Fascism has everything to do with poverty and inequalities. And inequalities in Europe are rising a lot. Where do you get your informations?
Capitalism is a sickness. It breeds crisis that lead to war, and it lives out of war and exploitation. But that's beside the point.
No one needs office unless the company forces it.
All countries of Europe are going fascists one after the other. Why if there is no problem?
Europe had capitalism under a leash because communism was here to threaten it. Since the 90's, capitalism is unleashed and inequalities are rising. USA didn't had communism to tame its capitalism, because it was basically forbidden because of the cold war.
Capitalism is entirely focused on having companies making a profit. If you don't have strong states to tame it and redistribute the money, inequalities increase. It's mathematical.
The technology required to make a modern computer is, to say the least, not easily accessible. There are very few places we're chips are made. A handful on the planet. I mean in large quantities.
Otherwise you have laboratories mostly that have the tools to make the chips.
It is technically possible to make a free computer. But it will be much more expensive and much worse. So why bother?
I don't know the sociology of the people who consider themselves feminists. I read and talk quite some with people, women in fact, who are activists. A published article that defend or promote feminist is activist by definition.
I've never seen a moderate feminist article. Would you have one that I can read?
Notice that I didn't say every feminist was extremist. Some are obviously more moderate than others. But by its nature, feminism is radical. The problem is that men are generally considered allies at best. They're not included. They're often excluded.
If some feminists include men, I'll very gladly learn about them, because I've never have before. And I consider myself informed.
I disagree when you say that people should help themselves.
Moor law is dead for a few years now. It's a fact. It doesn't mean performances stoped increasing. But they don't follow the old law. That's why the industry is shifting to distributed networking.
Under capitalism the rich will get richer, and the poor poorer. That's the whole point of it. Guillotines are a solution to get UBI.
None of those are major breakthrough. They're more computing power. It's still the same technology.
Today llm are the prime candidate for a breakthrough. They still have to prove themselves though, to prove that they're not just a fancy expensive useless toy like the blockchain.
Risc-v is not meant to be a breakthrough. It's an evolution.
Internet was a breakthrough. The invention of the mouse was a breakthrough.
Increase in power or in disk space, new languages or os, none of those are breakthroughs. None of those changed how computer programs were made or used.
The smartphone is a significant thing. Wi-Fi is not really important though, because you don't do anything more with WiFi than you can do with ethernet. The smartphone though and its network, that is a big thing.
There is a lot of fake progress. In computer technology some things were refined, but the only true technological novelty these last 20 years was the containerization. And maybe AI. Internet was the previous jump, but it's not really a computer technology, and it affect much, much more than that.
And Moor law has already ended some years ago.
I wish your fear were justified! I'll praise anything that can kill work.
Hallas, we're not here yet. Current AI is a glorified search engine. The problem it will have is that most code today is unmaintainable garbage. So AI can only do this for now : unmaintainable garbage.
First the software industry needs to properly industrialise itself. Then there will be code to copy and reuse.
These are the wrong questions. The question is how do men and women love each other after metoo? That is the question Andrew tate and the fascists are answering, in a reactionary way.
And Barby (the movie) is a good example of the feminist stance on this: feminists are basically saying "I don't want to be your doll, fuck off, dont try to love me". And while the first part is perfectly reasonable and sound, the second part is missing the point. And I realise here that it's not just me that are abandoned but also women here.
The feminist stance is understandable I guess: they don't want men to tell them what to be, so they won't tell men what to be either. But that's missing the point, the question that's being asked: how do men and women love eachother after metoo?
People want models, both to understand what to aim for, and to have something to dream about. There are strong women models now all over movies and games. But men are still the old one, and there's nothing but the old philosophy to answer the question of how do men and women love eachother after metoo. Because feminists abandoned this question.
And it cannot be either men or women to answer it. It must be discussed and agreed. Because women must like what men will be, and men must accept what women want. There is as much work to do on women than there is on men.
Final point: the answer cannot be a negative one. It cannot be "don't be a dick". Because after metoo most reasonable men understand that. The question is, if we're not to be dicks, what will we be? And I'm talking about seduction and romantic relationships here. The question the far right is answering. The question that matter when it comes to men and women relationships. Because no one cares if you want to be an astronaut or a fireman.