ancap shark

Not eggs, but prey. They use this movement to break its bones and kill it.

It’s a siriema if I’m not mistaken. There are a bunch of them in the country side of where I live (Brazilian Cerrado). They are absolutely fantastic animals

If I’m not mistaken (resolution doesn’t help), this bird is a Siriema. They use this movement to kill their prey (usually reptiles like snakes and lizards, but also frogs and small rodents). It is not playing, it is confused, thinking the ball is food.

No those

I don’t like to argue semantics on the internet so I won’t answer further than this

US Department of Justice alleges Apple to be a monopoly

With all due respect, I really don’t care what the US government calls a monopoly. It doesn’t make it a monopoly just because some county government said so.

Single seller: In a monopoly, there is one seller of the good, who produces all the output.[6] Therefore, the whole market is being served by a single company, and for practical purposes, the company is the same as the industry.

That’s the most important thing. We agree on that one. A monopoly is the singular provider of a good in the market. Github is not the only provider of git hosting (think Gitlab and Bitbucket). Apple is not the singular provider of smartphones (Sansung, Motorola, Xiaomi, etc), nor it’s the singular provider of laptops (Lenovo, Samsung, Alienware, Framework). All of the other points are things that monopolies do, but alone doesn’t make a monopoly.

This difference is important, because creating a true monopoly is impossibly hard. So hard in fact, that they are usually caused by interference of the government (like Petrobrás here), not the other way around.

I don’t think there’s a precise name for that, since it can be a lot of complex things. A monopoly is a very defined thing, that was my point.

A company can be prominent because it is just better at giving what the consumers want. That’s the case of Google (as a search engine). I use Duck Duck Go, but very often I have to fallback to Google because DDG’s results are just not quite right.

It can be prominent because what it does is very expensive and so only a few can even try it. That’s again the case with Google. Creating a good search engine is hard, and Google just got more money to throw at it. That’s also the case of Apple. What they are selling (premium products with very high quality and stability) is inherently expensive, and such they don’t face a lot of competition (Sansung I guess). Many big corp will lobby the government to artificially make the market more expensive so they can rule out small fish (don’t quote me on that, I’ll not elaborate further).

A company can also turn itself into a conglomerate, merging, buying and assimilating other companies. That’s the case with AbInbev here in Brazil. They assimilated most of the beer companies. It is very hard (in my opinion impossible) for this to turn into a monopoly, because there will be other big fish trying to play the same game (Petrópolis and Heineken in this case, for example), and there will always be those companies that will not accept being bought, hoping they will be the next big fish.

I’m not making any judgement of value here, I hate big corporations, but I think we should put blame where blame is due, and not attack straw men and use water down terms, because that’s pretty weak.

LMs aren’t thinking, aren’t inventing, they are predicting what is supposed to be answered next, so it’s expected that they will produce the same results every time

https://onedev.io/

This is the coolest one I know of Self hosted, open source, good simple project management

So, is google not a monopoly because there are other search engines out there?

It isn’t. There are other search engines. People use Google because it’s the best, not because it’s the only one available. If Google became a horrible search engine, people would switch no problem

Does Apple not have a monopoly among US teenagers because there are Android phones available?

Yes. Although Apple is preferred in this public (of which I don’t know a lot about, so I won’t try to guess why), Android is always an option. And a cheaper one, usually. This forces Apple to differentiate themselves by giving the best in what their users want (premium quality and status, I guess).

Does Microsoft not have a monopoly in desktop computing because Apple and Linux exist or because phones exist?

Same point.

What is your definition of monopoly and how does Github not fit it?

A monopoly is when a company is the only one in a market niche. Not the most prominent one.

NSFW?

This is nice. I’ve played a lot of TR2 in my childhood (it was my dad’s, it was already old when I used to play) and I was very bad at it

I didn’t like the textures a lot tho. It lost a bit of its charm

It’s because the installation is old, new ones are always grounded

This one is Brazilian

I’m used to this kind of guy

Americans plugs are very strange

I guess Firefox market share will be closely related to Linux desktop market share

Oh, I understand. That’s not what I was thinking tho, I misinterpreted the “cross-instances” thing, I thought it meant supercommuties taht includes communities from various instaces

Are there cross instances communities in Lemmy? How does that work?

I’m a libertarian in Brazil, so my takes may be different from yours (I’m not even sure if the word means the same thing for me and for native English speakers).

This is the far right libertarianism, which has essentially become an extremist, authoritarian form of capitalism. In essence, those with immense power tell us that nobody has any right to oversight and regulation over others. Their power becomes insurmountable, and their control over the economy becomes absolute. We live according to the standards they provide, because we have no alternative.

Big corporations (which, I agree, are a cancer to society) lobby regulatory powers to weaken local and mid business and to evade taxes in ways small business simply can’t, that’s the source of their power. A lack of government regulation would not be good for them, because it would empower their competition, and that’s the last thing they want.

I don’t see how any system could succeed, considering the circumstances.

To me, the big problem with libertarianism is that it requires a big level of maturity from the population. It requires private regulatory and certification companies, union of workers to seek working rights in a non-violent way, and people to support charity initiatives that help the poor and endangered. All of that is not impossible, but people are very used to that being a government responsibility, it won’t happen over night

As a libertarian, I don’t trust these billionaires a single bit to do it.

They are not libertarians, they don’t care about the free market, small local business, regulatory and certification companies, or what else. They are very happy to lobby the government to enforce any anticompetitive practices that will benefit them in the long run. They probably just want a new way to evade taxes, they don’t give two fucks about libertarianism.

Sadly, tech bros won’t see through it and will hype anything these clowns do.

Laughs in Brazilian

I feel you.