No. But I bet I could. After all, prisoners do it every day.

I don’t need it. I like it. While I have it I’ll use it. but I don’t need it. The only things I need are water, food, shelter, and companionship. Everything else is just extra. Good to have, but not a necessity.

read until the end of the sentence silly.

I don’t need the internet (or any computer) to be comfortable. In fact It really is a lot more bother than it’s worth. I just use it because there’s not much else to do.

Also I already have a computer. I don’t need another one. and even if I would do you know how many computers are in that 20km radius? because I’m pretty sure it’s at least 100.

By the way I’m also a programmer. I spent the entirety of my teenage life learning how to make computers do things because I think they’re neat. The internet has changed my life and given me a meaning and a purpose. It’s really useful. But I could do without it. Would probably even be happier because I would actually meet people.

I don’t want global famine and more wars but people seem insistent on creating them so I’m not going to pretend like I can stop them, I’m also not going to pretend like they (the people in power and those who allow them to remain there) somehow aren’t responsible. As for the collapse of Civilization: here’s another video youtube.com/watch?v=k0_w87J9Dj0. If you don’t want to watch. I’ll just ask you one of the main questions of the video: “what is the meaning of civilisation?”. Who does it benefit and why do we need it?

I don’t want people to suffer. Right now they are. This civilisation is making them suffer. If we could get rid of the poison of archy that plagues this civilisation without destroying it I would be grateful. But the lack of resources is not an issue. It’s a symptom of mindless consumerism and rampant capitalism. If capitalism goes, so does the scarcity.

My belief is that every person is good, kind-hearted and capable of incredible things. My belief is that greed, cruelty, and everything else that is turning this planet into hell is the fault of the systems we are raised in, the motivations we are given, and how we are treated. If this civilisation ends I won’t care. The cruelty it so efficiently creates has made sure of that. But I’m also don’t actively wish for it because I know it’ll still cause a lot of pain. The only world I’m willing to fight for is one where the power structures that allow idiots to destroy the world don’t exist.

Also I think civilisation is a lot stronger than people think. Humans are incredibly strong and capable beings. It’s going to take more than the collapse of capitalism (currently synonymous with economy) to destroy civilisation, but then again nukes exist. oh well whatever happens, happens. Not like we had any hope of seeing 2040 anyway.

I can get everything I need to comfortably live from a 20km radius, or I could If my country hadn’t outsourced clothes production to china. why does my life need to rely on a regime that’s half the planet away while destroying the said planet in the process?

Right you got me thinking so here’s my thoughts. Not looking to argue just discuss the points you’ve made.

1st paragraph:

Global economy crashing is a good thing. Like you have pointed out it is completely dependent on a non-renewable resource on top of that it is one of the biggest contributors to worldwide exploitation. It also a contributes to cultural colonialism.
more info: youtube.com/watch?v=4UJSf_oyVAo.

When it comes to farming. People will come up with solutions. I believe that farmers are competent enough that when we run out of oil they aren’t just going to go. “welp guess I starve now”. They are going to innovate and do what they can to keep going. Also swapping out an ICE motor for an electric one doesn’t seem that complicated.

Also Interesting that you didn’t mention plastics. The most used oil product in the world. I’ll be so glad when they’re finally gone.

2nd paragraph is just a continuation of the first.

3rd paragraph

The key word in this paragraph is make. We don’t really need to make any more electronics. We’ve already made enough. How many processors do you think are just sitting in some warehouse never to be used because a newer model came out. How much of those precious metals are inside cars that are going to be useless once oil runs out. We need to focus on recycling and reusing existing things and devices instead of making new ones.

4th paragraph

Water is a cycle. It doesn’t just disappear. We already recycle most of our water. Although I’m not that knowledgable on the topic so I can’t say much about it.

5th paragraph

skip.

6th paragraph

The scientific community has made those assertions with the assumption that we are going to keep doing what we’re doing. Mindless consumerism, buying and making new things, and abusing our planet. And they are right. What I and the commenter you’re replying to are (probably) saying is that the problems with resources are caused my how we live our lives and the problem disappears without capitalism, consumerism and the constant resource abuse they create. A more sustainable shift in society and economics will solve these problems

Also

I sidestepped you’re points about money, because I am an anarchist. I see capitalism and money as the precise reason for this artificial scarcity and natural abuse. Like you even said in you’re comment even if we get infinite resources in the form of asteroid mining it still won’t be distributed properly due to monopolies. Having more resources won’t fix anything because the problem is the market that distributes them being inefficient due to running entirely on profit motive. The solution is to end capitalism and when we do we are going to find that we have more than enough without needing to do asteroid mining. Where would we even get the fuel? doesn’t that require oil?

