I’m not saying their leadership is wrong - I say they are not socialist, and New Economic Policy was also not socialist, but rather liberal. Whether the tradeoff is worth it is not up to me to estimate.

Neither did I say that Mao was a perfect example of a strictly socialist leader; it’s just that Deng Xiaoping has moved Chinese economy into a more liberal territory.

Absolutely. But that’s what drives game development and everything under capitalism

Because it will create expectation on the side of players that the game will become free in a while, driving down sales.

The open sourcing period should be at least long enough to justify purchase, probably a decade after the release.

The aforementioned USSR, for example.

There are historical examples of completely and actually socialist countries, so it’s not some impossible idealistic notion for me.

The transitory period of New Economic Policy lasted only a few years in USSR, and China under Mao was much closer to actual socialism than later under Deng Xiaoping.

And the trend of expanding government control over the economy only comes alive in the 2020’s, roughly since the COVID-19 outbreak (just a milestone, not saying they are related). Previously, the trend was strongly on privatization of industries, with the share of state-owned enterprises falling from 80% to 30% in the previous decade, and it’s too early to make any conclusions.

This is all true - state intervention and state-owned businesses and funds bring about a positive change for the majority, and they should be there, but seriously calling those economies socialist would be missing the definitional mark, which is what I have highlighted.

I do believe that moving entire economy under public control would be beneficial, and that, actually, will be what can be called “socialism”. Virtually no country, except for heavily sanctioned and blatantly tyrannical North Korea, is currently there.

What we have right now, with heavy state intervention, is certainly better than “free” market economy though, and it reflects in quality of life for the economically disadvantaged - this very intervention leads to these economies following a different path compared to traditional capitalist societies. I do not argue there is no difference between China and, say, US in that regard - the difference is big, it’s just not what it takes to call the economy socialist.

I did not say of a severe crisis, I just highlighted both homelessness and inflated housing prices are a thing. And under the rule of the workers, neither should be true.

Do any of the sources define socialism?

All of this could be true - none of this makes China socialist.

What your data shows is that the share of state in the economy has partially recovered in 2020’s from ~30 to ~50%, after falling from 80% to 30% in the previous decade. Impressive, indeed, and way ahead of most capitalist countries - but China is home to numerous giant private megacorporations, and allows many companies from abroad to build in the country.

“Who holds power” is very abstract and is not part of definition of socialism or capitalism. Even still, we just talked about homelessness - if workers held all the power, would there be homeless? Would there be any poor at all? Would there be overheated markets, including housing, which is one of the craziest in the world? Would there be Tencent, Alibaba, etc.? Would there be billionaires? Etc. etc. What defines “workers holding power” for you?

What is it about some leftists desperately trying to put socialist label on capitalist China - a desperate attempt to demonstrate a mighty socialist economy in the modern world? Socialist countries have lost the Cold War and are mostly not on the map anymore; there are objective reasons to that, including the fact most of the world never moved away from socialism and capitalist forces had greater capital to work with, and this does not mean socialism is bad, but currently, socialism is not represented by any large economy. That’s just the fact.

Capitalism is not defined by how the poor are treated, but by the economic relationships and mode of ownership.

Nordic countries have low poverty and generally good social support. Like it or not, this is achieved with private property on means of production, hence they are capitalist.

China has private property on means of production, hence it too is capitalist.

Both of them feature strong state oversight, which allows them to direct more of the capitalist profits to help the poor - which is good! But this doesn’t make them “socialist”.

Because China is capitalist, despite being formally led by a communist party. It has private property on means of production, and it is defining Chinese economy just like any other capitalist one. Socialism, by definition, requires social ownership of means of production, which is not the case in China; the term was appropriated and wrongfully used by US and several other countries to define economies with more state control and/or social policies, but this is simply not what socialism is.

Interestingly, China has entire ghost towns full of homes ready to accept people in - but, as in any capitalist economy, homes are seen as an investment, and state subsidies are low, pricing out the homeless. They have more than enough homes, they just chose to pursue a system that doesn’t make homes and homeless meet.

The only right choice! Thanks!

Nice, thanks! So weird these tools are not commonly used - managing systemd remains one of the common terminal PITAs for everyone who doesn’t appreciate the Great Holy Terminal

Doesn’t it mean there’s only 1 node NSA has to attack - your VPN?

Kinda renders Tor over it pointless.

They are soft, easy to grab, and they belong to an attractive person’s body at large, which makes them an amazing tactile experience overall.

On the looks, they greatly complement the hourglass shapes, which are very harmonious and pleasing.

Key word here being “intellectual”. It’s important to recognize the issues and think of how we can affect the solution, but this is not what media at large provides or induces. It sews panic, doom, and ultimately loss of agency.

Filtered most of the political content out of my Lemmy and other feeds, went back to using RSS to deliver content (a surprising amount of sites of all kinds absolutely do support RSS, it’s not dead in the slightest), focused more on family and things on hand.

Generally, regaining sense of agency over whatever’s around you is a single best antidote.

Sure, but, to be fair, RSI has made decent work at polishing those angles. There’s still plenty wrong about the mechanics, and it’s buggy as hell too, but overall, I’d say I can immerse in SC in a way I cannot with any other game.

What kills SC in my opinion is not the “uncanny valley” feeling but rather the obvious greed and laziness of developers that essentially trapped themselves into profiting more off the unfinished game, thereby incentivizing themselves to stagnate. The game is very good as far as general gameplay is concerned - but the development incentives are screwed, and as a result, what could be a game of the century is now nothing but an empty promise or, at best, a sandbox.

That’s not exactly what I meant.

What I meant is that Star Citizen wants to be an immersive simulator, the kind of game that makes you feel whatever happens to you to be real and actual.

Terraria doesn’t pretend to be real - it’s magical and funny and silly and that’s its charm. It might absolutely be immersive - but in another way. It’s a game you come to to have some fun and wonderful experiences - not the game that grows to be your second life.

Now I make it sound predatory, and in part it is, but alas, hope I got my point across.

Stay on Earth. Mars colonization is important to give humanity a place to survive should Earth be destroyed or damaged beyond repair by cataclysmic events.

But it is not our second chance at building home once Earth has been drained. At any point, reversing climate change on Earth is way, way easier than terraforming Mars. We don’t need to deliver anything to it, it’s where we are already, and even after a lot of fuckery, it will still be the most suitable place for humans to live. Moreover, we know exactly what to do to reverse the trend on Earth - and can only be left to guess what to do with Mars.