Gotta have them treats too.

Shame. Thanks for the heads up!

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of differences between socialism and communism.

Modes of production aside, socialism is just the transition period between capitalism and communism but does not have fundamentally different goals from communism. The goal of socialism is to reach communism. The differentiation is just a matter of how far society has progressed in that transition and their modes of production. Socialists are communists. Any differentiation outside of the above context is colloquial or otherwise a result of the uninformed misusing the terms as you have.

Nationalized healthcare in the UK != Socialism and != a socialist policy, it is a social/welfare program. Social/welfare programs are agnostic of modes of production, which is why they can exist in both socialist and capitalist economies.

Please refer to the socialism entry on Prolewiki as well as the modes of production link I added above. This is one of the most commonly confused things about socialism and communism. If you really want to say you don’t like the idea of communism, you should at least be informed about what it is you don’t like and don’t think applies to our modern society. These are short articles that collectively take <5 minutes to read through.

What you are advocating for is social democracy.

Get a hexbear in here and their emojis could fix this right up.

Please just cut yourselves off from the fediverse already. Even replying to this drivel has lost it’s fun.

There are a few clarifications to be made and some fallacies in your understanding of communism and socialism here. I’m not the one to clear all of this up, because I’m not going to put the effort and time needed into these subjects, but I’ll try to guide you in the direction of some resources to help.

Some quick clarifications:

Socialism and communism are the same thing. Communism is the end goal, but you cannot just jump directly to communism from capitalism, so we fall the transition period socialism. Communists often use the terms interchangeably, but any actual differentiation is a distinction of progress, not the goals of the project.

Communism is no more extreme than socialism and politics are not a horseshoe or circle where the far ends are the worst. This is a thought-terminating notion meant to keep you boxed within the status quo so that those who are currently in power stay in power, meaning you will remain relatively powerless. The same thing goes for trying to stay in the middle of a conflict: you end up not taking a side, meaning you remain on the side of the status quo, meaning you stay on the side of the oppressor. Your oppressor. As much as people argue communism is extreme, communists can argue that “the middle” or “liberalism” or “other leftists” are extreme. These arguments are always made for the purpose of getting you to stop thinking about those topics, to stop considering their validity. They are not trying to convince you those are wrong, but that they are not worth even considering. I implore you to do the opposite: do some reading and interact with what “extremists” are saying in good faith, then decide what you believe. I’m sure you’ll agree with some parts and not with others. We are all humans and most of us are of the same class. The “extremism” of communists is that we say working class people should run the world and the rich leeches should be oppressed in a sense that they cannot oppress anyone else through the use of their extreme wealth. We want to flip the system on its head to use an overly-simplistic metaphor.

Capitalism cannot be mixed with socialist policies. What you are probably referring to as socialist policies are actually welfare programs and state regulation . This is what we call social democracy, which is still capitalism. Socialism is differentiated more by who owns the means of production, how the economy is organized, and what class is in control of the state. That aside, socialists think social democracy is insufficient to curb the problems of capitalism because you don’t remove the roots of the problem. Most of the successes of social democracy in addressing wealth disparity and living standards are the result of countries trying to stave of socialist revolutions at home due to their workers seeing the success of nearby socialist republics in improving the quality of life of their people. These are capitalist concessions and if you look at the social democracies that exist in Europe, you’ll see that all of these concessions started getting rolled back AFTER the fall of the USSR. They were temporary relief (at home, not in their colonies), but the profit motive always demands more. If capitalism can’t steal enough from the global south, it will turn inward and eat itself like the US and UK are currently doing.

On entrepreneurs…most of the time people want to show the benefit of entrepreneurs, it is in terms of innovation and small businesses, so I’m assuming this is your point? Innovation and entrepreneurs do not disappear under socialism, but the way they function does. Innovation does not always need to be driven by profit motive as demonstrated within the USSR, but there is arguably some room for profit motive driving innovation in a mixed economy like China’s. The main benefit of socialism is that innovation is not at the whims of the market, which tends to act as if it is allergic to innovation, ultimately stifling it rather than nurturing it. Small businesses (and thus entrepreneurs) still exist in many socialist countries and will not be nationalized unless they grow quite big or become central to controlling an important part of the economy. In some ways it can even be easier to start a thriving business because you are less at risk of being stamped out by the “health competition” of a mega-corporation with a monopoly on an entire industrial sector. Those get nationalized, fixing the money attracts more money problem. If you remove the profit motive, this power can no longer be abused for profit. Corruption can happen under any system and has to be handled case-by-case, but you’ll find socialist countries have much harsher penalties for corruption to prevent it, unlike a paltry fine that is the cost of doing business. Jail time or up to the death penalty can be applied based upon the severity and circumstances of the crime. Vietnam and China have applied this last one to large-scale corruption within the last year whereas in liberal democracies, multimillion or even billion dollar fraud cases are widespread and normal with little to no repercussions. In some cases, it is even legal!

