GoodEye8

As someone also from a post soviet country, don't make the mistake of thinking all socialism is the same as Leninism.

Once you come up with an economic model that both works economically and does not hand power to elected officials or some other such group,

So you'd rather support a system where the power is handed to the unelected "officials"? You can see that happening in real time with Musk effectively leading the US. Not to mention almost all forms of democracy have people handing the power to the elected government, so I really don't know what you're opposing here.

As the other commenter put it, it depends on how it's structured. There are so many ways to set up a coop I won't get into how shares affect dividends. Instead I'll use your example to show why your voting right is worth more than how the profits gets distributed.

If you're making ten bucks from your share and the founder is making a million, then the cooperative has to be okay with that arrangement. If you're collectively not okay with it then you have the power to change that. The founder can have all the shares in the world, they still have one vote. Since you collectively have the majority of votes you can simply vote to change how profits get distributed and the founder has to accept it because they don't own the cooperative, you all do.

Maybe this blog post is of use. Good Alt Text, Bad Alt Text — Making Your Content Perceivable.

If you don't feel like reading the entire post you can skip to "Writing good alt text — Context is key".

Well yeah, but cooperatives generally avoid the possibility of buying voting power because that kinda contradicts the purpose of a coop.

Except shares don't represent the amount of ownership of a company. Everyone gets one vote regardless of how many shares they have, thus equal ownership.

It takes time to alter the course of the market. Intel has been shitting the bed with their CPU-s for over a decade and in that time frame the market has gone from something like 95% Intel, 5% AMD to ~60% Intel, 40% AMD. The average consumer doesn't really care about Intel vs AMD either, but somehow the market has shifted. We just have to hope Nvidia shits the bed for the next decade.

This is why my online gaming has kinda died off. I don't really mind matchmaking and I think skill-based matchmaking definitely has a place in actually competitive games, but I miss the communities that get built up around a dedicated server. My fondest memories of multiplayer games come from community servers, because eventually you just know who you're playing with and it becomes a place to hang out.

But the story beat is static, it always gives you the same enemy in the same situation. The nemesis system turns that story beat dynamic. Every time you hit that story beat you get a different enemy in a different situation. It doesn't give everyone the same story, it gives everyone their story. It's innovation is how the system sets up stories and ties them into the gameplay. The system is designed to draw you into an encounter with a nemesis, there are multiple outcomes to that encounter. Those encounters become callbacks in the next encounter and so on and on until you've create a storyarc against that enemy.

For example I remember having a nemesis I couldn't kill with a sneak attack (which was very much my preferred way of getting rid of nemesis I wanted to get rid of). So I had to fight him head on and I set him on fire. He managed to escape while I was being overrun by grunts. One of the grunts slayed me and became a new nemesis. Meanwhile the one that got away gained a new weaknesses to fire. One storyline branched into two storylines. Not only did my individual story born from the nemesis system branch out, the gameplay encounters with those nemesis also changed from the previous encounter. The next time I fought my old nemesis I had a new trick up my sleeve, I could use fire against them. As for the new nemesis, well get to him.

That's the innovation of the nemesis system. It's a story generator that gives you your story and each encounter alters the gameplay for the next encounter. But that's only the foundation of the nemesis system. The Nemesis hierarchy and relations between them is an extra layer of storytelling. For example that grunt who killed me turned out to become a really annoying nemesis, I really struggled killing him and every encounter only made him stronger. So I devised a different strategy. I ended up turning other orks that surrounded him in the hierarchy and started using them to do my dirty work. In the end I wasn't the one to slay my new nemesis, it was a different ork (under my control) who challenged him and killed him.

And final note on what really makes all of it work is the presentation. The orks aren't just a randomized collection of traits, they're voiced and somewhat visually unique and whatever randomized outcome they get to at the end of the encounter gets properly presented in the next encounter. The presentation is the glue that ties all those encounters together into one story. You're presented with an actual nemesis and not just some generic mute and they "remember" the things you did to them before. They feel like a nemesis and not just some randomly generated grunt.

If you tried it and didn't see the appeal I'm guessing the game was too easy. I wasn't impressed by the nemesis system until the orks had a chance to escape or I was forced to retreat or I got killed. The system really opens up and gets interesting when the game gets so challenging that you're no longer certain what will happen in any encounter.

Entitlement and cognitive dissonance and strong forces these days. I’m sorry you can’t see past them.

The irony...

Duh, kinda hard to argue anything when all you get is word vomit. but hey, I'll give my best effort then.

Man, if only you put this much effort into advocating for a modest lifestyle.

Erm, what? Have you read nothing I've said? I said getting rid of consumerism would be a net benefit to society, but I'm not going to advocate the stupidity that you're peddling.

It just goes to show: you don’t want to solve these problems because you benefit from them.

Clearly you didn't bother to actually explain how I benefit so I actually have no fucking clue what you're trying to say here. Considering I was pretty explicit in wanting others to be paid a fair wage so they'd have a better life I will happily be selfish in wanting a better life for others. I'll that selfishness over whatever you are.

And that was were your post ended but because you're foaming from the mouth you can't gather your before you post so you added an edit. And just for the sake of clarity, I posted my previous comment before the edit you added. Not that it matters because it's not like your edits are making any more sense.

You’re also just straight up lying at this point. It’s crazy how much effort you are putting into this, but it’s to be expected because of your cognitive dissonance.

So your counter-argument here is that I'm just straight up lying and then you proceed to insult. However once again you don't bother explaining anything so there's nothing to argue.

And then of course you couldn't stop there, you had to edit once again because thinking before speaking is not a skill you have.

I’m not going to sift through or quote your bullshit, but we both know that it’s there. Keep trying to justify your entitlement, bud. I will always see it for what it is.

Oh please do (I know you won't because that would take actual effort), because I think you haven't bothered to check who you're arguing with and you think I'm someone else. That's how little attention you paying to this discussion.

Now kindly accept my concession with something I said previously:

But hey, don’t let me stop you from letting everyone know what you are.

I guess it's time for your meds because you're starting to speak complete nonsense.

It's amazing how confidently wrong you can be.

You’re not a minimum wage worker, bub. This is what I mean by why should you get more before others who have less?

I am not a minimum wage worker and I never said I was. I'm relatively well off and I think everyone should be able to have a life similar to mine, in terms of fulfillment. I don't demand more for myself, I demand more for everyone else because I don't think anyone deserves to be poor and needing to deal with the stress of having no money.

Why should we improve your lifestyle in the big city

I don't live in a big city. I live in a small town because I have the luxury of working remotely.

you’re “too good” to accept a more modest

I live a pretty modest life, some might even call it frugal. I don't own a car because it's a huge money sink. I cook my own meals because eating out is expensive. I don't buy cheap clothes but I do buy clothes that last a long time because if they last longer I end up spending less money on clothes. I don't really spend much money outside of necessities and the occasional entertainment.

affordable lifestyle outside of one

I have a budget and I stick to it. I have no problem having an affordable lifestyle.

You’re not willing to invest in making more places livable and improving the lives of others

I contribute to my local community. I would be more specific but I honestly have no fucking idea what you're even trying to imply here.

you’re just looking for ways to justify your entitlement to have as much as you can get.

Wrong once again.

It’s not a big surprise. I don’t expect more from people like you at this point. I would be foolish if I did.

I absolutely agree because I'm not at all surprised how you can be so confidently wrong.