The Beatles destroyed it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkR81t3lp-M

My explanation of authority wasn’t meant as a definition but rather a brief summarisation of a complex concept, Andrew does a better job actually explaining it. Like pointing out that Authority is confused with a lot of different concepts like respect or influence. Which I’m starting to suspect is happening here. meaningful human relationships are based on mutual respect. This is not authority as it is voluntary, reciprocated and revoked as soon as the other party steps over the line. This is what I believe is the basis of society and what we need to return to in order to live a truly free life. In modern society in most interactions respect has been replaced with authority. People in positions of power even use them synonymously.

Just another way the state capitalist soviet union was closer to capitalism than socialism.

So here’s a little bit of lemmy lore for you. You’re instance lemmy.ml is considered to be a tankie instance by some users. lemmy.dbzer0.com is an anarchist instance. The user you responded to probably made a generalisation based on this and assumed you were familiar with anarchist/communist/socialist/leftist discourse. From this comment I assume they were wrong.

So on behalf of no-one but myself: Hello! Welcome to Anarchism! The belief that authority should not exist. This belief comes from a lot of different places and wears a lot of different faces. Most short explanations aren’t sufficient and long explanation bore most. If you don’t mind a little learning here is a link: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca1 and another one https://crimethinc.com/2016/09/28/feature-the-secret-is-to-begin-getting-started-further-resources-frequently-asked-questions#faq or if you like videos: https://youtu.be/lrTzjaXskUU.

Also a little bit about authority: people use authority to mean many things (this is even bought up in the video I linked above). But as far as anarchists are concerned (in general (no specific statement can be made about a group so vast)) authority is the act of coercing people to follow orders or commit involuntary acts. You’re boss can coerce you to neglect your health by threatening to fire you. Your government can force you to obey gender roles by threatening to jail you. A rich person can make you do whatever demeaning thing they want by dangling money in front of you (for reference see mrbeast) because otherwise your landlord will kick you out. This is authority and it is wrong. Those in authority can make mistakes, become greedy and start to think they have the power to do whatever they want (mostly because they can). This leads to suffering. My meaning of life is to minimise suffering. Anarchy is the belief that no-one should hold power over others. That all leadership should be scrutinised. It rejects blind faith in single people and encourages to think for yourself so no-one can do you wrong. And if you can’t be bothered, it encourages you to find people who genuinely care about you and let them stand up for you.

Was inspired by the article to draw this. Sadly It doesn’t make much sense without context.

First of all: Are you assuming I’m in America? If you are then you’re wrong. And moving to somewhere currently going through mass deportations is just taking a huge unnecessary risk.

Secondly: while an unstable political situation could be a good motivator to get people organizing collectively, It’s also equally likely that an authoritarian state emerges that will suppress any attempt to reduce peoples dependency to the state. While it would be exciting I don’t think I’m personally up for it.

I think that it is safer to begin collectivisation somewhere that’s more politically stable to grow a big enough following that when hostilities start you could hold your own. Unless some place already has a lot of anarchic/syndicalist thought then It’s going to be hard to start it with everyone at each-others throats.

And it’s also possible I’ve misunderstood you’re comment and you’re using anarchy as a synonym for chaos. In which case I just want to point out that my use is different. When I say anarchy I mean a power structure based on mutual aid and strong interpersonal relations without any leaders or hierarchy.

I am an EU citizen so Ireland will probably be easier but I’m wondering by how much. I’m much more drawn to the UK as I am more connected to It’s culture.

My biggest concern is finding new connections. I struggle with it here as well and I don’t think moving to another country will just magically make that go away. Although I do feel more confident in English than in my native language.

and people complain about wayland.

The Idea is that the enum acts as a union, capable of holding any of the member types, It’s not that different from using identifiers and when transpiling to rust I will probably only support variants beginning with string literals (or maybe generate them).

The main reason is that I could use type inference to define the variants in a returned anonymous enum.

I like the pipe symbol because it is useful for distinguishing between enums and structs without keywords. And I just personally think it looks better. And allow for pretty anonymous enums like (|String |Int) for something that can accept both a string and an integer.

Not having a license is “All Rights Reserved”. That’s why I bothered with the license section in the readme at all.

Thanks!

I intend for the language to have a similar borrow checker and type system. Which is why I’m targeting rust. It means I have something to check against when writing the tooling. (Although I’m not sure I’ll get that far. My computer is littered with dead projects).

I don’t really want to clutter the repo with something so frivolous. If they were links or an SPDX ID would that be enough?

I’m intending to use this for a custom language “OA” that I want to compile to Rust and JS to start with.

I don’t know enough about LLVM to compile directly to machine code although I would like to.