On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Borax Man wrote:

>> don't like it.
>>
>> All times, this has been very successful since the people are not used to
>> someone telling them to go f*ck themselves, they disappear quite quickly.
>>
>> I guess it also helps that the topic is tech-focused and mostly
>> non-fashionable, so I imagine the gender-mob is drawn to more fashionable
>> things such as kubernetes, devops and agile forums. ;)
>
>
> The trick is to not care. When I see someone who is accused of being
> "racist" go full on defensive, arguing they have black friends, etc, I
> just cringe inside. The labels DON'T MATTER. Ignore them. Don't
> react, and don't believe any accusation. The words lose meaning when we
> completely ignore them. The right didn't do this, which is why they
> lost, they kept trying to make sure they were moral in the eyes of their
> enemies.
>
> Ignoring them, not caring one iota about their ravings is the correct,
> working response, as you've seen yourself.

For all our differences of opinion, you are right here. This is the
truth.

On 07/07/2024 11:15, Borax Man wrote:

>
> The fact that humans become considere to be "worthless" shows the system
> was utterly inhumane and corrupt to begin with. That is alone grounds
> enough to warrant us overturning it.

Well there you go on some moral trip again!
Juts like the Marxists want you to be.
I am not taking morality, I am talking system stability
Putin and a bunch of technocrats can run Russia for their own benefit
and can safely ignore the serfs, because the serfs have no power at all.
And contribute nothing to the economy

--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 07/07/2024 11:51, D wrote:
> The lie I do not buy is that the government will fix everything. I see
> politicians becoming richer and richer, I see regulations becoming more,
> I see more and more government contracts being awarded to corporates who
> are in bed with the government.
>
State Capture
Crony Capitalism
NO Free market at all. Carefully regulated market

> As I said, this is not my definition of free markets, this is my
> definition of early stage socialism. And since this, as per your
> message, seems to be what you mean with free markets, we will just talk
> past each other.
>
Yup. Its a bastrdised blend of fascism oligarchy and Maexism

The big money uses Marxist socialist ideology and metaphysics to sell
the idea of benevolent state control to the Liberal chatterati.

Meanwhile the peasants get fucked as per usual.

> What I do find interesting though, is that we see a lot of the same
> problems, but we land in dramatically different solutions.
Indeed. I see the retreat of the State from such an overwhelming
presence as being the only way to actually workout what works, by a less
regulated market.

Unfortunately many societies that have faced this in the past ended up
with complete collapse and a regression back to a lot less civilisation

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 2024-07-07, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 07/07/2024 00:33, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then if the majors make a particular habit of filling their stack
>>>> with rubbish between each flush, a radical minor party might get
>>>> elected and unleash their huge full stack of ideas. Then that soon
>>>> gets flushed out in a stream of failure and infeasibility, so the
>>>> new party is forced to realign itself along some other course while
>>>> still trying to hold on to the support it won for its original
>>>> vision. They often turn to frantic nationalism at that point.
>>>
>>> Now for the next question... how would you fix this?
>>
>> No idea, and I'd be highly skeptical of anyone who thinks they do
>> have a solution to it.
>
> If it were that easy we would have done it by now.
>
> UK prioritises stability over representation. EU nations are more
> representative, but volatile.
>
> Or are they?
>
> Germany's disastrous state of its energy infrastructure now is the
> direct result of Merkel going into coalition with a Green minority
> party. Plant windmills and kill off nuclear to placate the Greens, but
> import Russian gas and East German lignite to do the heavy lifting.
>
> The UKs election is a classic example of 'we want these fuckers out, and
> we don't actually care who gets in: They can't be any worse'
>
> Of course, they will be...
>
> So we will have to kick *this* lot out next time

Politicians are like diapers:
they must be changed often,
and for the same reason.
-- not Mark Twain

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | the first society that wouldn't
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | save itself because it wasn't
/ \ if you read it the right way. | cost-effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On 2024-07-07, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I hold it as self evidently true that all men are *not* created equal,
> and anyone who thinks they are or says they are is a either a moron or
> a charlatan, and if they were it would destroy civilization, as we would
> all be telephone sanitzers.

Ah, another Douglas Adams fan. If he wrote that book today he'd call
them "social media influencers".

> And no one would be left tor write the next
> generation of buggy secure over complex GUIs...

