It’s nice to appreciate people who do good things, but keep in mind that the only way people become billionaires is by exploiting people. So I would not want any of these people to be billionaires because it would mean they got that wealth not by doing good things, but by owning ridiculous amounts of capital and exploiting people.
I could see someone making something useful and selling it to billions of people at a fair price not being exploitative and also being a billionaire.
I think it’s rare to the point of maybe happening once ever, but I’m not super upset about the behavior of the guy currently bankrolling the signal foundation.
The problem is if you aren’t exploitative then you aren’t being as “efficient” (in a capitalist sense) so you’ll be out-competed. The system is designed to incentivize exploitation. It’s mis-aligned to do anything else.
Oh, the system is totally pushing everyone to try to be the worst person possible.
However, they might not actually be out competed if they’re not being as exploitative as possible. If they’re not charging as much as the market will tolerate they’re being inefficient but in the way costs profit but attracts consumers.
I literally only have one billionaire who might not be a problem, but that’s what they did. $1 for a year of access sold to a few billion people, with something like 50 employees.
It’s why the billionaires who shaft consumers and their workers are so gross. Reducing profit margins doesn’t impact efficiency, it only impacts money in their already overstuffed pockets.
Let’s reformulate. No single individual gets to a billion dollars of net worth without someone getting fucked over in the process. The very concept of any one individual having a net worth of hundreds of times the one of the next 99.9% is fucking absurd, regardless of what they did. Nobody “deserves” multiple lifetimes worth of wealth while half of the world’s population is living with dollars a day. It would take collectively for this world’s billlionaires, the equivalent of us foregoing buying a gaming PC (in relative terms) to get rid of world hunger, yet they choose not to. So, yes, they are actively fucking people over by having so much wealth in the first place.
Simply by having a billion dollars means they have decided to hoard that wealth. They could give away 90% of it, leaving them with $100 million, it wouldn’t impact their quality of life in any way, and still leave them with more wealth than 99.9% of the planet. Imagine the good that $900 million could do if it was put to good use rather than sitting in a bank account as a status symbol - having the capability to do that good with no impact on yourself or your family and choosing not to makes you an immoral person.
While I agree with your sentiment, the truth is, none of those billionaires have their billions sitting on their bank account, like I have my couple hundred dollars.
I doubt any billionaires have that much money “sitting in a bank”.
Most wealth is non-liquid. For example, if you found a company that becomes massive, and you maintain a controlling share, then you could be a billionaire on paper while having no real money to spend – the only way to turn that into “real” money would be to sell shares in the company, and thus lose control of it. If the company is doing good work, it could be better to retain control and act through the company, by ensuring that it pays employees good wages to do good work for the benefit of society. This is not completely incompatible with profit in theory, though in practice…yeah. I’m not sure if there are any such billionaires in the world today.
The real problem is more fundamental to the economy, in that it fairly consistently rewards bad behavior.
Larry Page basically became a billionaire overnight when Google went public. I don’t recall Page or Google doing anything especially evil or exploitative before that, though their success was certainly built in an unsustainable economic bubble.
If Amazon didn’t treat its employees like shit and poison the entire economy, then Bezos could probably still be a billionaire and I wouldn’t necessarily hold that against him.
McCartney and Swift ‘exploit’ tons of people as well. They might flagship their music artist operation themselves and kind of ‘be’ the product (or rather the brand), but there are lots and lots of people involved to make tours and shows possible, recording, production and especially distribution of music and merch involves labour as well.
In addition to that: I don’t think they store all that money on a nice little heap in their backyard. It usually gets invested into some sorts of corporations, be it through the stock market, where it will accrue revenue, that comes as the result of more exploitation.
That being said: the term ‘exploitation’ carries a much more negative connotation than would be beneficial for the conversation. It’s concept of marxist economics, and the term ‘Ausbeutung’ = exploitation was used by Marx himself to describe how capitalists benefit from the surplus that workers produce. I like the term ‘reaping the surplus’ better because it doesn’t carry as much of a negative connotation. The criticism of capitalism shouldn’t barely rely on the fact that surplus is being taken away from the workers, but from the consequences to society and the political system that inevitably follow when that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a minority.
