Is there a problem with it being there? Fediverse instances go down all the time, and fade into the forest of dead links that fills the back pages of the internet. Anyone who pulls that account up and sees that the site doesn't resolve is just going to continue on to the next search result on the list and find you on mastodon.social, without assuming anything about you in particular because of it. Though if it is the data itself you're worried about, @octade@soc.octade.net's suggestion of escalating to get their contact is probably your best bet, since they are the only ones who would be able to send out Delete notifications.

However, my guess is that it's not actually kbin's half-alive status that's keeping the caches active. Maybe there are some aggregation searches that do run a periodic cleanup of unreachable instances, but particularly for searches via Mastodon or other content software (which is the vast majority of search engines, since the community is hostile to those aggregators) they're probably running at least in part off of their own database; in that case, since they have your post mirrored locally, or someone's boost or reply to one, or maybe even just a like of one of your posts from back when the account was active, they know that some account by that name existed, and getting rid of the central kbin records wouldn't do much of anything.

Economic theory puts a lot of effort into defending consumerism, and a lot of that into defending the lack of borders to trade. It doesn't put the same effort into verifying those theories, and when it does it rarely looks at things holistically. Would the price of goods-at-cost go up with tariffs? Yes, obviously, but how many of those "studies" looked at tariffs in isolation vs. pairing them with restricting sales taxes to high-end luxury goods? Would the higher prices mean that people become more conscious of what they buy and not feed disposable consumerism? Even more unquestionably yes, we see that in every recession. Would tariffs encourage internal production, blunting the degree those prices go up? Perhaps, there's a lot of corporate greed that gets in the way of making predictions around idealized models. Would that internal production result in more people locally employed in better-paying jobs? The community devastation that's caused by factories closing when those goods were originally moved offshore certainly points to "yes". Would closing the offshore factories cause similar devastation to those communities? Maybe, but they also indenture the population on poverty wages and artificially suppress the countries' self-determination and growth (I can't find the exact article I was looking for, so have something tangential).

I don't mean to argue that tariffs are unconditionally good. I certainly don't support them being added with no further changes and in doing so taxing both ends. There's a lot of broader policy changes (i.e. socialism) as well that my posts in this thread gloss over but which would be needed to keep things stable. All I'm saying here is that only tariffs is likely more ethical than only sales taxes, for as far as you can look purely at any economic feature in isolation.

RE: @Silversalty@mastodon.social
CC: @johnquiggin@aus.social @octade@soc.octade.net
Via: @geopolitics@a.gup.pe @economics@a.gup.pe @infostorm@a.gup.pe

Taxes on trade might get passed down the supply chain, but they also inhibit modern colonialism offshoring local jobs, and they don't (barring capitalist excuses to squeeze more money) apply to local agriculture, industry, or services. Sales taxes are infamously regressive, so even if your theory holds and tariffs bump the prices of goods being brought in by an equivalent measure, that's still at least shifting the tax upwards toward middle-class luxury and away from essentials that people literally require to live.

Corporate profits taxes are nothing to do with taxing workers. If you really want to equate small business owners' business taxes with an income tax, fine, but then I'll just point to the natural implementation of progressive tax schemes which would leave the petite bourgeoisie paying roughly what they would under an actual income tax, while harvesting most of the tax money from multi-billion-dollar corporations, and leaving the wage workers under both of them tax free.

So, no change to the evasion, then? Honestly, I really don't see how you can argue that. "I don't have income, I have debts because I borrow everything against my net worth." -> "We'll just tax that net worth, then." "I don't have income myself, I just control a business (whose net worth I can borrow from)." -> "We'll just tax that business, then." Sure there's going to be a lot of loopholes for them to slip through, but I'd be very surprised if there was any creative accounting that could look at nine digits of wealth at rest and still get the effective tax rate down to 3.4%.

RE: @johnquiggin@aus.social
CC: @Silversalty@mastodon.social @octade@soc.octade.net
Via: @geopolitics@a.gup.pe @economics@a.gup.pe @infostorm@a.gup.pe

The map is also very anthropocentric. Cow pastures? Okay, sure, I can see those being managed to a degree where they're worth calling out, but there's a lot of actual pastures (rather than feedlots) which vaguely approach meadow ecosystems. Rangeland? That's scrub that's only less glamorous than federal wilderness because it's not forested and is largely privately-owned. Timberland? It's not old-growth, but it's still very much a forest for decades at a time. Urban housing/commercial? Pigeons are just rock doves who roost on less-traditional cliffs (all right, that one's a stretch). I would obviously prefer if the actual wilderness were to expand, but there's a lot more space for wild animals than it implies.

