I think you made a jump from laborers should own their own labor to laborers should own labor collectively. Democratically control of individual resources appears to be less than ideal.
I am simply saying that personal property is out of the picture. And there is no such thing as “owning labor.” There is only laborers, which under wage labor are owned for a certain amount of time. But my central point is that Marxism has no conflict whatsoever with personal property.
But, as I said, it can be complicated, especially if that is your goal, as can be done with anything if you so please.
But, a self-sufficient farmer with no employees is not even part of a societal economy in any modern sense. They are a mere peasant. If they are a farmer with a farm that requires no hired labor or modern technology then same thing. If they require a military to protect them and they send surplus to a feudal arrangement, they probably live in a feudalist society. If they own their land and use industrial technology and hire their own wage laborers to produce a surplus to trade it on a market to pay for all of that, they are now part of a modern economy and Marxism would have more to say about that. The latter have dependencies beyond the mere protection of their farmland, meaning the farmer now lives in a capitalist society.
I attempted to bridge the language from a “this appears to be lay usage, introduce a Marxist distinction” perspective. You’re outright using Marxist language and reasoning and doing a much more effective job communicating it. I appreciate your contribution. Thank you for jumping in where I failed.
The last time I looked at IRCv3 I was disappointed by how much was an optional extension.
My opinion is that a strong 'minimum' protocol is critical to interoperability and opportunities for federated protocols to function well across providers. I recall that was the main, non XML, reason that XMPP failed. Of course I also dislike XML as a data storage / transmission format.
IRCv3 is written to be backwards compatible so it makes sense to have a ton of optional stuff - considering it is backwards compatible, everything is optional :-P.
And it makes sense, IRC is already out there and has a ton of servers and clients working, you can't split that community based on the client they're using otherwise you're just creating yet another isolated chat protocol like a ton others before it.
I don't really care much about the protocol myself. I'm never going to be speaking "raw IRC" at any point, so why does it matter? I understand that you want to keep protocol simplicity high to make it easier on implementers, but other than just enough to encourage implementation, I don't see the need. We're talking about human chat applications here. Machine chat can use simpler protocols of course, like a light layer atop MQTT, or the existing base XMPP spec.
Yeah but this is such a niche usecase. Also, Matrix uses an HTTP API and almost every language at least has a binding to libcurl, so it's trivial to get something up for Matrix as well. If you're not into the ascetic appeal of writing bytes raw onto a socket, then IRC just seems silly these days.
>> Writing bots from scratch in a new language is more fun when parsing is easy
> Yeah but this is such a niche usecase.
I think the point is that writing anything for anything is simpler, faster, and has fewer dependencies when parsing is easy.
> Also, Matrix uses an HTTP API and almost every language at least has a binding to libcurl.
Certainly there are advantages of using Matrix and it's HTTP compatibility to implement some solutions. However, I can also imagine some projects are best served with a simple protocol with lean libraries that don't incur unnecessary dependencies on HTTP and the related bloat and complexity.
Back when i was in highschool i wrote a few IRC clients just to learn socket programming in Delphi and later C and Java. I always appreciated how easy it is to get a simple client running.
Actually, I have in fact been speaking "raw IRC" quite a few times. Not much anymore but back in the days when working on a new servers it was quite convenient to just telnet irc.x.yz 6667, NICK Hultner, USER Hultner * * * * (don't care for quick sess), JOIN #xyz-help, PRIVMSG #xyz-help Hello, anyone familiar with error Z1 on XYZ?, pong.
That's basically everything you need to know for some basic chat.
I've interacted with IRC servers via telnet a ton of times. But overall I think that era of protocol design is unfortunately long passed (looking at you SMTP)
In your estimation is having a zip bomb I'm proud of crafting on my laptop a boobytrap because it could cause problems for a malicious actor naively unzipping all my files?
I understand you find it cognitively and rhetorically convenient to focus on an example rather than the point it’s exemplifying. But, if you’re capable of imagining alternative viewpoints, try swapping the example to one more to your taste to help you focus on the argument.
I agree it's a low value discussion, but I'm just fascinated that every comment you make exemplifies my point better than I did. The popularity of your style of interaction is precisely why policitcs should be kept out of the workplace.