On education…if you want more, there are many sources available in many formats. I suggest Dessalines’ crash course of socialism and his reading list but there are plenty of others on here who provide lists worthy of mention (but their links are harder for me to look up). Prolewiki is like Wikipedia for socialism by socialists. Search a topic there that you want to know more about. You can also ask for resources on specific topics in lemmy.ml, lemmygrad.ml, and hexbear.net and you will probably get more resources than you care to consume in a year, so long as you approach them in good faith. People in these communities will only troll you if they think you are trolling them. The efforts some of them will go to in order to educate others is ridiculous (in a good way).

I hope this helps.

Oh that’s gold.

I guess it just depends on what your metric is.

Unfortunately one of its leading metrics is its contributions to human suffering. It certainly is the best system in the world at spreading suffering.

It’s not clear that this affected the decision to drop the bombs let alone the sole reasoning. Frankly, there was little justifiable strategic argument for use of them at that point in the war aside from as a form of intimidation against the Soviet Union. More likely the US would have dropped the bombs regardless and it was used as a justification after the fact: “the Japanese were barbaric, so this justifies our barbarism!”

Like I said, it’s not the healthy choice, but I’m also not going to demonize a person for having the occasional sweet drink.

A much better hill to die on is the systemic use of known carcinogens in products that we come in contact with everyday as well as the dumping of even worse materials into the environment that make their way into our bodies via the water we drink and the air we breathe. You don’t get to choose whether you are exposed to these things.

I think the consensus on health effects of artificial sweeteners is unclear so long as you only consume a reasonable amount. There are plenty of other synthetics in highly processed foods that are much more concerning.

That said, water is obviously healthier.

I was in a similar spot as a manager for years. You can’t fix everything but you can improve the conditions for your workers and in my experience, this also was the key to making our store the top in our entire state. They will not always ingratiate you with the higher-ups, but if metrics improve, they will notice and at the bare minimum tolerate you.

A few good things you can do:

• Write glowing recommendations and beg for raises every year. Also make a point to do mentorship to help each worker build their career and skills in the ways they want. You don’t always have to put all of this in a review, but if it looks good and they make progress, do it.

• Spend that team building budget every month. Tell your team what it is and ask for their feedback on how they want to use it.

• Ask for input from your team and listen to what they have to say. Be transparent about what is going on, what your goals are, and what limitations you have, then try to find a way to find a place of compromise between those limitations and the feedback your team gives. Again, be open about this and ask what they think of any compromises. They’ll often have a better idea of what will work to improve conditions more than you will, particularly if you are open with them about goals and limitations.

• If it’s reasonable and safe for you to do so, encourage them to organize themselves into a union. You probably cannot join this, but you don’t need to tell your bosses they are organizing until they have done it. You can act as a screen to their efforts until they have the power to demand recognition.

Maybe for those who wish to support bombing foreigners while funnelling the military industry into their state.

Motherfucker parades around like he’s antiwar because he voted “nay” on a single ballot initiative that was already a shoo-in and inconsequential for him to vote against. Literally a couple months later, he voted to further the funding for those military actions.

Bernie has had blood on his hands for 30-40 years now and continues to try to wash it off with more blood.

Someone who pretends to support the poor at home while simultaneously supporting bombing and invading the poor elsewhere sure is a role model, just not a good one.

Sometimes it’s much more fun when you just don’t interact and they seeth from the lack of attention. Can’t be you against the world when the world walks away.

a huge fucking war next door, hybrid attacks and a noticeable uptick in espionage.

Thanks, Democrats!

And today we were reminded that it’s actually happening - our most important ally is now led by a maniac.

…our most important ally is now has always been led by maniacs.

We’re trading one ghoul for another. Even if you think it will get worse and don’t think the Dems will deserve credit for what happens alongside the Republicans, never forget that it was the Democrats who made this possible. They could stop these things, but they don’t. They don’t even throw themselves in front of it as a speed bump.

I think the sigma lens is worth the price, but no, the more you spend the more the returns are diminishing. The photos won’t be 5x better. The photos taken will depend a lot more on your skills than the equipment and may even be worse than a phone at first.

Eventually, they will be much better than a phone! An improved lens will generally give better clarity and color over a lower quality lens.

I think both of those lenses are fine, but if the price isn’t very different, I’d probably pick the one with IS so I have the option.

If you are really worried about needing IS, I suggest reading this article from B&H. B&H is also a good online retailer. 99% of the time I shoot in low light, I use a tripod, so image stabilization isn’t necessary and can be detrimental. Have I tried shooting at low shutter speeds with longer lenses in the dark? Yes, but I always bring a tripod in the evening or for indoor portraits now. It’s not likely you’ll be able to hold the camera anywhere near steady enough in those situations, so you’ll either want to mount it or set it down and set a timer.