Aside: "all urban areas fit in a tiny corner"? At a rough estimate, housing in general is about 1/8 of the country use. That's maybe small in comparison to the whole, and moderate compared to some of the other sections (especially if things get rolled into "timberland" to match "urban + populous rural"), but it's far from tiny.

RE: @hyc@mastodon.social
CC: @VeroniqueB99@mastodon.social

I'm not anti-all-tax since even socialism requires funding, but I do agree with this. Abolish the income tax, abolish sales taxes on everyday goods; get the country's money from external trade, corporate and personal wealth taxes, and other measures that target those who have money to burn rather than supposedly-progressive schemes which have enough loopholes to drive container ships through. (I don't trust Trump to implement a wealth tax, but getting rid of the income tax is still a good step.)

CC: @geopolitics@a.gup.pe @economics@a.gup.pe @infostorm@a.gup.pe

Regarding the page reloading after actions, I'm afraid it's not possible without the use of JavaScript, which is a no/no for this project. The action requires a trip to the server, and a response back with the same (or the most similar) content you were previously shown.

I believe you, but where along the chain does leveraging the server-side dynamicism fail to provide enough tooling? My thought-from-the-outside for this would be to include another <input type=hidden ...> tag for the skip and show query parameters when later pages of the feed are generated, and then have the /user/admin/action page redirect/generate/pass control onward based on those values, so that when the user winds up back on the /user/admin page after the action is processed, the original skip and show would have been brought along with them. Of all of (non-JS) HTML, forms are one of the topics I have the weakest knowledge on, so I don't know enough to know why that wouldn't work.

RE: @grunfink@comam.es
CC: @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br

Exactly, full agreement with everyone here. OPSEC is not about locking everything down as tightly as possible, it's about figuring out what direction your risks are coming from, and how to specifically lock down those. #Signal is good, nearly everyone should be using Signal, since nearly everyone's OPSEC should determine that handing ad companies (and the hackers of ad companies) sensitive data in plaintext is a risk that should be prevented. We've not gotten to the point -- or alternatively, we've long since left the point behind -- where simply talking about having a queer identity, or not having immigration documentation, or anything on that level puts you as an individual in the sort of crosshairs that would make Signal ineffective, but depending on what part of the country/world you're in, your OPSEC might indeed determine that it's something you want to keep to E2EE/offline private conversation and pseudonymous internet identities. But if you're actively engaged in #activism, well, now you do really need to consider your OPSEC, figure out how disruptive you're being, whether you might be seen as a potential key to gaining info on who you talk to, etc. (unlikely unless you're particularly prominent, but that's what #OPSEC is for) and at that point you really do need to consider rubber-hose cryptography being applied to either end, and realize that there's limitations to Signal's security.

RE: @flashfox@infosec.exchange @linear@nya.social @mcc@mastodon.social

Very powerful story, and very relevant to current events. I want to push back on characterizing this as harm reduction, though. The factory workers here, and in so many replies telling similar stories, weren't "reducing harm", they were very actively fighting a quiet and dangerous resistance. When people complain about harm reduction, it's either firebrands who don't know any other way of fighting back, or more importantly it's people rightfully calling out incrementalism: the with-the-blessing-of-the-system complaints that centrists and liberals make sure to get on record before saying that the best way to protect vulnerable people is to let the overall legislation through, so long as they are able to carve out some small exception which makes it "not quite as bad as it could be"; the graceful stepping away from power and responsibility since that is what procedure calls for; the protesting of legislation with discussion and "no" votes rather than disrupting the sessions, filibustering, protesting the hijacking of the system itself, all the techniques they should be familiar with given that the Republicans are very proficient in using them from the other side (being the "more sporting players" doesn't protect people when there's more than sport at stake).

By by using that story as an example of harm reduction, and by arguing that everyone who calls out "harm reduction" is misguided, they're saying Democratic lawmakers are as powerless as those factory workers were. That is patently untrue to the point of propaganda. The Democrats might be in the minority, they might not have much reach if they stay within the system, but lawmakers as a class are far more privileged than most people, and we've not gotten to the point of purges where their disobedience could be comparable to the risk of getting disappeared on treason charges.

