I don’t think they were hue bulbs. I think they were just regular LED light fixture bulbs.

Oh. Huh. Gotta say, I wasn’t expecting to encounter anyone who had good experience with those bulbs.

That… blows a hole in my theory.

I still don’t regret the cheap, foreign light bulbs I got off of eBay (best LEDs I’ve bought thus far)… but maybe my family and I have just been unlucky with name brand LEDs.

🤣

Got cheap, no-name, unbranded LED bulbs off of eBay. Years later, not one of them had broken.

But Philips LED bulbs? Those things don’t last a year. In fact, none of the high-rated, “high quality,” top-ten-list, LED light bulbs have ever outlasted an incandescent in my experience.

If you want your LEDs to last, buy the no-name bulbs, guys. The Phoebus Cartel is still out there.

Not OP, but I imagine “carbon negative” sounds negative because it has the word “negative” in it.

When it fact “carbon negative” means you’re reducing carbon, which is generally regarded as a positive thing.

Don’t worry. The water might be flat, but we’ve been working on carbonating the air for some time now.

I am so sorry. That’s devastating. You already have to struggle to fight your illness. But to have to fight that hard AGAINST YOUR DOCTOR when your doctor is supposed to be on your team? It’s a betrayal.

Oh yeah, certainly. And one of the first steps in that direction – the corporate death sentence – is just common sense.

(The corporate death sentence is basically “any company that does more damage than it can reasonably repair gets converted into a co-op controlled by its workers / victims. The investors’ shares get dissolved.”)

I don’t think anyone would have a reasonable objection to allowing the voters of East Palestine, Ohio and the workers for Norfolk Southern to elect all of the company’s board members from here on out. And I don’t think anyone would weep for Norfolk Southern’s shareholders if their shares got dissolved.

There’s a lot of trouble with definitions regarding capitalism. (I’d call them intentional since muddying the waters serves the people who benefit from our current system.)

Pick any person who is complaining about “capitalism” right now.

If you proposed a system where everything was structured the same as it is right now, HOWEVER instead of shareholders and owners possessing companies, every, single company was a worker cooperative (owned and controlled by its workers) then I am 95% sure the anti-capitalist you picked would

1. Not consider that capitalism, and
2. Vastly prefer that over what we have right now

With some minor variation. (Tankies don’t think it’s possible to maintain such a system without monopolizing violence. Anarcho-communists wouldn’t be too happy about the scope and financial power of state and federal governments, and would seek to pare them down. Democratic socialists would think it was perfect. Little disagreements like that.)

But I think most other people (people who aren’t anti-capitalists) would think “that’s just a form of capitalism” if I described the above.

In fact, if I said,

A free market system, but ownership and control of the means of production is only allowed collectively and democratically. No shareholders allowed, no transferable individual ownership allowed.

Most ordinary people would consider that a form of capitalism. (Even though calling it capitalism is, technically, highly inaccurate). So it’s a difficult conversation to have. Because most “anti-capitalists” disagree with most “pro-capitalists” on the basic definition of what they are fighting or defending.

I’m actually convinced that a lot of “pro-capitalists” are more eager to defend the free market system than they are to defend transferable, stock-marketable, individual ownership of the means of production. I think they would compromise on the latter if they could safeguard the former.

The entire industry is built on catering to the vast swaths of women who get ignored by doctors and need somewhere to turn.

I highly suspect doctors are taught in medical school, “women are over emotional and prone to exaggeration.”

Hell, “hysteria” was considered a valid diagnosis until the 1950s.

I’d build as many zero-equity housing co-ops as I could in areas with high costs of living.

Maybe they’re focused on playing for time so they can insure their assets and move to hedge funds that are shorting all of the above industries? I don’t know investing that well.

Look: a lot of companies would suffer from an office real estate crash.

• the businesses that own the office real estate
• car manufacturers
• tire manufacturers
• petroleum companies
• coffee franchises
• fast food franchises lining freeways on the way to work

And most importantly, funds invested in all of the above.

People who own businesses also own stocks in other people’s businesses. Meaning they all fall and rise together. Trying to keep the “work commute” and “office rental” industries alive is just an attempt on the part of those who hold capital to keep their portfolios growing.

In secret, they are probably also trying to hedge their bets, diversify and make themselves immune to the coming collapse. They’ll try to position themselves and their capital in such a way so that the working class is the only group hurt when it happens.

But in public? They are not going to devalue their assets by standing by, complacent, as an office apocalypse approaches.

Owen sorry!

Owen edited out forbidden word. Not Owen’s fault changes federate slowly.

Owen had serialized dream many years ago in childhood times. New dream chapters kept releasing for many nights. Dream parts were spooky. Owen was scared there, but felt like pain and fear was deserved.

However, when Owen was being pulled back to very scary place from earlier season, Owen chose instead to fight. Creature tried to pull Owen down, but Owen planted feet and pulled against creature. Creature fell into last season’s spooky place.

Panting, Owen spoke, “I’ve been down there.”

Weird dream stopped returning. “I’ve been down there” turned out being series finale.

Years passed. Owen decided to make anagram of “I’ve been down there.”

Owen failed: “Owen Ever Bind Thee” was closest Owen could come to good anagram. Owen got bored of scrambling letters. Chose Owen Everbinde and abandoned attempt at making anagram. Owen’s leftover ‘T’ and ‘H’ and ‘E’ will never have home.

Eating local meat is also a good option, especially with many cattle farms beginning to capture methane and become greener.

Who the hell downvotes a person for saying “I have a hard time with Captchas because they don’t provide accessibility options that allow entry to someone with my conditions” ?

Like, guys, Captchas being ableist is a well known thing. And they’ve only been getting worse, as they’ve been in an arms race with AI, trying to become more and more distorted, and most AI text recognition software is already better at Captchas than most dyslexic people.

Right. That is a good point. Although Marx didn’t see the elimination of currency as a realistic goal attainable within the first few decades (possibly even the first century) of communism, he did believe a post-scarcity humanity would eventually transcend the need for currency.

However when it comes to barter, the thing is: even in societies dominated by barter, some commodity tends to become the standard against which the values of other commodities are measured. Cigarettes in POW camps, cacao beans in Mesoamerica.

By an admittedly-loose definition of currency, a currency does always emerge and end up being directly exchanged for goods and services, even in barter systems.

Depends on how you define capitalism.

According to the modern (very intentionally altered) definition of capitalism,

“a system allowing the exchange of goods and services for currency, where different skill sets can result in different compensation”

… everything, including the USSR [1][2] has been capitalism. And even most Marxists are pro-capitalists.

The definition above encompasses everything that ever was, and everything that ever will be. (And that’s only a slight exaggeration)

Which – just fyi – makes the word one of the most useless words in the history of language.

If, however – just hypothetically – you wanted to have a productive dialogue with a self-described anti-capitalist, you would need to carry out the entire conversation pretending the word “capitalism” referred to something a hell of a lot more specific. A single mechanism within market society. A single kind of contractual relationship between worker and company.

Which is an exercise in imagination and in the algebraic concept of substitution that most people have a rather stubborn aversion to.