Like I said, it’s easy to get caught up in feeling the need to buy bigger and better equipment, but if you haven’t touched it, you don’t really know what you need. You need to get your hands on a camera and go shoot first. If you know someone you can borrow one from or if you can rent one for very cheap, it could be worth trying that first.

End of the day, we are considering an entry-level camera for a budget of $600. There are always exceptions that will allow you to go outside that budget and get more/better features, but if you buy big and don’t use it, that’s just more money spent for no gain.

My first camera was a Canon 70D at $1300. That’s a high entry point, but I feel like it was a great purchase at the time. I made that decision after handling a DSLRs for 10 years because my dad always had them. One of those was a Canon 10D handed down to me that I shot on until buying the 70D, the other was a Canon 5D mark III. I was lucky to have access to those, but they were too much camera for me at first.

Before you go spending a whole bunch, commit to a budget that you will not abandon no matter what shiny thing you see (there are infinite shiny things, I know) and get your hands on something you can shoot with. You’re overthinking things at this stage.

Canon R50 is good at $600. Canon R10 is better at $1000. Sony A6100 is good at $800. Sony A6400 is better at $1000. Fujifilm X-T30 II is good for $1000.

You can find even better (though older) cameras (particularly DSLRs) for sale second-hand from people looking to upgrade. Don’t expect lenses this route because people tend to keep them, but a friend of mine just sold a Canon 5D mark III body for only $300. That’s a lot of camera for the price.

Don’t worry about lenses just yet, get your hands on a camera and shoot with the stock kit to see what you actually need. You may even be happy with the stock kit for now. Experts will push and push and push better equipment, but that’s because they are working at a higher level and marginal gains or quality of life improvements are worth it when your work is photography. When you are starting as a hobbyist, as a beginner, those things are mostly distractions.

The only ones missing IS are the 50mm and 28mm prime lenses, right? You may be able to find a higher end version of each of those with IS, but I included them as budget alternatives to the 35mm, which does have IS. Those two are only for if you don’t like the lens that comes on the camera and want something short other than the 35mm.

Whether it’s important to have IS really depends on the conditions you are shooting in and it’s not usually a priority of short, prime lenses. I guess it’s possible you could run into those, but it’s more likely in low light scenarios with slow shutter speeds. If you are shooting in those conditions, you probably want a tripod, so you wouldn’t need the image stabilization. It’s usually more important on larger lenses.

Good to be thinking about these things when you get to buying one though.

Something I didn’t mention before, you don’t have to stick to canon lenses, you just may need an adapter. Sticking to canon made it easier for me to find lenses that would fit the R50.

I’d shoot with the stock lens for a bit before you decide (maybe a month? 5+ sessions of whatever you mainly feel like shooting). Get a feel for the camera and what you like shooting or things you want, but can’t do. If they have a decent return policy, you may be able to swap out after trying it if you find you don’t like that model. I doubt it, but that’s just a guess.

Take note of what you like or struggle with, then return to that original list of lenses I posted to see if any of those could fill a gap. There were some smaller lenses and a couple larger ones for ~$500-600 that are good choices. If the money is burning a hole in your pocket, look to set aside up to $1300 while you work with the base setup in anticipation. It’s very easy to get trapped in spending money on equipment before you actually need it. Learning how to use the basics outside of auto settings, framing shots, and your style is more important at first than equipment.

That said, it’s probably worth it to get at least 1 extra battery or a power bank and an extra memory card within those first few shoots. Probably ~$100 total at most. See if you are running close to using all of the battery or filling the card in those sessions.

Session 1, start out with using auto settings (flash off), try out A or AV (aperture priority, the marking varies by camera) and read around about the basics of photography to get a feel for what settings do. Aperture looks like f/#.# (f/4.8 or f 4.8). Larger numbers typically mean more things are going to be in focus and smaller typically means less things will be in focus. There’s more to it than that, but it’s a good place to start understanding the setting.

Unless you found a good deal on the R10, it’s twice your budget ($1200-1300). While it improves upon the R50, those improvements don’t justify the R10 over other options for the same price:

• R50 + lens ($600 + $500)

or

• A full frame camera like a Canon 70D (mirror) with a two lens package ($1200-1300)

I’m not familiar with Fujifilm cameras, but if you apply the logic in my first comment and look up various reviews, you’ll get a sense for it. This also looks above the budget ($800 w/o lens).

Remember: your money is better spent on good lenses than fancier bodies. If you are wanting to look at different bodies, you don’t need to limit it to mirrorless. The main benefits of mirrorless that you see now is a smaller sized body. One limitation I hit without it is not getting to see what I’m shooting as easily while framing astrophotography (I see after the shot and adjust, but it has only been a limitation in that one instance).