caracustard

That's one way to read it, except it's more like "replying to a comment stating that EU startups (something that is about money) don't have to catch up to their US competitors with "sure, but don't get surprised when EU startups are going to be at a huge disadvantage when it comes to offering a worthy reward as a result of "not caring about money"".

You also forgot to mention the terms on which China does that and at whose cost. Also, it's one thing to "just" build something, but a whole other to maintain and service.

"...people are overprotective of their neighborhoods or communities." Me: huh, people seem to finally get why NIMBY is a thing! "...it came from decades of corporate greed and government dysfunction..." Me: nevermind...

NIMBY is simply people wanting the things to be as they always were. That's about it. Say you lived in the area for 10 years, you've made friends there, you're used to things. Suddenly someone comes by and says that it's time to build something that you don't really care about. What would your reaction be other than NIMBY? You like everything as it already is, there is no need to change anything, now let me watch my game in peace and then i'll go fishing.

"... look where that got them. " A system that allowed for easier travel, transportation of goods, a system that created a brand new (for the time) travel culture? I can go on and on, but mind you that railways weren't exactly the most community-friendly (whatever it means) thing either.

"...urban and suburban wasteland." Lesson learned: don't build roads or connect states of a huge country, allowing people to travel wherever they want in the comfort of their vehicle, otherwise in the future you'd be ostracized for the actions of those who came long after you and decided not to innovate in the infrastructure industry.

The reason that the current generation hates suburbia to me seems like a result of a cultural process that can be considered borderline indoctrination and the fact that for whatever reason suburbia doesn't move on with the times. I can understand those who are dissatisfied with the current state of suburbia (e.g. lack of entertainment options, lack of public spaces that don't look like a repurposed commercial property), though many of those issues may be attributed to the scale of the land as a whole, but you'd be surprised that the idea of moving to an apartment block from say a generic suburban home is not viewed as a downgrade by some. Another thing is that classic suburbia often has a uniform look, which might negatively contribute to the entire perception of suburban housing, but then again, same people who complain about it have no problem with same-looking generic apartment blocks.

Exactly. And what do people do when there are tasks that: a) most people don't care about and b) are fundamental to the well being of the community? They offer a reward for accomplishing those tasks.

Why would they service your area at all? Are you sure that your area has people that would go around keeping the streets clean 8 hours a day for nothing in return? Not choosing a forum just because it's monetized is an odd choice to be fair, considering that this conversation takes place on a website that's, well... monetized.

Read the article again and see the context that the sentence was used in. Yes, plenty of forums exist with community moderation, but if the goal is to make a forum a place that is not going to become a disaster, a motivated and well compensated employee is the only solution. Otherwise you're relying on someones occasional contribution to the well being of the community rather than have things go smoothly at all times.

Ah, the fundamentally anarchist/anti-establishment ethos of millions of computers connected to each other (making a coordinated and organized establishment of their own with hierarchical substructures).

By that logic lets stop paying street sweepers and sanitation workers. See, their incenitives are mutually aligned with the interests of those who walk the streets, so there is no reason to "extract money".

Sure thing, but the article in question EXPLICITLY mentions "You should make a budget that supports having a good community, or you should find another line of work.", which means that one way or another funding is needed, unless you're comfortable with making someone read through kilobytes of drivel and spam in their free (or perhaps not so free) time.

Does this imply that the EU is "non-capitalist" or something?

"EU startups don't have to "catch up"..." then don't get surprised when EU talent is poached by US and Asian HRs for x2-x3 rates. And before you're gonna talk about all those "free" (taxpayer funded) services and how no European would ever move to Asia or NA, i'd like to remind you that we're in the remote work world now :)

Diets are not a "little discomfort in the short term" and treating them in such a way is a slippery slope to things that neither you nor i would be happy to observe. To adopt a particular diet means to be reliant on a specific set of foods, which is not feasable. Diets are also geographical and are shaped by the conditions that those who follow the diet have to live in. It's not as easy as "just don't eat meat".

Great, now all the supervisor-management-efficiency-productivity-optimization junkies have a perfect reason to mandate uniforms in workplaces that don't require a uniform. Way to go.

"There are a variety of needs and use-cases, so "the" doesn't make sense." That's very true, however i view those services the same way i view communication services like Slack. Eventually most users are just going to flock to what everyone uses by default and that's it. But i sure do wait for the day that special somebody makes "the IDE" to use!

Bad generalization and prejudice right there. While whether someone is brought up in an environment that encourages care absolutely influences the choices people make down the road, whether the person in question was "wanted" does not matter. I can't exactly back that up with some solid data but i think that many people know someone who is far from being an "unwanted" person but still made some bad choices in life.

While competition is always welcome, i wonder how many more collaboration services we're gonna get before someone finally makes "the service" to use.

1. That's their personal choice. The only thing you could do is find them a financial advisor or tell them about investing. People change their financial attitudes when they understand that money can be used to make more money. 2. Analyze their spending and understand what skillset they have that would allow them to obtain either a higher paying job or become self-employed.

Talent is inherently "inequal" as you can't put any sort of a restriction or a cap on the skills or abilities of an individual so i'm not sure what you're trying to say there.

The results of the "precisely realistic" model (according to you) are not taking into account the self-employed members of society but are also attempting to create an artificial divide in the aformentioned society by labeling them ("peons"? seriously?). So much for your seemingly pro-equality message.

What exactly is the state supposed to prevent? Employment of individuals by other individuals? The ability of an individual to OWN property rather than being at the states mercy? Free trade between members of society?

"...the wealthy inevitably corrupt the state..." golly gee, so that's why all of those non-capitalist, anti-wealth utopias of the past are...gone?

"The US is already at third-world levels of corruption and inequality..." except the American perception of corruption and inequality is "i earn 70k per year, i drive Hyundai, my boss earns 200k, he drives Mercedes, very bad!!!" which is different from say earning 3k per year, not having any access to quality financing services (which would allow you to start your OWN business) and on top of that not having a vehicle at all (which in many countries, especially the post-antiwealth-utopias is still a pipe dream for most).

No it doesn't. Capitalism promises and provides the ability to convert your abilities, wealth and products of abilities/wealth/wealth+abilities as an individual or a group of individuals into monetary units which are then used as "fuel" for facilitating trade/services in the society.

Also i find it ironic that your last sentence perfectly describes every communist state of the past: they stay in charge (one party system, transfer of power between the Party members), the gains from economic growth go solely to them (the state is the only employer and services/products provider and as a result the Party becomes the main benefactor from everyones labour while the people recieve mere scraps without any way establish any business of their own) and how it also ignores that regardless of the system in use taxation is still a thing with the only difference being the percentage of taxes taken.

Perhaps it's time to stop trying to make false equialences of hierarchy and capitalism, considering that the latter allows you to minimize your dependency on any sort of a hierarchy?