Maybe I'm wrong. For all that I don't like the term, there are still some people who do use "harm reduction" and mean wage workers and transit officials and the many people who make the country tick -- or who can make fascism ineffective. But while I have seen people use "harm reduction" and actually mean "fighting the good fight", I've only seen people complain about "harm reduction" and mean "performative collaboration". Even if laxsara is talking about people outside my bubble who do decry everything but loud, highly-visible resistance, by talking politically we need to think about how our words might be taken, in ways we didn't necessarily mean, and this is at the very least a failure to use the right words.

...I can't tell whether this is heartwarming or horrifying (on the one hand, direct communication with people you actually care about without hypemongering intermediaries, on the other all communication is digital and constant contact is normalized). Either way, it's a wonderful piece!

My stance on animal welfare is that everyone has the right to as comfortable a life as they'd have naturally. Cattle have the right to grazing pasture and curiosities to investigate, beaver have the right to manage their pools, wolves have the right to roam and to hunt, and octopi have the right to be some of the smartest minds in the seas and do practically whatever they want with that brain. Note, though, that one of those rights is "to hunt". More and more, studies are showing that there's no meaningful difference between human intelligence and sapience and those of other animals -- and so the call to action is always that we should ban meat or fur or what have you. Noble, sure, but it's moving the goalposts of "oh, humans are still inherently better than other omnivores/carnivores because we can choose not to kill," and in the process demonizing the majority of the food chain.

We should absolutely ban factory farms, encourage more (though not entirely) plant-based diets, examine the ways human convenience is prioritized over non-human quality of life. That's different from forbidding people derive any benefit from other animals. I call myself vegetarian when talking to people because it's the easiest shorthand, but I have no problem consuming meat from farmers' markets where I know the chicken would have been treated well (and while I recognize there's privilege in being able to do so, we should focus on supporting small farms and on helping people with less financial and/or geographic access get that access, rather than on blanket regulation). I fully support responsible hunting (use the vast majority of the carcass for something) as having let your kill live as full a life as the wilds allow until that point.

It's important to protect the people around you, to find the ways in which you specifically can best lend aid. As part of that it's helpful to know the broad strokes of what's going on, to know when someone might be targetted (always support the poor and the unhoused, those under GRSM and others in nontraditional family structures, the immigrants whether or not they're officially-approved; but nobody has unlimited support to give so everyone needs to figure out where their skills are best put to use, and part of that involves looking at who's most at risk and also who's not covered by community resources).

That doesn't mean you have to dedicate all your time to that. Like @praxeology@post.lurk.org said, read a book, take a walk, be sure you have a stable foundation to build that support on. Put your own mask on before helping others, and all that.

It definitely doesn't mean you have to have up-to-the-minute news awareness. A good portion of declining perceived quality of life is legitimate, but another good portion is simply media whipping us into a frenzy over people we'll never meet, issues which never scratch below the surface, fears that never come to pass. A good portion of that frenzy is to distract people from the systemic issues which actually matter. Knowing the broad strokes of what's going on doesn't need a constant subscription; most of it can be gathered from just paying attention to what people are talking about in the background of a much more fulfilling day.

RE: @octade@soc.octade.net, I've had my eye on Mox if I ever want to pull the trigger on hosting my own email. Seems to be the same sort of idea as Hestia, but more focused on email rather than a multipurpose server, and is still a fair bit younger/less polished. But, then, there's a reason I'm running this blog on snac rather than, I don't know, GoToSocial. (The equivalent of Hestia's interface/featureset for ActivityPub is probably something built from the streams repo, but I looked at that, saw way more features than I had a need for, and didn't look closely at the install process, so I don't know how that backend side of things lines up.)

RE: @neurovagrant@masto.deoan.org, I've been very happy with my mailbox.org account (enough that I've not felt any need to host my own, which is saying something when it comes to me), and I've not heard anything concerning about their privacy/politics stances. The webmail is just barely below the "painfully slow" mark, but it's still usable and if you pull it into a local client instead, that's the biggest negative circumvented.

Not necessarily, wealth is fungible whether it's national or crypto or commodity shares. Musk didn't buy Twitter under an umbrella corporation, he bought it on the basis of equally bullshit luck/scams leading to his personal fortune. If he were so inclined, the pizza guy could sell his bitcoin for dollars nearly as easily as he could exchange it for whatever it is underpinning Session, and repeat Musk's feat.

