This actually is a Venn diagram, which already puts it above so many similar things used both on-line and off-line. It’s not just an Euler diagram masquerading as a Venn diagram.

Well I personally range from distaste to absolute loathing of socialism in its many forms, although of course some are more tolerable than others. I find Marxism to be a bunch of pseudoscientific drivel (it is, after all, Hegelian), the utopians are… well, utopian which is also meh, and anarchists lack realism. So I have ideological disagreements with Vas.liitto even outside of any specific policy disagreements. For example, I’m not really convinced about their idea of “a world with justice, equality and sustainability for all, not for the few.” and what that would actually mean. Also, the general populism is just annoying although it’s ideologically consistent, I suppose.

It’s not like I like the right-wing parties either, but at least they’re (mostly) capitalistic, although they’re not really for actually free markets which is of course annoying. And I feel that there are others that are in a similar bind as me, where there really isn’t a good party for them. It’s frustrating.

Then again, at least in C, the mantra is “declaration follows usage”. Surely you don’t write pointer dereferences as * ptr? Most likely not, you most likely write it as *ptr. The idea behind the int *ptr; syntax is basically that when you do *ptr, you get an int.

And with this idea, stuff like function pointers (int (*f)(void)), arrays of pointers (int *a[10]) versus pointers of arrays (int (*a)[10]) etc. start making sense. It’s certainly not the best way to design the syntax, and I’m as much a fan of the Pascal-styled “type follows the identifier” syntax (e.g. let x: number;) as anyone, but the C way does have a rhyme and a reason for the way it is.

The annoying reality is that there really are no centre parties here. Either one is for some sort of social democracy (eugh) or socialism for corporations/big business (bleh), there’s really no in-between.

Would be nice to be able to have a party that’s both fiscally responsible while also not being a corporate stooge which wants to make things actively worse for folks.

Non-cynical answer: better integration with the service due to being a bespoke application. Maybe some perceived security.

Cynical answer: advertisement and spyware.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter, as said by someone but who probably wasn’t Winston Churchill. Dunno why it’d be any different within a workplace versus politics. (Of course there’s also the idea that democracy is the worst except for all the others, which… I suppose. It’s certainly better than what the fascists and the tankies come up with although that’s not saying much.)

Also, this has certainly been tried although admittedly not in a holistic manner. The Nordic model is basically this blended with more traditional ownership structures. A mixture of the welfare state providing major services with privately owned enterprises alongside co-ops and “democratised workplaces.” And… it’s fine. Has some nice qualities when compared with contemporary socio-economic structures but the political process can muddy the waters and make things inefficient through perverse incentives. Not that similar perverse incentives don’t exist elsewhere, but y’know…

Well, seems to work at least better than the alternatives that have been tried thus far. And, well, we’re running out of viable alternatives to try…

It’s time to nationalize Starlink & SpaceX.

I really don’t know what that would actually accomplish. How would any government benefit from doing that kind of a move, especially when the reason seems to just be that Elon is a douche, and that doesn’t seem like a valid reason to do such things. Hell, even if we were to count this kind of blatant aiding of an enemy country as treason, I doubt this would be an appropriate response.

If anything, it might just set a dangerous precedent and in general be against the very same liberal values which are exactly why we’re helping Ukraine against the foreign imperial occupier. Arbitrary nationalisation of the assets of politically inconvenient people is the kind of stuff that an autocratic regime such as the Russian Federation under Vova would do. And that’s the kind of thing it actually does do, defenestration of political rivals is a convenient way to accomplish many goals, after all.

Probably the same way India and the PRC are in this “alliance”, i.e. barely.