this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
1239 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59575 readers
4002 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Other economic systems don't incentivise companies to produce trash products that break quickly to keep the customer coming back, or to use non-recyclable materials because they cost 3 cents less.
Which economic system, in your opinion, would produce the highest quality products? And you can use whatever definition of quality you like
The Six Nations managed to keep their economic system functioning without a hiccup for at least 15,000 to 25,000 years. That one seems to work.
Ok. Let's switch to six nations.
That definitely answers my question
It's very clear you are not arguing in good faith.
When the response to my question of "what do you think is better" is an esoteric shout out to a culture that's been dead for thousands of years, that isn't even in the first page of Google results for "six nations" yeah. You're right. It's not a good faith argument
Not sure why you brought up quality of products in the first place.
Because that's a thing capitalism is great at? If the connection between capitalism and ruthless efficiency and iteration isn't apparent to whoever is reading this then it's really not worth the conversation
And? What is the relevance? It's "not worth the conversation" if you can't stay on topic, or connect your ideas together properly so as to be coherent to others.
You're right. I'm sorry
Oh yes, they do. Corruption, unrealistic n-year plans and secrecy for example lead to defective products, poor quality and accidents. That's exactly what happened in Chernobyl, and I don't need to tell you how bad that was for the environment.
What happened at Chernobyl was the politicians refusing to listen to the scientists. They were performing an experiment that the designers of the plant told them was exceedingly dangerous, and blew up their reactor. At least they did it unintentionally, unlike the Army Corps of Engineers.
And why did "the politicians" refuse not to listen to "the scientists"? Part of the answer is definitely due to unrealistic n-year plans.
Also, there were other factors at play such as secrecy around the danger of graphite-tipped control rods. The Soviets had discovered this danger already, but had kept it secret even from their nuclear engineers.