If someone were to hijack Session, it's certainly more likely they got rich off of crypto since it's more likely to draw the gaze of people already tied in with that ecosystem than it is people whose capitalism is more traditional, but if you're rich enough to be talked about in terms of buying a controlling share in anything, you're rich enough that there's no hurdle to converting between crypto and actual money, in either direction. At that point, whether your wealth is in USD or EUR or BTC doesn't matter.

POST-REPLY EDIT: To be clear, the problem here is capitalism. Different currencies, different regulatory environments, etc. will all contribute to different procedures by which someone (or some corporation) with more money than is remotely reasonable can throw that money at a promising project until it's under their sway, and then there's nothing them stopping doing whatever they want to it. The way to solve this is not to point to the means by which that takeover was funded, but instead to point to the way a single bad actor with no personal contributions to the project can unilaterally dismantle it. In other words, the workers should be the ones controlling the means of production.

I think the biggest disconnect is between people who see "privacy" as meaning "security and anonymity" and those who see it as meaning "anonymity and security". Signal is very likely the best implementation out there for security (qualified language only because I'm not an expert or even an amateur in the field). Signal requiring a phone number and its usernames only preventing other people from seeing that phone number make it much less attractive for anonymity. The perfect protocol is both, obviously, but where I and especially you are willing to give a centralized company/datastore some of our info (a phone number) after being sure that there's no way for the messages, people we talk with, etc. to be broken into, someone from the anonymity-first camp may be more willing to compromise on having the data be a bit easier to retrieve if it means that there's absolutely no way to trace that data back to them.

The WWII-spy analogy would be comparing the security-first position to someone who transmits their messages via radio or something in code, relying on the fact that the code is more or less unbreakable (without the outright miracle of the Enigma Machine) and accepting that a sufficiently motivated attacker could triangulate their location from the signal itself (because their exact location in Germany isn't the important part, and is likely already known anyway). Meanwhile the anonymity-first position would be someone who might use a simpler cypher that they can encode/decode on the fly (because the people they're hiding from likely already know someone's leaking the data and have a good idea of what it says), but who transmits their messages via dead drop or environmental cues in a busy city (where there's no practical way to pick them out from the crowd without watching the exact place at the exact right moment).

Privacy is very important to everyone on both sides, and everyone agrees that the wrong people getting their hands on both ends of the problem could be disastrous, but the direction they approach it from depends on what each thinks is the greater risk. Is it knowing that you're saying something when the simple fact of you talking isn't particularly suspicious?, or is it that you're saying something when people know the conversation is happening and nobody wants even the suggestion of being connected to it?

RE: @soatok@furry.engineer
CC: @shiri@foggyminds.com

Not to defend cryptocurrencies, but that's possible for a lot of other systems as well. It might take a bit longer to get through bureaucracy, and there's people along the way who can theoretically refuse to sell rather than an open "buy me" button, but Google, say, can very easily throw a lot of USD at a startup and kill them off a few years down the line. I've even seen a capitalist describe it as a legitimate (though not regret-free) way to hire a whole team at once.

I think the thing you're missing in this is that we're all advocating for a cut in hours with no cut in take-home pay. I might have contributed a bit to that confusion in discussing my redistributed shifts (in retail, not anything cushy) and initially missing some of the subtleties in the conversation, but the most important, if largely-implicit, point in this whole thing has been that hourly workers would get an equivalent raise in their pay-per-hour.

A number of the side discussions have been about how someone paying for forty hours of worker presence -- hourly or salaried -- is not in fact getting forty hours of productivity, and so in capitalist terms they may as well not require forty hours of sub-par presence but instead pay more for higher quality work to produce the same product in the same or shorter period.

And there probably is some privilege in talking abstractly about potential shifts, etc., without consideration for the prep and clean-up you mention for construction, or about critical fields people rely on and which are already understaffed (while education would have some reduction in kid-hours since parents would have less need for it as childcare while at their own work, there's only so far you can reduce it before learning suffers; hospitals obviously have to have a full 24-hour-7-day presence), but we're not trying to write up a concrete proposal here. I don't think any of us would expect it to be free of subtle kinks to be worked out, but we see a way to improve everyone's lives -- and actually those equally- or greater-skilled professionals who just happen to be in less-ridiculously overvalued careers would probably have a greater improvement in quality-of-life than those of us who do have cushier jobs -- and all the anecdotes and studies we bring into it are still just to shore up that abstract premise.

