That’s great but do you know why the patch was rejected in the first place? If the patch isn’t up to standard I think you should at least raise it however Fedora does their package development so they can address the issue properly

Most significant digits first.

That would only make sense if the US wrote the year first, but they don’t. They just seem to slap the date together in a random order

Depends. I read the PKGBUILDs of all AUR packages I install at least, which is not the same as reading source code but it’s something. If it’s a very widely used piece of software I don’t bother—if all these people haven’t spotted some secret backdoor, I as a lay person am not going to be the one to spot it. I will read small things like bash scripts or in general the more “obscure” software I run will be some kind of script. But also if you’re going to publish malware in a script you’re probably obscuring the malicious function so that someone doing a preliminary read won’t spot it.

ime as a subreddit mod that was nearly exclusively used for harassment, usually transphobic harassment. In the one or two cases where there was a report for someone who had suicidal or self-harm ideation, there’s still zilch I could have done; I would just approve the post so the user could get support and speak to others (the subreddit was a support group for a sensitive subject, so it wouldn’t be out of place for a post to say that the stress of certain things was making them suicidal).

The verb “maximising” suggests a measurable “utility” which can be “maximised”, rather than needs which are either met or not.

The important thing to understand is that even if you hate capitalism, neoclassical economics provide provides a pretty useful framework for analyzing and understanding it

It really doesn’t—which was Marx’s whole project as a critique of political economy, not “communist economics”, not “Marxist political economy”, etc.

But my point is that what people call a “market” in neoclassical economics is literally just any situation where you have a bunch of relatively autonomous groups of people all trying to accomplish various goals all interacting with each other

Communism abolishes the individual as economic subject, and the conflicts of interests found in a “market”. Communism abolishes exchange, and abolishes economies. So, no, there is no “market” in a communist mode of production, even by your definition.

what you think utility is

“Utility” is not a concept I subscribe to per se, unless you just mean use-values in the same sense Marx uses them. I am responding to the concepts you are using. In a communist mode of production, production is, in the famous quote, “according to need”; in a capitalist mode of production, production is divorced from need, and we find production for the sake of production.

who do you think is being exploited in economic institution that literally has to internalize all of the external cost

Marxists use the word “exploitation” differently to its colloquial use. “Exploitation”, in Marx’s critique of political economy, refers to the extraction of surplus-value. I’m not sure if you know what that means or not. I can explain it if you want but you can also look it up; it’s a pretty basic part of Marx’s critique.

Also believe it or not I didn’t actually express any political beliefs here so I would appreciate it if you didn’t just assume that because I’m challenging you on your conception of things, it means that I disagree with your politics

I’m assuming you’re not a communist because you don’t seem to be familiar with communist views, and seem to be advocating for/in defence of a mode of production that is not communist. I don’t know how exactly you label yourself politically but it seems based on this short conversation that we can exclude communism from the list of possibilities, meaning we disagree.

I am opposed to “maximising utility” because I am a communist. Production should serve needs, not production for the sake of production.

compulsively reinvest all their excesses and internalize all of their external cost

Ok, still exploitation.

I can see that those are your political beliefs. You are welcome to have those political beliefs. OP is asking about communists, and communists do not want this, so this is rather orthogonal to the question.

Do you think that it’s not possible to interact with each other outside of a market, outside of capitalism?

Because they are subjected to market forces. I’m not referring to the decisions an individual worker in a coop might make—an individual may well decide to give away all their money and become homeless, that doesn’t mean it’s in people’s interests to. In a market, you must compete with other businesses, otherwise you will be out-competed and not survive. The “profits” obtained by a coop are still surplus-value; all the laws of capital outlined by Marx are still at play. Marx’s critique of political economy did not really hinge upon the specific boss/employee relationship; it’s about impersonal domination of the market over people who live in a capitalist mode of production. In Capital Marx spends quite a bit of time talking about how even capitalists are subjected to and dominated by capital; the domination is impersonal, and the domination of (hu)man by (hu)man is only secondary to that impersonal domination.

The hell of capitalism is the firm itself, not the fact that the firm has a boss.

The forces of the market and of capital do not go away just because the workers own the company. In worker-owned cooperatives, the workers exploit themselves, because the business still needs to grow. They simply carry out the logic of the capitalist themselves on themselves, using their surplus value to expand the business’s capital, and paying for their own labour-power reproduction. i.e., the workers all simply become petit-bourgeois.

There are extant organisations (some political parties, some NGOs) that push for more workers’ cooperatives, and none of them are communist nor call themselves communist. If you believe in a cooperative-based economy, you are not a communist. I don’t mean that as an insult, it’s just a fact, the same as if you want, for instance, the current US economic system, you are not a communist. You can advocate for coops but you would fare much better in that political project if you didn’t try to put it under the banner of something it’s not, and something far more controversial than just “worker coops are good” anyway.

That’s fair, but in my case ~/scripts/ acts as my prefix. I suppose that narrows down a lot what your prefix can be though, if it has to be a valid path in which your scripts live.

…People? I would say that’s too tautological, as the statement begins with “all people here are…”, and necessarily all people here are people, otherwise they’re not covered by the statement.

I’m only one of those things.

I’m good with general personal upkeep. Always do the dishes right after every meal, always shower daily, brush my teeth twice a day, etc. I also try to have vegetables every meal, but sometimes I will skip if I’m too lazy to cook vegetables (I’m also not too sure as to what constitutes “eating your veggies” tbh—do onions count? What about tomato sauce? etc)

I have ~/.local/bin added to my PATH for things i want in my PATH, and ~/scripts for things I don’t want in my PATH. Both managed by chezmoi. I’m surprised if there’s anyone who wants most of their bash scripts in PATH. I only have like 5 scripts in ~/.local/bin; the others get executed on an automated basis (eg on startup or by a cronjob), or so infrequently that I don’t want them in my PATH.

Not just screenshots. Generally look at the permissions apps have; screenshots is one of them, but all sorts of other data can be sent off by any app with internet access.

Although it’s pretty easy to stumble upon some guide that you don’t understand that gets you to enable dev mode. Not saying it happens a lot, but there’s not a very high bar for the test for enabling dev mode.

That’s not on the chart because it doesn’t convert it. It only renames it. A JPEG ending with .png is still a JPEG