to take their place and pay taxes to fund services. Many critical industries are experiencing a labour shortage and those jobs need to be filled. Their isn’t enough young Canadian citizens to accomplish this. Immigration can’t just be stopped.

More immigrants will put pressure on the housing market, but the lack of housing is the result of decades of government complacency, as well as support for Canadian housing as an investment vehicle. The amount of houses/housing we need right now is huge. So huge that the current amount of construction workers in Canada cannot build it quickly enough. Immigrant workers will be needed. Undoing the decades of damage done to housing in Canada will take a sustained, long term, and bold effort. Does the current government have the will for that? I’m not super hopeful. Politicians have vested interests in keeping the housing market ‘strong’. I hate to be fatalist, but even if the government does everything right, I don’t expect the cost of housing to decrease any in the medium term.

Unfortunately, I don’t have answers, besides the obvious that immigration policy needs to be nuanced and strategic.

That’s my view of things anyway. I invite anyone to criticise and share knowledge on the subject.

These are tiny homes that are built in a shop and just dropped onto the little concrete pad once they’re done. A small crew was able to build them out over time, so I can’t say which option exactly is cheaper. One advantage was they were able to move people in as they were built too.

Edit to add a word

I get what you’re saying 100%, but it’s really not a struggle to decide which one is worse.

There is French territory just off the coast of Newfoundland too (see Saint Pierre and Miquelon), also Denmark is right next door because of Greenland. So while still pretty far fetched, there is some precedent for European territory in North America.