RE: @run_atalanta@beige.party
CC: @david_chisnall@infosec.exchange @PlasmaGryphon@meemu.org @soatok@furry.engineer

About this time last year, I got lambasted by someone for saying that the Democratic and Republican parties aren't meaningfully different, but rather just two wings of the #singleparty system we have in this country. I'm feeling pretty justified in my side of that argument right about now (even while I wish I wasn't).

Y'all want to not have outright fascists in over half of every single governing body? Then start treating the Democratic Party as the moderate-right-wing/right-leaning-moderate party they are and find your actual liberals. There is nothing sacred about the D/R split that should hold you to an either/or vote, and in fact nearly every other country with a halfway-similar setup has at least a token showing of third parties in power. Instead, the #Democrats have proven, once again, where they actually stand; nobody is doing anybody any good by following along meekly as they trot out each limp call to action, all that proves to them is that they can continue to do whatever they want (swing however right they want) without meaningful resistance. This isn't a football league, blind loyalty and cheerleading are actively harmful.

I'm not even saying to go far left, much as the socialist parties are the ones that will actually have your best interests at heart. Even just a handful of Greens winning down-ballot, but still national, positions will be enough to stop the #politicians taking y'all (entirely) for granted, and meanwhile that handful will actually support what you say you believe, rather than this active collusion with their half across the aisle. Remember this in three years, remember all that effort cheerleading, all that "vote blue no matter who" brigading y'all did even before the primaries in order to try to get them to backstop against the Republicans, and remember how they immediately started working alongside them instead.

I think this is another version of what I was talking about a week or so ago. Your worry about it being abandoning friends is -- in my opinion -- based in the understanding of a follow as not just representing some interpersonal connection, but as being that connection; that by closing it down you're saying that the deeper connection between you doesn't exist.

That's maybe a legitimate interpretation for networks which put a lot of importance on real-life connections (Facebook, LinkedIn), but an equally valid reading is that a follow is little more than a fancy RSS feed, where the only thing it represents is a shortcut for delivering content you might otherwise go out and read. If you want less things delivered to you, then you can cancel that link without saying anything about the underlying relationship between you and whoever's sending it. If you were actually friends, then you're still friends (who you even said you'd still be talking with occasionally, you're not abandoning anyone there).

The internet-era framing of friendships as people you're in constant contact with is actively unhealthy for a number of reasons; go back more than a couple decades, and your fastest method of communication was email, and it wasn't long before that when you couldn't rely on people having email in the first place. Friendships can absolutely survive more than a week or two without contact.

I definitely get where you're coming from, though. I deliberately have only created accounts on small instances (even before spinning up this new single-user instance) because I find the large public timelines overwhelming, and could easily see it leading me to negative mental health. I've already decided against following easily half a dozen people in the less than a month I've had this one, even though I liked their content, because they were posting more per day than I wanted to fill my feed with. Taking it one step further and unfollowing across the board is entirely valid.

Didn't know that history, thanks! Very interesting bit of subtle humour there.

There's also the late-1900's ball culture as its own very separate thing to ballroom, ballet, and disco, making the same pun as disco to a different result. Regardless of whatever your feelings may be toward LGBT people, that's still a very fascinating bit of emergent culture distinct from the cis, white experience of the time.

My father's side of the family has traced our heritage back to Scotland and are rather proud of it, so I'm continuing that pride by naming my devices after the castles of the clan we were loyal to.

This is my last post in this thread, because I didn't get into it to defend X11 per se, but just to offer a thought on "Wayland isn't at parity and shouldn't be deprecated" -> "software that's no longer being actively developed is seen as worse than software that's actively broken". Fair warning that if you continue yourself in the vein of the second-to-last paragraph below, I'm muting you since I'll take that as you not arguing in good faith.

What I see in your linked post and its responses are people offering talking points about things that X11 can't do, or can't do as well, without offering much in the way of user stories about how they actually affect anything in practice. "X will always be stuck being an inferior experience if you're not AMD or Nvidia", so if you're using the distant-third-place graphics card company, which until very recently was effectively only offering integrated chips, where poorer performance is expected out of the gate? "ARM platforms have to deal with separate display and render devices, which is something modesetting can't handle automatically. So now we need platform-specific X config files to make it work." -- yes, and? Everyone's system is different and it's natural that configs need to take that into account. It's taking the modern design mentality (everything should be plug-and-play and users should be able to use the system without knowing anything about it) and acting like that's a critical failing that can't be overcome. The Mac Fn-keys issue is legitimate, but otherwise none of those seem like "jettison everything" bugs. I fully agree that Wayland offers a more modern experience, but that doesn't mean X11 is broken.