Ok, so who did Taylor Swift exploit? She literally is just a singer and the whole thing is odd, but it’s more she’s a billionaire because the currency is worthless.
I choose to see this question as “If you could magically just make someone a billionaire, who deserves it,” or more specifically “who would actually do good things with the money if they had a billion dollars.”
As you said, the reason these people aren’t billionaires already is because they haven’t been exploiting others. That being said, there are likely a few people that would use the money to better support a lot of great causes, like the Free Software Foundation, medical research, or climate change action
Well said. Thinking billionaires are assholes because they’re naturally shitty is like thinking they got rich by being naturally hard working.
Take landlords for example. You can be the nicest person in the world. The kind of person who makes friends with the tenant. What do you think happens to you after you’ve evicted a few of your friends?
All the talk of Mint lately. Looks like my fifteen-year Ubuntu streak may be coming to an end. Will I, decidedly not a power-user just an Internet browser, occasional game player, Csound programmer, Libreoffice user notice a difference? Is Mint better at printing? That’s the only real problem I’ve had with Ubuntu over the years.
In my experience Linux is better at printing than windows. Especially debian based distros.
However you can just Google your printer and see if there are issues.
Edit: can’t read. I don’t know if there will be any change on printing since mint really just removes snap and Ubuntu stuff and adds flatpak and a few smaller details.
It was weird. Ubuntu 18.04 LTS printed perfectly. First try, every time. Barring printer issues not related to the OS anyway. Then, 20.04 dropped, and I couldn’t print anything. For two years, I had to move files to the Mac on the front desk to print at work because it refused to print anything. Same printer. I tried a few fixes people had posted, but none worked for me, and most fixes were for HP printers and mine is an Epson, which no one reported any problems with.
Now, with 22.04, I get intermittent printing. It works more often than not, but I’d estimate my print jobs get randomly canceled about 30% of the time. Which is annoying, but not deal-breaking since I usually just push it through again, and it works. To be fair, it might be because of wireless printing, but I doubt it since like I said, 18.04 worked flawlessly with the exact same setup. I might just try out Mint sometime and see if it makes a difference.
@Underwaterbob@Johanno Have you considered using a Raspberry Pi as a printer server? It might not be ideal, but - if it (the Pi) is physically connected to your printer - I wonder if it could negate the 30% failure rate?
That sounds like a lot of trouble and potential trouble for people who use the printer who don’t have the trouble I do. I can live with the failure rate. It happens quickly, and I can just print again. If Mint fixes it, that’s great!
A method I have not seen mentioned yet (for when you have an old precompiled version of an app):
Identify the missing libs. You can run the program, but sometimes it’s easier to use ldd
Use your web browser to download the missing libs from Debian’s repos (stable or older if need be). Unfortunately you often also have to grab their deps too.
Extract the .debs
Move all of the .so files into the same folder as the old program you are trying to run
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH="$(pwd)"
Now try running the app
It often takes a bit of fiddling, but it’s worked for me a few times and you only need to fetch the few libraries you are missing. For bigger things however it can be a dependency hell, you might as well use the distro’s actual package manager inside a chroot.
Note: You don’t need to be using Debian as your host distro, I don’t. As long as it’s a glibc based distro you should be mostly fine (glibc is mostly backwards compatible)
That’s mostly fluff though. Like you show, the core is either Linux or bsd and gnu, and then you have a handful of families.
That’s not fragmentation, that’s freedom.
And compatibility is a big factor too. Because of gnu and posix basically, almost anything that works on one distro will work on another.
Imagine if each distro was completely locked from anything on another one. That would be fragmentation, and we wouldn’t be talking about it, because it would be shit.
Yes, these are global stats, but as someone from the third world myself, I can say that most gamers around here resort to piracy, even though steam has gained a lot of popularity, so, only a fraction of us are included in the steam statistics, which would make such data not very representative.
Perhaps a better source for understanding software usage in the third world is data from statcounter. They show something around 3 to 5%, a much higher number. However, even this data can be biased, because they only count machines connected to the internet and who browse certain sites.
In that case steam doesn’t need to send the survey to all users, but only to a randomized sample, and it will statistically represent the whole of steam users.
