Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
> strong regimentation of society and of the economy
This is exactly what China is in the process of implementing via their social/sesame credit system. Semantics aside, it's not good.
oh thanks, i never thought to look at the actual definition. except how useful is that definition really, and how is it different than say any other dictatorship? yes, ultranationalism, but is PRC ultranationalistic? sure, one china, but there's also loads of flags in america.
you can argue PRC is more totalitarianism than just authoritarianism. but IMO, fascism is too vague to be useful without hindsight. for example, how is fascism meaningfully different than social nationalism? so please, don't just condescendingly throw out a cherry picked definition
Just because fascism and "communism" (as in, communism as implemented in China or the USSR) were at odds in the mid-20th century, doesn't mean they're incompatible.
I think that after a point communism and fascism are only different in name. Taken to extremes the outcome is the same; consolidation of power and wealth, suppression of opposition, and as near to absolute control as possible.
To be fair, they can start with different ideologies, but they end up very much the same: crushing individuals for the benefit of the all-powerful State. Does not matter if it's right or left, at the end of the day you get the following:
- Abolition of private property
- Abolition of civil liberties
- Abolition of political liberties
- Abolition of Free Press
- Systematic repression, the reign of fear
- Glorification of the Nation
- Quasi-Nationalization of Means of Production (whether private enterprise still exist is irrelevant, as they have to prone allegiance to the State)
- Mass murdering of political opposition and minorities
Same thing happened in France during the French Revolution, and nobody called it Fascism or Communism at the time but the idea of oppressing individuals for an utopian State was already there.
There are semantic differences, sure. The outcomes are horrifyingly the same. Lots of people die.
Some 10 million in fascist Germany[0], some 60 million in Soviet Russia, more than 70 million in communist China, etc.[1] Though, I'm not sure how to treat "just let them starve". Is it murder if you have the means to feed them? Is it murder if you don't even try?
Peter is pretty much on the money here. Google's biggest (search engine) threat is Facebook if FB can get their act together. Second is Amazon since they can be a one stop shop. But his comment came before the AI 2nd revolution hit mainstream which has changed R&D at all of the tech companies. Google does have some problems though, it can't go to far down the DoD, Darpa route since Googlers don't want to work with the military (as the article describes) and then it may miss out on innovation in China by not having a Chinese presence and offices in China to get at that talent. That ship may have sailed though as Alibaba and Baidu are giant. What Google really needs to do is unleash its human capital.
I started using an iPhone, partially to get away from google services.
I don’t know for sure if I can trust Apple with my data, but on the balance of probabilities I feel slightly safer with the company that makes its revenue from hardware sales, vs the company that makes its revenue from advertising.
Humans have been making alcohol since prehistory. There are plenty of breweries, distilleries, and vineyards in Europe and Asia that have been continuously active for centuries.
True and it was never mass consumed and celebrated to this extent. Current situation is that despite the facts and knowledge, social pressure makes people drink. Despite the facts.
The facts are overwhelming and we shouldn't just keep consuming alcohol because muah cultur. Many alcoholics end up causing traffic accidents and require lots of state support in other ways. Just walk into ED on any Saturday/Friday night. I have done that
People used to be drunk constantly - why do you think 19th century temperance movements were such a cultural force? Alcohol consumption was staggering in the past, to a degree we would consider insane today. Naval everyday rum rations alone would be well above the guidelines of being considered an alcoholic.
Alcohol was consumed en mass more than it is now. Little kids would regularly drink. Often alcohol was drank instead of water for sanitation reasons. It's been a huge part of nearly every culture for thousands of years.
You seem somewhat unperturbed that the entire crux of your original argument was faulty... maybe time for an update on your priors? Don't mean to sound unfriendly :)
Unperturbed because I know the endgame on this :). World without alcohol is a better world. The arguments about the past. I can list down counter arguments. But that’s not the point. People often respond with emotions about alcohol consumption. Media brainwashing has done its job well.
Alcohol consumption in the past was necessity because of cold climate and manual labor. Alcohol is made from ethanol is made from sugarcane and is extremely calories rich. 100 gm beer contains 43 calories. One can contains 154 calories
It was quite fine in the past as most of the calories were burned due to harsh living conditions.
Fast forward to 21st century. We are hardly exposed to extreme cold. We live in extremely protected environments. From temperature controlled office to car to home. But we haven’t changed our drinking habits to reflect that.
Add to that mass media consumption due to profits. We have an epedicmic which can easily be prevented. 5% of all deaths are due to alcohol.
Just visit ED of any hospital on Saturday night if you want to see the ills for yourself
No doubt alcoholism is bad and shouldn't be encouraged. But there's a huge difference between ending up in the ER and having a craft beer on a Friday after work (and everything in between).
You are discounting the positive psychological benefits that can be attributed to alcohol. Even if it really is bad to ever drink, ever, it's not like you're going to instantly keel over and die, it's a very subtle effect if it's there at all. People will weigh that risk against the benefits they get from drinking and act accordingly.
One could say that a lot of these "soft limits" are already in place due to humanity's long relationship with alcohol. It's already not seen as a good thing to get black out drunk for instance...
Don’t get me wrong. Personal choice precedes everything. I do think however that there’s lack of information spread. And profit seeking encourage drinking and discount the ill effects.
Facts weigh against alcohol consumption and I hope people choose their, societal and environmental health
I don’t think it’s useful to describe ‘Europe’ like this. From country to country you can have large differences in availability of candidates, expected salaries, immigration laws, and regulations and customs around running a business.
>IMO almost nobody is writing microservices with spring boot because its so gigantic.
I've encountered plenty of spring boot microservices in my work and, from what I hear of other companies, it's not particularly rare.
Most of the time, if you have a team that's productive in Spring, a manager or lead will be happy to spend some extra memory and get more features shipped.
