ObjectivityIncarnate

  • 0 Posts
  • 136 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024

help-circle


  • I think it will continue to rise. People are updating their rigs all the time. Whenever they update their rig they’ll have to ask themselves whether they want to continue with Windows on their new rig, or try with something new.

    The vast majority of this increase is from people playing on Steam Decks, which run on Linux, not from people switching to Linux on their PCs.

    If it continues to rise, this is the reason. The general public is less and less into using a desktop at all as time goes on, much less running, and much less changing to, an extremely niche operating system on one.

    EDIT: The previous sentence is actually more of the reason, upon further reflection. The total number of people playing on desktops period is falling, and the vast majority of desktops are Windows, so non-Windows OSes will comparatively gain ‘market share’ as that happens, even if their numbers don’t change at all.



  • It’s not “capitalism alone”, but it’s clear that capitalism was a massive catalyst in accelerating that success, hence my emphasis on “how far we came in such a short period of time”.

    In 1820, 94% of the world’s population was living in extreme poverty. By 1910, this figure had fallen to 82%, and by 1950 the rate had dropped yet further, to 72%. However, the largest and fastest decline occurred between 1981 (44.3%) and 2015 (9.6%).




  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldit's the season
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago
    1. Corruption makes it possible for greed to be rewarded in any system.
    2. Greed is not necessarily a net negative—one’s personal avarice can be ‘addressed’ by creating and selling a product that the public is happy to pay (an amount that creates profit for them) for. That sort of ambition should be encouraged, because the result is a better outcome for everyone.

    I think we can do better than that

    Maybe we can. But of everything that’s been tried so far, capitalism has by far worked the best.

    So if there is a better way, it’s got to be a brand-new idea.


  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldit's the season
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    There is no other system immune to the potential negatives within capitalism, while no other system has shown to have as many positives as capitalism has had, over its history.

    Don’t be surprised if those negatives magically persist within a different system. The grass is always greener—you’re better off addressing the negatives directly (e.g. sensible legal regulations within the system), instead of naively assuming that changing the system will magically eliminate or even lessen them.











  • Assuming you could wave a magic wand and convert their net worth straight into cash 1:1 (you can’t), you couldn’t even do the last thing on that list, much less all the others:

    Assuming in the US, using 2023 figures:

    • Total combined net worth of all billionaires (remember, you can only “take all their money” one time): $5.2 trillion
    • Total annual healthcare cost: $4.9 trillion

    Too many people have been deluded into believing that ‘the billionaires’ are capable of easily solving all societal ills if only they gave away their wealth, and aren’t they such assholes for keeping their wealth and not solving them?

    Most people are not nearly aware of the actual costs of these things.