Good. Then maybe there'll be room for someone to write the solid, simple
user interfaces that we really need.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | the first society that wouldn't
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | save itself because it wasn't
/ \ if you read it the right way. | cost-effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 17:23:36 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2024-07-07, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I hold it as self evidently true that all men are *not* created equal,
>> and anyone who thinks they are or says they are is a either a moron or
>> a charlatan, and if they were it would destroy civilization, as we would
>> all be telephone sanitzers.
>
> Ah, another Douglas Adams fan. If he wrote that book today he'd call
> them "social media influencers".

But we all know what happened to the Golgafrinchan race after they shipped
(among others) the telephone sanitizers off in the "B" ark. I doubt that
"social media influencers" would provide the same health benefits as
telephone sanitizers.

>> And no one would be left tor write the next
>> generation of buggy secure over complex GUIs...

There's always Microsoft...

> Good. Then maybe there'll be room for someone to write the solid, simple
> user interfaces that we really need.

Not likely; there's /always/ Microsoft :-(

--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills We Trust"

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 11:18:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> UK prioritises stability over representation. EU nations are more
> representative, but volatile.

After 4 July I don't know about UK stability. Apparently the voters were a
little sick of stable. I don't know enough of the situation to know if un-
Brexit is in the cards.

In article <lf0476Fqm5qU3@mid.individual.net>, bowman@montana.com
(rbowman) wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 11:18:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> > UK prioritises stability over representation. EU nations are more
> > representative, but volatile.
>
> After 4 July I don't know about UK stability. Apparently the voters
> were a little sick of stable.

I think what they were mainly sick of was incompetence.

> I don't know enough of the situation to know if un-Brexit is in
> the cards.

Very unlikely. The EU would not take the UK back unless all the major
political factions were in favour of it, which is definitely not the case
at present.

John

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/07/2024 00:33, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> Then if the majors make a particular habit of filling their stack
>>>> with rubbish between each flush, a radical minor party might get
>>>> elected and unleash their huge full stack of ideas. Then that soon
>>>> gets flushed out in a stream of failure and infeasibility, so the
>>>> new party is forced to realign itself along some other course while
>>>> still trying to hold on to the support it won for its original
>>>> vision. They often turn to frantic nationalism at that point.
>>>
>>> Now for the next question... how would you fix this?
>>
>> No idea, and I'd be highly skeptical of anyone who thinks they do
>> have a solution to it.
>>
> If it were that easy we would have done it by now.
>
> UK prioritises stability over representation. EU nations are more
> representative, but volatile.
>
> Or are they?
>
> Germany's disastrous state of its energy infrastructure now is the direct
> result of Merkel going into coalition with a Green minority party. Plant
> windmills and kill off nuclear to placate the Greens, but import Russian gas
> and East German lignite to do the heavy lifting.
>
>
> The UKs election is a classic example of 'we want these fuckers out, and we
> don't actually care who gets in: They can't be any worse'
>
> Of course, they will be...
>
> So we will have to kick *this* lot out next time

What do you think will happen in the UK the next 4 years? My opinion is
obvious, but in case you do live there I'm very interested in what someone
"on the ground" thinks.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/07/2024 01:55, Borax Man wrote:
>> I'm not buying these lies anymore. I have a "good job", that I worked
>> damn hard to achieve, a managerial position, yet am worse off, while I
>> watch rent-seekers get everything. I never took benefits, I did
>> everything right. Screw that.
>
> I was like that till I ended up running my own businesses.
>
> There is only one person worth working hard for, and that is yourself

This is the truth! I encourage everyone competent I know to at least try
to start their own business. If you succeed, it is well worth the effort.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/07/2024 10:28, Borax Man wrote:
>> Yes, thats the thing, these seem harmless, reasonable, nice. But they
>> introduce a very different paradigm, the change seems subtle but it
>> isn't.
>
> You have reached the core feature of the Left/Marxist/woke modus operandi.
>
> It isn't about winning the argument, or coming up with solutions to
> problems,. it is about *changing the agenda* so that instead of talking about
> how to have clean water by investing in sewage treatment we are all talking
> about whether 'women with penises' are being 'oppressed by society'.
>
> And the terrifying thing is that people actually take this seriously. Because
> a succession of left wing movements have placed people in power whose mandate
> is not a functional secure society with resilient infrastructure, but a
> theocracy based on the Marxist metaphysics of 'soshul justiss'
> 'sustainability' 'equality' etc etc.

