> It's not that the terms are unpopular, it's that every system that doesn't have strong capitalist roots has lost out to more capitalist systems.
The arch of history is long, and we are naturally biased to think of the present as the culmination of history - but it's just a point in time. I do not think "socialism will save us" - but I believe there is a breaking point where society simply will not accept a - as you put it - "more capitalist system".
Politics and economic systems go hand in hand, any economic system, practiced in extremis will be destabilizing. I posit that theoretically the "more capitalist system" wins over the less capitalist one, up to a point, where winning comes at the cost of killing the host society, and thus itself. This is simply a thought experiment, I am not making any declarations on where the US is on this axis.
The best time to have moved the Overton window was decades ago. The second best time is now. It's also relevant to this age, as the current strain of capitalism is showing its ass, and everyone can see it.
Modularity is not a binary choice - it's a spectrum with tradeoffs.
One might maliciously (IMO) argue that the single motherboard in Framework products that you presumably find perfectly fine, could have been designed as several interconnected ones, that are individually replaceable. On the surface, it can seem like an unimpeachable criticism, but once you consider the cost in complexity, performance and BOM, then the "less modular" single-motherboard option becomes much more reasonable.
Framework went with soldered memory because that was the only way they could hir the memory bandwidth performance numbers they wanted for this product in the context of the segment it occupies. If you value the ability to replace/upgrade RAM over 256Gb/s, then this is not the product for you. If you think Framework shouldn't compete in this segment due to a confluence of ideological reasons and the technical limitations of slotted RAM, then the CEO disagrees with you, as do the future buyers of the compact desktop
> I don't see a route where I could reasonably have much more than say 10 million 10 years from now.
You have to ask yourself this- how much is enough, and how hard are you willing to work/risk for it? On the low end, how much is the minimum, and what pros would make that acceptable, quality of life, risk, anxiety levels, etc.
Your way forward will be much clearer when you know what your parameters are, even though life may happen between now and the end date of your plans.
Yakuake supports invoking the terminal in windowed-mode, if that's the profile you choose for it. I don't follow the purpose served by spawning an invisible background terminal; that doesn't seem to be common workflow, but I suspect you could wrangle it in your shell startup file so that the terminal self-invokes in hidden mode - but having 2 running copies (invisible and windowed) may result in both appearing when you press your global shortcut.
> a terminal available at a short-cut/button-press that will always show it but not fully hide the rest, no matter what other context you're in
I cant be the only person who uses Quake-style terminals at fullscreen. The second part of your sentence is the crucial bit: the ability to instantly conjure a persistent terminal regardless of whatever else I have on screen.
> That is a pretty cynical take. FSF good, OSI bad.
I ascribed no moral value judgement on which is better. However , Tim O'Reilly isn't exactly shy about who the target of those early Open Source conferences (OSCON) were, and what they were attempting to achieve - which they succeeded at.
> To recapture the spirit of open source as being about freedom for actual users (as opposed to free labor for jailed SaaS)
That spirit was never there; "Open Source" was created to be corporate -friendly as it was predated by Free software, which is rigidly committed to users freedom.
...or it could turn out to be a 3D-TV moment - the jury is still out.
For a while, all OEMs had 3D TV models, and it seemed their ubiquity was inevitable by sheer force of manufacturers ramming the products down consumers throats (like AI). The only debate was over which solution was superior: active or passive. 3D movies are still with us, so the tech didn't completely disappear - only from the consumer space.
IMO, Stephenson's books are too long for the stories they tell, especially the final 25-33% - those can be a real slog. I gave up on Seveneves at about 90% or the book, reading it was no longer fun. I read a handful of his prior work to completion when I was a book completionist, so I can't tell of it says anything about the nature of the novels, or my own perseverance.
Companies have always done brand advertising - Marlboro cigarettes didn't truly care about independence, ruggedness or cowboys - they just wanted to be associated with those themes to sell more product - hence the "Marlboro Man". Clint Eastwood, on the other had, seems to personally buy into that image in earnest - so Clint Eastwood doesn't "virtue-signal" about ruggedness and the old west and anyone who accuses[1] him of that is doing so in bad faith.
The culture warriors pretend companies pandering is new, and they term the branding/pandering they don't like "virtue-signalling"
1. He has some pretty strong opinions on who ought to be in westerns that I believe are misguided. My disagreeing wirh him doesn't mean he is insincere/virtue-signaling to the Country-music-listening demographic.
If you cynically believe no one ever is truly empathetic towards an outgroup, or can hold altruistic values on the basis that you yourself do not, then I think it's a sign of something - perhaps not rising to the level of psychopathy - but it certainly shows a lack of imagination.
> Some of them end up concluding it's all a cynical manipulative scam, and everybody else is the same as themselves except absurdly dedicated to keeping up the fiction.
See most people who use the phrase "virtue-signaling" pejoratively.
Forgive me for going meta: Your "Socratic method" falls short when you ignore obvious context. You assumed the liat of reasons I stated was exhaustive, I clarified in my reply that it wasn't and then after another back-and-forth you suggested I may have "inadvertently" stumbled upon the the real reason of your concerns: complexity, which I suppose you felt you were strongly hinting at, but I had explicitly mentioned earlier.
You will save yourself and others time by steelmanning and front-loading your priors - especially in written discussion forums like HN... Unless you're one of those people who enjoy debating more than learning other perspectives. This thread should not have been this deep when I have been stating "there are other factors" in my second contribution to it, and it turns out you were agreeing all along.
The arch of history is long, and we are naturally biased to think of the present as the culmination of history - but it's just a point in time. I do not think "socialism will save us" - but I believe there is a breaking point where society simply will not accept a - as you put it - "more capitalist system".
Politics and economic systems go hand in hand, any economic system, practiced in extremis will be destabilizing. I posit that theoretically the "more capitalist system" wins over the less capitalist one, up to a point, where winning comes at the cost of killing the host society, and thus itself. This is simply a thought experiment, I am not making any declarations on where the US is on this axis.