this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
1363 points (97.4% liked)
linuxmemes
21584 readers
1018 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anarchy is not absence of rules, it's absence of hierarchy. So you could still collectively agree to certain rules for merges.
Basicaly democracy on steroids
So we could use a blockchain....... (/s)
But then one person disagree with those rules and we're back to no rules
You can have a majority vote system.
Which is not a collective agreement and not anarchism, if it imposes rules on those who voted against.
Is it not possible for the people to all agree to respect the result of the majority vote even if they voted against the motion?
Which requires a consensus.
An initial one.
Which can be broken at any moment, and no infant is bound by it until they accept it, and they have the choice of not accepting it.
Expecting some aliens to bring us the end of scarcity is similar to this in terms of probabilities.