Free market per wikipedia definition:

In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.

It’s not equal to lawlessness, but it is lawless within market. These two are not equivalent. Still, that is not to say it is without order. Free market is entirely an economic system and not a social system nor any other plethora of systems in a country. So the topic of those other systems are simply out of the scope. Therefore, laws can exist in the society.

Robbery is part of the free market. Along with whatever happens like tornadoes, fire, murder, etc. Including the cost to hire your own security if necessary. Police is against free market because it is an intervention by the government. There does exist a grey area like if a robber becomes a gang and becomes a businesses’ external authority. Then they are impeding on the free market.

This is how free market is defined. So, to reiterate, if there exists any body that is redistributing your profit, it is against free market.

Communism is not a share of labour profits. Communism is more than just an economic system. It’s also a social and philosophical one. But assuming we’re only talking about the economic parts, it still doesn’t mean to share labour profits. Quoting wikipedia once again:

Communism is […] a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need.

The keyword here is common ownership. Everyone owns the entire chain of production together. Your view on the concept of profit even existing is out of line with communism. From wikipedia:

Monetary relations in the form of exchange-value, profit, interest, and wage labor would not operate and apply to Marxist socialism.

If we go with Marxist version, you already own everything together and nothing has monetary value. You can’t have profit because there is no such thing as selling, and there is no money, so you can’t profit on anything. The concept of the profit sharing would be anti-communism.

If we go with Lenin’s view on state capitalism (which he said is not communism, but may be a necessary transition state to communism) where we accept that things have value but that only the state engages in capitalism, people still wouldn’t get profit. Because people still wouldn’t have money. You would simply have better status in livelihood in hopes that the state has used that money well for the benefit of the people.

Communism is not profit sharing, its very core purpose is to remove the concept of profit.

Sharing of labour profits at a nation level is called “labour share”. And at a company level, it is called “co-operative business”.

I think the person you’re replying to is trying to say that:

It’s NOT just pressing a button for the people making it

But to the outsider that look at it thinks it’s just pressing a button because they only see the final ending.

Complete communism can’t have free market by definition. And complete free market can’t have laws to redistribute profits. That is the definition of these words. The theoretical maximum definition obviously differs from actual application as nothing is applied in a complete sense.

Revolutions and socioeconomic systems aren’t human nature. Along with all your above examples. My entire point is that there is a difference between individual human nature and the societal nature. Your point of human nature wanting feudalism is opposite of my point. I’m stating that EVERY SINGLE social construct you can imagine or think of is not of the individual nature but the societal one, including feudalism. And that less of construct you require is closer to human nature. More construct required is further away from human nature. That is, communism requires greater management by the society than the free market to exist, and thus is further from human nature. You may choose to define “human nature” differently, but this is how I see it.

Yes, it’s stupid. But it’s so ridiculously commonplace when talking about animals exerting force of any kind, especially “bite force”. Even in scientific literature to nat geo. They seem to actually mean force but I have no idea why they use the word pressure. I’ve seen some supposed experts on tv even interchangeably use words force and pressure in the same sentence.

I hate it.

That interpretation seems more like your own opinion rather than the opinion of those who actually say that. I see little causal relevance between charity and trickle down economics.

You have to think more impartially to understand why these two train of thoughts have little to no intersection. Do you know why these people you’re characterizing are saying “people are generous”? Because like you said, greed is simultaneously said. If you get it, you’ll see it’s not about trickle down.

Additionally the general right wing argument for the structuring society around volunteer charity over forced social care is that volunteer format is enough from the view of the giver, not that they will get enough from the view of the receiver. If that happens to be nothing, they’re saying so be it. If that happens to be a lot, that’s great. The argument is also about having the option to choose where they help rather than a government body choosing it… Though I don’t think individuals could possibly know though to choose well.

I am not making an argument for the right or left. I’m just fixing the polarized viewpoint of the other party.

Communism is against human nature.

Along with every social construct that we make including laws and traditions. We make these rules precisely to counter the human nature in an attempt to create a better society, though not all are by intentional design. What is good for an isolated sole single individual is very different for a whole society and a prosperous society benefits individuals to have different opportunities than a lone actor. For example, a society where you aren’t constantly worried about theft allows you to engage in trade more freely and thus able to trade more. The act of limiting personal freedom (nature) to steal, in turn, allowed society to have an increase in ability to trade.

What is closer to human nature is going to be more easily accepted by humans. And free market is closer to nature than communism. That is why it was invented first and what has set place first. If communism is indeed what society as a whole feels is better for society, they will constantly shift towards it. Some may argue similar to Canada or Scandinavian countries. Though I wouldn’t define what they’re shifting to as communism because countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc. score higher than USA in economic freedom index (free market). But, that discussion would go off course from topic of what is true communism which has no end.

