[-] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

The PoS option was to highlight that power consumption doesn't have to be an issue. Of course, PoS has its own issues.

The network can use any other type of proof, like Proof of Authority where only a buch of validators owned by the banking system can process the transactions. The network can be even tokenless, no profit or incentives from it, just the secure architecture.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Debian stable and flatpaks, I don't see all the fuss

[-] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago
[-] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

Why defenseless? The entire organization can defense itself from outsiders. No need of hierarchy for that.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

Spain was not part of WW2. Facists won before that, though.

[-] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago

Actually, there seems to be a bit of a mix-up. Let me clarify.

In an anarchist group, enforcing anything goes against its fundamental principles.

If personal gain is the motive, one isn't truly aligned with the group's social contract and isn't considered part of it.

Decisions are made collectively, without hierarchy. Voting or delegating organisational tasks to sub-groups is the norm.

I won't go into words like "attacking," "defense," or "threats" as they are military terms, far from the anarchist ethos.

And I won't call you "bro" or make you read theory. I feel you won't.

[-] [email protected] 51 points 5 months ago

Anarchy is not by nature disorganized. Lack of hierarchy doesn't mean lack of organization. Probably a well-functioning anarchist organization is better organized than most hierarchical ones.

If friends are not there to defend the group of three, mutual aid is missing. That's why it failed.

[-] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago

Business are soulless evils

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

The NeverEnding Story

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

I can't imagine a world with god in it.

[-] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

Unions are not just for getting higher wages. They're not even just for when conditions start to get worse. Unions should be there for the best as well as the worst working conditions. Unions serve to maintain good and improve bad conditions, it's not about going against the "boss", it's about actively or passively defending the workers' conditions.

Would you trust your boss' lawyer saying "the trial will be fair, you won't need a lawyer"?

[-] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

Wow, that would be the last straw. You have a link to his comments?

view more: next ›

RedDoozer

joined 1 year ago