At least once you can

Precisely, so the Federation may be anarchist, even though the member races aren’t.

With what we know about how the Federation interacts with other races and planets, real world logic would indicate that the humans could be (and live) the model that the Federation is built upon.

All this is conjecture ofc, and is probably as much an exercise in understanding post-scarcity anarchism as possible Star Trek lore :p

Which is inherently anarchist :P

As it seems a common confusion in this thread, I repeat, anarchism doesn’t have to be without government or rules, several forms of anarchism are focused on not limiting individuals freedoms and/or not allowing power over eachother (while accepting government and rules not contrary to that). Both of which I believe describe how the Federation works.

That’s one form of it, but there are plenty other schools of thought that overlap quite significantly with the Federation, check out the primer on Wikipedia.

Anarchist doesn’t need to mean without government, simply that no one is above another, which is echoed in how the Federation is structured towards the other races.

I’d say they’re post-scarcity anarchist. There’s no central/communal resource dispersal as needed for socialism, nor the central/communal resource allocation/planning needed for communism.

There’s seemingly no authority outside starfleet exerting any power, nor does anyone ever claim a motivation beyond exploration or study (to do something meaningful). The lack of money and unlimited access to replicated resources pending available dilithium also points to a society without exploitative discrepancies.

The humans also never are reported to have any resource hogging, the only tensions/stratification seem to be militarily (and against external parties also diplomatically), meritocratic, and even then the bottleneck seems mostly to be to not fall behind other races.

I don’t see neither capitalism, socialism, communism, despotism, theocracy, nor fascism, but many aspects of anarchism. If you’ve read anything about The Culture, they openly speak about being anarchist, and it’s very similar to Star Trek.

You can’t really help someone that doesn’t want to be helped, until they want it you can only be supportive and an inspiration/showcase/model.

The way to break out of it is to focus on your zone of control and do small, but noticeable things. Even if you can only decide where the papers on your desk go, start there and put them where you want them, then practice putting them back in their new place as they move around.

Build upon that success with other small wins in areas you can affect, and slowly the zone will grow bigger.

How are we doing on this? I’m missing this feature almost every day.

Added information. This is for lemmynsfw.com on the beta, doesn’t show up on this account

Ooh, neat! Thank you.

Are these for all replies? I’m missing a few in that case, wonder when they get removed.

It got pushed through last night for me and everything works again. Thanks for the quick update!

Looks so cool!

Relogging into the account restores the subscriptions

I have no experience with your particular printer, but I’ve had an issue where the bed was very sensitive due to being the edge of the adjustment range.

The bed screws on the Ultimaker 2 are manual screws with springs, and you can level the bed throughout most of the screw length. Having it at one end means the spring is quite loose, and things like weight and nozzle pressure affected the flatness of the bed.

So if you have an elastic tensioner for your bed, maybe set it at higher tension for a more robust flatness?

If you’re always adjusting in the same direction though, it’s not that, and is probably a software error where something doesn’t count Z-position right. Unless of course your printer is somehow getting longer?

Also get that error, it has always uploaded for me though.

I previously suspected it’s format specific, but I’ve recently gotten it for linked posts as well, so now I don’t know

By that standard the only countries not monstrous are those too feeble to ally with.

Plenty of countries on all continents have sided with oppressive regimes, and conveniently ignored atrocities as long as they’re aimed at someone else. In anything from the Korea or Pakistani wars, to genocides in Central America, to slave trading within the African continent.

The West is due some criticism, but this approach is useless.

You are right that things would still look like we’re accelerating away from us, even if we were actually contracting.

Interesting hypothesis! How do we investigate?

What could we expect from a large central gravitational point? We should have other signs of the gravity well:

We would expect a point that we contract towards (and that seems ill fitting, as we see the expansion moves as the observer (including earth) moves), we would expect some kind of mass or similar effect, which would also have a size to fit it in (we know that gravity works different when you’re inside the mass, and we would be able to see it, much like black holes or dark matter), we would expect things to orbit the gravity well (which we know that at least our galaxy doesn’t orbit us).

You might want to actually check on these things to make sure they apply and are true, but at least at first glance it seems the expansion is better explained without a central gravity.

Batches are approved about twice weekly last I heard, and when there isn’t a new botfarm applying 100s of accounts, you should be processed at the next batch.

But the question is not what is simplest for the company. Arguably it would be even simpler for the company not to pay Bob, or anyone for that matter, they could also simplify a lot with not bothering with doing anything beside extracting money from people, slavery and robbery are very simple.

If we change the viewpoint from people living to serve companies, we might arrive at different conclusions, and maybe even a society better suited for humans, rather than companies.

Why? Bob has higher costs and longer preparation time for work.

In economic theory, the job is worth less to Bob, and he should be compensated more for taking it.

Is it fair that Bob should subsidise the company’s labor costs?

Bob’s labor also incurs greater costs on the communal infrastructure (roads, pollution, gas, etc), why should the company not also have a higher burden (higher tax) to compensate the commons for that?