As a former lifelong Windows user (from 2002 to 2019), I honestly don’t get why people continue using Windows in the future. It doesn’t make sense to me. They’re cracking down on liberties, increasing system requirements, and old software and games are gradually becoming less compatible. And people seem to be starting to realize that other options are becoming gradually more attractive, because Windows is now hovering below 70% while just ten years ago it was at over 90%. Meanwhile Mac has grown from 7% to 20%, and Linux is at an unprecedented 3%, and that’s not counting ChromeOS, which is slightly higher.
The mistakes Microsoft is doing can prove fatal. Because I think for most people, once they embrace Linux, even if Windows improves, they won’t wanna go back.
You’re right. And people continue to use Windows because all software is available for it. See… Adobe products, Notion, Windows games with just a double click, even the Whatsapp application, Full OneNote and do not even mention MS Office…
Yeah, I think the reason many don’t switch, is because of software availability.
Only reason I use windows is for work. All the software for industrial controls stuff is windows only. But luckily its so shit at being updated that I still have to keep a windows xp VM around for some stuff so hopefully I’ll be retired before I need to use windows 11+
I got my CNC router working via wine about 2 years ago. Was very happy when it not only worked but worked well. Thought I was going to need to setup a dedicated windows PC for it but I can just use my workshop/tinkering laptop.
I still might try and use Linux as a host for the windows VMS but I’d probably still need to keep a dual boot around can’t risk not having it in case of something that wouldn’t work with USB pass through.
Having recently replaced my laptop (with a used Lenovo T495) and set it up to dual boot Win11 and Endeavor…Windows 11 was by far the most difficult and time consuming to get from “boot off installation media” to “open functional web browser”. Would have been even easier had I asked Endeavor to just use up all of the partition I left free from installing Windows.
So when I got the T495, I went through the Win 11 OOBE to check it out. Turned it off until I got the Ram upgrade for it in the mail. That was my first problem, because “turn off” doesn’t mean what you think it does in Windows. If you want to get to the Lenovo system settings/boot order/diagnostics, turns out you have to “restart”. Go figure.
Then I did the switcheroo with NVMes in my old T470s and the 495. Took my 1TB out of the 470 into the 495, and took the 256 that came with the 495 and put it in the 470.
Then go to start the 470 and it boots fine to Win 11 but I can’t login with my PIN because my PIN is now expired. I’d enter a password but it never even let me do that. I tried to connect to my wifi and it wouldn’t connect.
Obviously this is because the host system changed and the TPM isn’t there anymore, but still frustrating to not be able to use the laptop offline just the same. I ended up just formatting and installing Endeavor on that, too. This was just where I finally realized that “reboot” means “give me the option to change boot order this time”, because I couldn’t get back into BIOS after it booted to windows.
You basically have BSD and Linux and in the Linux space {glibc/musl systemd/openrc/runit PKGBUILD,ebuild,deb,rpm} which seems like a lot but it’s the really niche stuff that’s fun to pull apart and play with.
I would argue that it’s their own fault then. Laziness is not a valid excuse to put yourself so much at risk. If you start doing it consistently, it becomes a habit and won’t take much effort. Of course, the familiarity with PKBUILD syntax has a learning curve
But a peer-reviewing system would be a better approach in AUR. Weird that it’s not been implemented yet.
I guess it can be assumed that a good number of people read the PKGBUILDs, so at some point malware would be found. A peer-reviewing system would give people a false sense of security, since the AUR is a user repository, where breakage should be expected (compared to the official repos).
How would peer reviewing in a user repo be more a sense of false security compared to official repos? I don’t know any of the arch maintainers, so for me it’s also pure trust they don’t do shady stuff.
Peer reviewing would not be failproof for sure, but at least it would give more security than not reviewing the pkbuilds, and especially to those that aren’t too familiar with them
I think the argument is pretty solid as an alternative to writing PKGBUILDs yourself. Sure it doesn’t hold up for people unfamiliar, but Arch is build on the idea of getting yourself familiar with it.
Agreed. People should learn to read PKGBUILDs, but given how popular Arch(-based) distributions are, I do think many people won’t bother. Afterall, many people download random things all the time.
linuxmemes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.