This is the truth! It is obvious that there are two genders, male and
female. It is obvious that due to biological reasons, one of those
genders prefers technology and things, while the other prefers empathy
and humans. That also explains why more men are in competitive
situations. It is also as you say, obvious that we are not equal.

However!

The left have started to infiltrate schools and daycare centers. Where I
used to live (sweden) marxism and gender identity is taught in some
daycare centers and it is creeping into the schools.

The rainbow flag, which represents these abominations, is waving high
everywhere and with all of the above, any objective foundation for truth
is disappearing. And as that happens, things becomes more polarized and
everyone is the offended party, and discussion without objective truths
becomes meaningless.

If this continues, it could be the start of the decline of western
civilization.

Meanwhile russia and china are probably laughing and will pounce of the
smoking remains of the western world if this ideology achieves hegemony.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/07/2024 11:51, D wrote:
>> The lie I do not buy is that the government will fix everything. I see
>> politicians becoming richer and richer, I see regulations becoming more,
>> I see more and more government contracts being awarded to corporates who
>> are in bed with the government.
>>
> State Capture
> Crony Capitalism
> NO Free market at all. Carefully regulated market

This is the truth!

>> As I said, this is not my definition of free markets, this is my
>> definition of early stage socialism. And since this, as per your
>> message, seems to be what you mean with free markets, we will just talk
>> past each other.
>>
> Yup. Its a bastrdised blend of fascism oligarchy and Maexism
>
> The big money uses Marxist socialist ideology and metaphysics to sell the
> idea of benevolent state control to the Liberal chatterati.
>
> Meanwhile the peasants get fucked as per usual.

What is sad is that the peasants believe that marxism will set them free,
but as you say, they are the ones who will be fucked the worst by the
current ideology.

All of us here are probably one variety or other of a technical
specialist, that is, members of the technological priesthood. We will be
fine one way or another.

The peasants are the ones who will suffer.

>> What I do find interesting though, is that we see a lot of the same
>> problems, but we land in dramatically different solutions.
> Indeed. I see the retreat of the State from such an overwhelming presence as
> being the only way to actually workout what works, by a less regulated
> market.

True. It is an interesting business challenge to move ones own business to
such markets and through such legal constructions as to do that and
maximize long term profit.

> Unfortunately many societies that have faced this in the past ended up with
> complete collapse and a regression back to a lot less civilisation

This does scare me. I'm short term pessimistic and long term (30+ years)
optimistic.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 21:12:31 +0200, D wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/2024 01:55, Borax Man wrote:
>>> I'm not buying these lies anymore. I have a "good job", that I worked
>>> damn hard to achieve, a managerial position, yet am worse off, while I
>>> watch rent-seekers get everything. I never took benefits, I did
>>> everything right. Screw that.
>>
>> I was like that till I ended up running my own businesses.
>>
>> There is only one person worth working hard for, and that is yourself
>
> This is the truth! I encourage everyone competent I know to at least try
> to start their own business. If you succeed, it is well worth the
> effort.

I did but I didn't have much interest in the 'business' part. Between the
bookkeeping and having to go out and sell myself to find new contracts it
got old. I did okay with several core clients but I decided to 'retire'.
That was fun for a while.

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> UK prioritises stability over representation. EU nations are more
>> representative, but volatile.
>
> After 4 July I don't know about UK stability. Apparently the voters
> were a little sick of stable.

The UK has not been particularly stable in recent years at least by its
own historical standards. There have been fundamental and deeply
contested changes to constitutional and regulatory arrangements,
unresolvable infighting within the then-ruling party, a revolving door
of leadership, a jump in the prices of goods and services, a pandemic, a
steady decline the quality in public services and a huge expansion in
immigration. Opinions vary on whether some of these things are good, bad
or neutral, but stability it is not.

> I don't know enough of the situation to know if un- Brexit is in the
> cards.

The Labour manifesto is very clear on this point: “There will be no
return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement”.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, John Dallman wrote:

> In article <lf0476Fqm5qU3@mid.individual.net>, bowman@montana.com
> (rbowman) wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 11:18:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> UK prioritises stability over representation. EU nations are more
>>> representative, but volatile.
>>
>> After 4 July I don't know about UK stability. Apparently the voters
>> were a little sick of stable.
>
> I think what they were mainly sick of was incompetence.
>
>> I don't know enough of the situation to know if un-Brexit is in
>> the cards.
>
> Very unlikely. The EU would not take the UK back unless all the major
> political factions were in favour of it, which is definitely not the case
> at present.
>
> John
>

Are you sure? I think the EU would love to get it's old milking cow back.

