I know it’s not the same thing, but the corporate TLDs like “.google” make me irrationally irritated. You think you’re too good for “.com”?

They’ve taken the design in a very minimalist direction.

Is this lossregex?

Are you claiming to refute the hard evidence OP has presented?

This made my eye twitch

The funniest thing to me about this post is the ratio

I see, thanks. That’s something I’ll have to look into further, because it seems to me that it’s really a prerequisite for a functioning society. I appreciate you going over all of that!

So the specifics of how a community would allocate resources without there being a state is considered more of an open question, then?

Interesting, thanks. I guess a major element in how feasible that would be is in the administrative structure a community would use in deciding who gets what materials. Obviously if it’s a representative democracy, there’s huge incentive for corruption of the representatives if they have absolute control of who gets what. Wouldn’t this be considered a state, though? I guess statelessness is another aspect that doesn’t make much sense to me.

Thanks, I guess it’s the “get whatever they want” part that doesn’t make much sense to me. What if what I want is astronomical, and I want to get it by doing as little work as possible? Who says whether I can or can’t have it?

This is an aspect I’m genuinely curious about (as someone who is relatively uneducated on this subject) because my answer would be that yes, there will definitely be people who want to regress. There have always been individuals who are willing to sacrifice absolutely anything to obtain more material wealth or power. They’re a minority, but their existence has to be assumed and accounted for. For all of capitalism’s failings, one of its strengths is that it does give these people a path to follow that produces (some) benefit to society. How does a fully-implemented communist society deal with these individuals without them subverting and corrupting the system?

me (mostly)

A

Content!

I dunno, sounds pretty good to me…

To my mind the old way is sometimes actually more “realistic”. The future evolves in unpredictable ways. Look at all the past predictions of the future that just look like that same time period with bigger buildings and flying cars. Today’s “hard” design approaches will likely evolve as poorly. Nothing is more futuristic to me than a design that is completely incomprehensible by current logic.

That would’ve been superior

I opted not to since I lived with him at the time

No joke, I knew a guy named Richard who went by Chard!

Not all of us do. Source: me