• 0 Posts
  • 25 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 29th, 2023

help-circle


  • I highly recommend zsh. It takes a moment to setup initially, but you can use oh-my-zsh to just skip that part and use one of the many, many presets, and it supports plugins, of which there are many. It gives you tab support for so many popular commands, you will never need to remember them, and it has a lot of small improvements that makes your terminal life a breath. For example, if you do cd tab in bash, it will give you a list of subdirrectories. If you do the same in zsh, it will give you that list and a cursor that you can use to navigate said list, so instead of typing the dir, you can do cd tab tab tab enter










  • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.detoMemes@lemmy.mlLET'S GOOOOOOO
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hope you do, because no good peer-reviewed studies ever produced the results you are talking about. I urge you to show me which ones you are talking about.
    And you should learn to look closer. Maybe get more that a couple of words out of headline, you know, how scientificly minded people are suppose to be.








  • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.detoMemes@lemmy.mlI love the aesthetic
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The enonomy was centrally planned

    That’s the difference between state capitalism and the regular one. In the regular capitalism, the means of production are controlled by the capital holders, by the rich few. In state capitalism the means of production are controlled by the state, but the rest stays the same, people work for money, the results of their labour gets sold on a market of some sorts, and the surplus value is gathered by the stakeholders. Corporations in state capitalism consist of natural monopolies/oligopolies, which makes the market non-free by default, which makes everything else kinda fall apart, but it doesn’t make it not capitalism, it makes it end-stage capitalism from the beginning. For the vast majority of the USSR existence that was the case.

    the urge to conclude this comes

    from the desire to use words by their meaning. I am not talking about why USSR was what it was, I am only talking about what it was. It wasn’t socialism, because the main characteristic of socialism is that the means of production are collectively owned by the workers, and the means of productions in USSR were owned and operated exclusively by the state which consisted on unelected elites. It wasn’t communism, the main characteristic of that is that it’s moneyless classless society that distributes the goods based on needs, and in USSR there were social classes, there was an exchange of goods and services for money, and although there was no privately owned means of production, the amount of goods a person could receive was dependent on how much work they contribute, not on how much they need.
    Economically, the USSR was a form of state capitalism, and politically it was a totalitarian dictatorship. And no matter how much they said that the ultimate goal of a country is to transition to a communism (and believe me I know how much they did it, I had to endure it in school), I don’t see any moment at which it really happened.
    We could argue a lot about who declared whom an enemy, what were economical implications of the most brutal war in history, and what was the reason for the inhumane treatment of the soviet citizens by their own rulers, and is it really evil to starve to death millions of people if it means that the steel production will be a bit better, and based on your comment I assume you have a lot of strong opinions about that. But ultimately that will not be a debate about the economical structure.