Last 2 panels of the OP’s memes refer more greatly to individual actions rather than societal actions. I’m sure certain individuals will help and be charitable. Though as a whole would be obviously less than communism since certain definitions of communism would be a mathematical maximum of reduction of poor due to equalization.

Improbability principle states that the odds are fairly high. Highly unlikely events happen all the time, and as a sum of all the events it becomes a high chance. Among the masses, someone probably watched that episode and someone is going to post about that episode. Both happening together isn’t unlikely but highly probable because there are so many individual probabilities combining together due to many actors.

No one who does AI seriously gets AMD. AI market is extremely dominated by Nvidia.

Your lifetime is nearly 80 years. Companies lasting 80 years is ultra rare in history, large behemoths included. I bet you can already name several behemoth IT companies that’s already come and gone.

I wouldn’t trust even larger behemoths like google and MSFT to last another 80 yrs. It’s just too statistically unlikely.

I don’t know if steam does this since I have no experience selling on steam, but generally when you sell anything anywhere the sales channels will often demand that you give them the lowest retail price. Most commonly done by ones that give the most exposure since they have that much more power. Failure to do so will result in some penalty (Amazon prevents your offer from being in buy box) or just outright refusal to take your product (such as Walmart).

Additionally, customers complain too when you sell at two different pricing elsewhere. If you’re a company that gives virtually no support (like you sell pickles or whatever), you prob don’t care. But for things like games, you’ll get bombarded with demands that they got ripped off by buying from one place and ask for difference in pricing or submit a refund request. Refunds are more expensive to sellers than not selling at all since you still have to pay transaction/refund fees by payment processors. Or if physical product, cost of shipping as well.

Different sales channels having different pricing isn’t really an option. It’s not really worth it. You’ll get problems left and right.

If you get a fancy expensive knife with super pointy tip, this temptation only increases.

I currently have a setup where both AMD and Nvidia simultaneously run on a single computer with Linux. It wasn’t too complicated, only took like 10hrs of troubleshooting to run.

I think feelings and personal beliefs should stay as far as possible from philosophy. Philosophy should never evolve around subjectivity such as feelings; philosophy is an attempt to be as rational and logical as possible in albeit a very subjective world. Much of philosophical arguments are made in same manner as discrete mathematics because of this but with words rather than formulas and rules. Even religious medieval philosophers attempted to be as logical as possible in their approach to explaining religion rather than relying on belief (though often fail despite their best attempts). So the “feeling of unsafe environment” isn’t something I see as compatible with any philosophical discussion as a basis of reason. There needs to be an objective as possible pivot.

We see plenty of vastly different feeling of unsafe in social media. Some of which even do so with the intent of not actually feeling unsafe but to garner views and likes. If someone is scared by everything, can we start intolerating everyone else? We don’t know where the line can be drawn between being a just society that tolerates freedoms and the one where tolerable can no longer exist.

This is why Popper proposed the entire dilemma. The violence being the pivot of intolerable intolerance isn’t his opinion. It is that with violence, tolerable objectively (as much as we can be objective) cannot exist.

Even in your example, you attempt to separate objectivity vs subjectivity in are/is versus believe respectively for the sole correctness of the former. (Even though in my view, proof of what is is going to end up as sum of your beliefs or a cyclic viewpoint.) And then the argument goes back to pivoting in the subjectivity of feelings.

If you rely on subjectivity to draw the line of what’s intolerable intolerance, then you will be intolerant of people who you subjectively view as intolerable.

Actually, you are misunderstanding the paradox of tolerance. And I would say it is one of the most frequently misquoted philosophy on discussion forums such as lemmy or reddit.

Popper asserted many times that the intolerable intolerance is violence. “Fists and pistols” as he calls it.

By intolerating at a stage by calling the other as intolerable when we’re still quite far from violence such as this case of HR management, you are proposing for an unjust society–is what Popper would say.

I don’t really care for size. What’s cheap and fast?

You should also tell your past self on when to sell. Not just buy.

Need to buy from dictators?

I didn’t realize Australia and Canada who has highest uranium reserves are dictators. Canada also used to be highest uranium producer until relatively recently.

There is no need. Though Kazakhstan and Russia may be cheapest if you’re near there.

This type of mandate exists in specific industries. I’m really not sure why it doesn’t exist in other.

A large charged lemonade has 4 times the caffeine content than a cup of coffee according to wapo which I won’t bother linking because it’s paywalled. It’s about twice the size of coffee and twice the concentration of caffeine.

Actually statistics show that an encounter with a bear is orders of magnitude more dangerous than an encounter with a man. Obviously. I encounter 1000s of men as I was down the street and I’m not dead yet.

Yes, it’s very unlikely to run into a bear. But if that’s the point you’re making, you’re missing the predicate of the question where the encounter is already assumed.