My main problem is that this is the same pattern every major Linux-stack update has used. "OSS/ALSA/Jack have some issues, switch everything over to Pulse (as we try to fix the fundamental bugs)." "RC scripts are uncomfortable and insecure, switch everything over to systemd (as we actively develop more and more ways to tie it irrevocably into the system)." "X11 is hard to work with, switch everything over to Wayland (even though half of what X11 can do isn't implemented, and half of that deliberately won't be)." Anyone who tries to point out the failings and incompleteness gets shouted over using the approved/cargo-culted talking points about the alternatives -- which still work perfectly well for the moment -- in order to shut down any rebellion against the freedesktop flavour of the week.

No matter what benefits Wayland may have, it's still barely achieved enough stability for the average user, and is still nowhere near ready for power users. I do definitely want to see where it goes, but in the mean time I'm using X11 perfectly well on the computer I put together not even a year ago, using modern mid-range parts.

That's still not saying there are bugs, though. That's saying any bugs which do exist likely won't get fixed, and that any new features likely won't get added, but I was making the point that there's an endpoint to software development where any bugs which do exist aren't showstoppers and any new features are unnecessary conveniences, and that's a good state to be in. I've not gone looking into the X11 bug tracker, but the devs going to work on its successor doesn't mean the original is fundamentally broken, it just means that they don't see any benefit to continuing to work on it.

RE: @irina@critter.cafe
CC: @ipg@wetdry.world

Interesting, you've got two different patterns of fractal/tessilation there. Each of the stars can grow as large as you want, or you can start tiling the current size outward. I wonder if there's any way to switch back to the scaling after you start tiling, though, or if that breakpoint is entirely unidirectional.

Well, glad I'm already working on switching over to FreeBSD, which is at least better insulated from the Linux-land madness.

I do find it telling that nearly all the things written about this are citing X11 development not being very active, which gets back to what @stefano@bsd.cafe was talking about a couple weeks ago. The security model in X11 isn't locked down to the extent modern devs want it to be, sure. But are there really so many outstanding bugs after decades of development that we need to jettison the whole thing, or have those decades brought it to the point where it's largely stable and development's slowing down because it doesn't need further development.

Of course, stable software wouldn't sell developer time and especially not IT support plans, so it's not surprising that the biggest commercial interest is cutting it off. At least it's better than systemd, but this is further proof of just how poorly Linux as an umbrella is able to address (or even recognize) bad actors in its space.

The unfortunate thing is that even in the states which do have one, a lot of people can't be bothered to return them anyway. It's not too uncommon to see someone homeless with huge bags of bottles/cans that they've scavenged to redeem for the deposits. Says horrific things about the state of society here all around.

RE: @soatok@furry.engineer @anthropy@mastodon.derg.nz
CC: @blaurascon@critter.cafe

This, though, I'm fully behind. I can never understand the "ooh, socialism will pry your hard-earned fruits of your labour from your needy hands" fearmongering. There is far more than enough of nearly everything to go around, and for the vast majority of people it would indeed look something like this. The problem we're trying to address is concentration where the worst actors manage to hoard so ridiculously much that they turn "far more than enough" into "widespread shortages".

RE: @octade@soc.octade.net
CC: @gentoobro@shitpost.cloud

Largely agree in the broad strokes, but there's already more than enough people in the armed forces that we don't need to expand, particularly if we bring them home as primarily defensive. Like you say, the worst budget drain is just providing over-engineered and under-performing toys, anyway, so cut all of that and we're so much better off.

If you really want a draft, bring back something like the Corps of Engineers working on civil projects, we've got plenty of infrastructure (by which I mean trains, not roads, though I guess we can spare a little for that if we must) that needs doing, forest management, housing, etc.

Though on that as well, I can get off my socialist box long enough to recognize that there might be legitimate reasons someone needs two houses. There's practically no reason they need three or more, nor hundreds of acres of private parkland. Put low limits on real estate and landlording, cap the number of short-term rentals per population, and you've got a really good start on homelessness even before the Corps builds a single house.

RE: @octade@soc.octade.net
CC: @gentoobro@shitpost.cloud