mfw I don’t know most of the required information.

I think you might be confusing socialism and state capitalism here.

Socialism. Production and distribution is owned by the community (government).

This is a somewhat inaccurate definition. Socialism is the social ownership of means of production that does not necessarily mean the government. It comes in many forms such as democratic ownership by the employees (worker cooperatives), community ownership like utility providers being owned by the town and townsfolk, or state ownership if the state is democratically elected and accountable to the working class.

The concept of democratic and social ownership would be lost in an authoritarian state.

It has nothing to do with “Handouts”. Or helping your neighbor really.

There is no redistribution of wealth. That is communism.

Socialism with handouts is communism.

Both socialism and communism are concerned with redistribution of wealth. They just disagree on the method. Socialists believe that by eliminating capitalism and with progressive taxation wealth redistribution becomes inevitable, whole communists thinks this will only be achieved with a powerful state to oversee the redistribution process.

You could have a completely Socialistic society that let’s some of it’s people starve because it benefits the majority.

This scenario contradicts the core moral and political goal of socialism which is ensuring the wellbeing of all member of the community by ending the exploitation inherited in capitalism. A system that allows this scenario is just unethical authoritarianism regardless of what people call it or think it is.

A great example to look at socialism is the nazi party creating Volkswagen.

The nazi party was socialist in name only. It was essentially a fascist regime that crushed actual socialist and communist movements, and imprisoned and murdered labour leaders. They also didn’t nationalize the majority of industry and relied heavily on forced labour.

Again this fits state capitalism better than socialism. It’s essentially the state controlling corporates instead of the social and democratic ownership by the working class that socialism seeks.

A large government can easily have a monopoly on a good or service.

For example, say America was 100% Socialistic.

Government would gain access to all satalites and towers and issue the Volkstelefon. Affordable phone and internet for everyone!

Imagine if tomorrow Trump issued his phone in that style.

thats a valid point but primary against state control not socialism itself.

In an ideal socialist system this Volkstelefon would be owned by a democratic entity rather than an elite group of politicians in a flawed democratic government. This entity would probably consist of worker and consumer representatives with the common goal of providing affordable high quality service that’s also fair to both the workers and consumers.

Your concern here is also shared with most socialists.

While yes socialism can some time manifest itself in the form of state ownership that’s never the ideal situation since it can easily transform into state capitalism if the state decisions weren’t representative of the workers’ will (which is usually the case in non-direct democracy systems).

To me the word has always had some bad connotations. When you mention Settlers one of two things come to mind. Either European colonials in Africa or America genociding native populations, looting resources and spreading colonial propaganda, or whatever these brainwashed Israeli terrorists are.

while I agree it might not be descriptive enough hence I like to use the term “occupiers”, the word was never neutral to begin with at least where I come from.

Btw the Arabic word for it originally meant to settle in but nowadays it became synonymous with invasion.

I don’t know about BBC but I’m sure international and western journalists have been killed or arrested before.

I believe whether this was to cover up something or not, Israel is using intimation tactics to keep eyes and cameras away from them. We have a saying in Arabic that goes “hit the one with the leash to scare the loose” basically you attack non-threatening individuals to scare away actual threats.

You guys are also forgetting that the Golan Heights since 1981 and recently southern Syria are illegally occupied by Israel and heavily militarized. Which has caused the locals to move away that of itself may be argued to be a crime. So if you wanna maintain opsec go ahead but not when the operation is about stealing land and harassing locals.

Yeah I believe that standardisation is beneficial in general whether it’s capitalism or not. In fact I believe it’s even more beneficial for a non-capitalist society, since yes you could not use the standard but nobody would be able to afford to come up with everything themselves. Unlike companies like apple that can afford having their own proprietary ecosystem including the lightning port. In that case standards could be maintained by non-profit organisations consisting of other organisations with a donation based model. Which is what happens in the real world except for the part where companies step in and put lots of money for their own benefit and to be able to pull these organisations in the direction they desire.

The concept of standardisation isn’t necessary capitalist but the form it exists in today is shaped by the capitalist world we live in.

DNS is also super cool can’t imagine my life without it

I think it’s that some older people tend to be overconfident and think they’ve figured out everything in life (not that this behaviour is exclusive to old people but the older you’re the more likely you’re to think that you know shit). Another factor might be that over time you’re more likely to confirm to your surrounding, being too tired and old to “rebel”.

Just stay curious, open minded and always willing to learn and do new things.

I’ve noticed that most of the professors I liked in college were the ones to admit when they’re wrong, understand that not everyone learn the same and willing to accept nonconventional answers in exams, not use the same material from a decade ago, etc. it might be trivial facts but it shows that on the larger scale this person is still evolving and adapting to their surrounding not being stuck in some old mentality.

I also believe that while age has a role in this it’s not actually about age but rather the mentality the person has and whether they can see the big picture or not. I think the fact that OP has noticed it and didn’t want to become like this is an indication that their mentality is moving in the right direction.

PS: English isn’t my first language and I’m kinda tired while writing this so please forgive me.

Yeah some time ago I used to respect these companies I remember when Google condemned the Egyptian government’s actions in 2011 and one of the very popular activists in the revolution was the head of marketing in Google MENA. But now the truth has never been more obvious to me. Individuals may or may not care but corporations will never care.

We do that in Arabic too. It’s called “badal”, a figure of speech where you replace “the whole” with “the part” to emphasize that part’s importance in the context; in this case that would be either where the government is located in the country or where the report originated from.

For example when Arabic news agencies want to refer to the USA’s government they say Washington or the white house. Since that’s usually where the news come from.

Well technically traffic laws and markings are intended for humans not machines if human drivers were eliminated the roads could be reconfigured to better suit self-driving cars. Same thing if you try to make a robot exactly replicate humans it won’t be that good but if you make a non humanoid robotic system that’s configured for automation it will be more efficient.

LLMs are also feeding into the current state of unwillingness to think of a lot of people. People seem to just want an answer to their questions instead of an explanation. People just want a short version of “the truth” handed to them instead of making the effort to learn, research, and think critically.

While I do believe in the usefulness of AI and the advantages it possesses, but I also think it’s very dangerous in the modern age of “information consumerism”. We should teach kids about AI but also encourage critical thinking and problem solving instead of depending on LLMs to solve our problems for us. At the end LLMs are just machines that guesses what the next word would be according to its training dataset and some sophisticated algorithms for logical “reasoning” and mathematical computions (optional).

How long before AI runs on this?

Biological artificial intelligence would be very very creepy we are basically playing God here. It feels like creating another species so we don’t feel lonely in the universe.

As a computer engineering student who has just got into this whole fediverse thing recently I find the concept of decentralised social media to be pretty mesmerizing. I didn’t think people would actually seek the ability to cross-communicate too.