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 21:12:31 +0200, D wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/07/2024 01:55, Borax Man wrote:
>>>> I'm not buying these lies anymore. I have a "good job", that I worked
>>>> damn hard to achieve, a managerial position, yet am worse off, while I
>>>> watch rent-seekers get everything. I never took benefits, I did
>>>> everything right. Screw that.
>>>
>>> I was like that till I ended up running my own businesses.
>>>
>>> There is only one person worth working hard for, and that is yourself
>>
>> This is the truth! I encourage everyone competent I know to at least try
>> to start their own business. If you succeed, it is well worth the
>> effort.
>
> I did but I didn't have much interest in the 'business' part. Between the
> bookkeeping and having to go out and sell myself to find new contracts it
> got old. I did okay with several core clients but I decided to 'retire'.
> That was fun for a while.
>

Well, you tried, and for me, that's the important thing. I'm sure you also
learned some valuable skills. =)

In article <50398c3b-1dca-838b-da46-0303da2f61b7@example.net>,
nospam@example.net (D) wrote:

> > The EU would not take the UK back unless all the major political
> > factions were in favour of it, which is definitely not the case
> > at present.
> Are you sure? I think the EU would love to get it's old milking cow
> back.

Pretty sure. Having the UK rejoin and then want to leave again within a
few years after an election would be very counter-productive for the EU.
That's the general opinion among UK citizens in favour of rejoining.

There would also be a lot of fuss when people not so keen on rejoining
discovered that the UK would lose many of its old opt-outs. One of those
was created specifically to allow the Murdochs to keep on owning TV
stations as well as newspapers, and other media companies have taken
advantage of that. We can thus be sure that most of the media would
oppose rejoining as being against their interests.

John

On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, John Dallman wrote:

> In article <50398c3b-1dca-838b-da46-0303da2f61b7@example.net>,
> nospam@example.net (D) wrote:
>
>>> The EU would not take the UK back unless all the major political
>>> factions were in favour of it, which is definitely not the case
>>> at present.
>> Are you sure? I think the EU would love to get it's old milking cow
>> back.
>
> Pretty sure. Having the UK rejoin and then want to leave again within a
> few years after an election would be very counter-productive for the EU.
> That's the general opinion among UK citizens in favour of rejoining.
>
> There would also be a lot of fuss when people not so keen on rejoining
> discovered that the UK would lose many of its old opt-outs. One of those
> was created specifically to allow the Murdochs to keep on owning TV
> stations as well as newspapers, and other media companies have taken
> advantage of that. We can thus be sure that most of the media would
> oppose rejoining as being against their interests.
>
> John
>

Very interesting! Thank you for the information John.

On 07/07/2024 20:04, John Dallman wrote:
> In article <lf0476Fqm5qU3@mid.individual.net>, bowman@montana.com
> (rbowman) wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 11:18:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> UK prioritises stability over representation. EU nations are more
>>> representative, but volatile.
>>
>> After 4 July I don't know about UK stability. Apparently the voters
>> were a little sick of stable.
>
> I think what they were mainly sick of was incompetence.
>
>> I don't know enough of the situation to know if un-Brexit is in
>> the cards.
>
> Very unlikely. The EU would not take the UK back unless all the major
> political factions were in favour of it, which is definitely not the case
> at present.
>
No, but what Starmer will do is under the guise of a 'better deal' trade
away all our freedoms for a few crumbs and place us under more EU law,
that we wont have any chance of changing

> John

--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

On 07/07/2024 20:11, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>
>> The UKs election is a classic example of 'we want these fuckers out,
>> and we don't actually care who gets in: They can't be any worse'
>>
>> Of course, they will be...
>>
>> So we will have to kick *this* lot out next time
>
> What do you think will happen in the UK the next 4 years? My opinion is
> obvious, but in case you do live there I'm very interested in what
> someone "on the ground" thinks.

I think by sheer chance Starmer will get one thing right and everything
else disastrously wrong, because he hasn't a clue how to run anything
and nor do his MPS. To a man they are time serving government employees.
Not an entrepreneur among them with experience of board level management.

They will lose every by election and lose the next election which will
be a 3 way split between them Reform and whats left of the Tories.,

Reform will go into coalition with tories.
--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On Tue, 9 Jul 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/07/2024 20:04, John Dallman wrote:
>> In article <lf0476Fqm5qU3@mid.individual.net>, bowman@montana.com
>> (rbowman) wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 11:18:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> UK prioritises stability over representation. EU nations are more
>>>> representative, but volatile.
>>>
>>> After 4 July I don't know about UK stability. Apparently the voters
>>> were a little sick of stable.
>>
>> I think what they were mainly sick of was incompetence.
>>
>>> I don't know enough of the situation to know if un-Brexit is in
>>> the cards.
>>
>> Very unlikely. The EU would not take the UK back unless all the major
>> political factions were in favour of it, which is definitely not the case
>> at present.
>>
> No, but what Starmer will do is under the guise of a 'better deal' trade away
> all our freedoms for a few crumbs and place us under more EU law, that we
> wont have any chance of changing
>

That would be the classic socialist playbook. You then ask, but what's in
it for him? The answer, nice, well paid international political jobs with
very low taxes as a "thank you" for bringing the UK back under the control
of the EU-aristocracy.

On So 07 Jul 2024 at 11:18, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 07/07/2024 00:33, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> Then if the majors make a particular habit of filling their stack
>>>> with rubbish between each flush, a radical minor party might get
>>>> elected and unleash their huge full stack of ideas. Then that soon
>>>> gets flushed out in a stream of failure and infeasibility, so the
>>>> new party is forced to realign itself along some other course while
>>>> still trying to hold on to the support it won for its original
>>>> vision. They often turn to frantic nationalism at that point.
>>>
>>> Now for the next question... how would you fix this?
>> No idea, and I'd be highly skeptical of anyone who thinks they do
>> have a solution to it.
>>
> If it were that easy we would have done it by now.
>
> UK prioritises stability over representation. EU nations are more
> representative, but volatile.
>
> Or are they?
>
> Germany's disastrous state of its energy infrastructure now is the direct
> result of Merkel going into coalition with a Green minority party. Plant
> windmills and kill off nuclear to placate the Greens, but import Russian gas
> and East German lignite to do the heavy lifting.

That is utter bullshit!
- The energy infrastructure if Germany never has been in a better state
than now; it is no longer dependent on russian gas and oil.
- Merkel never was in a coalition with the Greens!
- nuclear energy was also dependent on russian uranium. No more.

'Andreas

--
ceterum censeo redmondinem esse delendam

On 09/07/2024 19:47, Andreas Eder wrote:
> On So 07 Jul 2024 at 11:18, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/2024 00:33, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> Then if the majors make a particular habit of filling their stack
>>>>> with rubbish between each flush, a radical minor party might get
>>>>> elected and unleash their huge full stack of ideas. Then that soon
>>>>> gets flushed out in a stream of failure and infeasibility, so the
>>>>> new party is forced to realign itself along some other course while
>>>>> still trying to hold on to the support it won for its original
>>>>> vision. They often turn to frantic nationalism at that point.
>>>>
>>>> Now for the next question... how would you fix this?
>>> No idea, and I'd be highly skeptical of anyone who thinks they do
>>> have a solution to it.
>>>
>> If it were that easy we would have done it by now.
>>
>> UK prioritises stability over representation. EU nations are more
>> representative, but volatile.
>>
>> Or are they?
>>
>> Germany's disastrous state of its energy infrastructure now is the direct
>> result of Merkel going into coalition with a Green minority party. Plant
>> windmills and kill off nuclear to placate the Greens, but import Russian gas
>> and East German lignite to do the heavy lifting.
>
> That is utter bullshit!
> - The energy infrastructure if Germany never has been in a better state
Ah, a statement of Faith..

> than now; it is no longer dependent on russian gas and oil.
It still is

> - Merkel never was in a coalition with the Greens!

Well she had to head them off.

> - nuclear energy was also dependent on russian uranium. No more.
>
It wasn't. It just happened to buyt some from them. It could as easily
come from anywhere in the world

Any more than the UK is 'dependent;' on European nuclear electricity
imports, They just happen to be cheaper than windmills etc

> 'Andreas
>

--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14