Seems like if it could do full XR maybe it could work via positioning without a camera, particularly at a distance where accuracy won't matter so much (make it larger+closer). Mapping every billboard would be a community effort. Art selection, too... though I wouldn't trust people to not put their own self-promotion up either.

It also wouldn't help with branded trucks.

This is why I'm an advocate of stateless market socialism via cooperatives. Theyre tried and true, and who doesn't want their workplaces democratically controlled? Multi stakeholder models don't have to mess with your retirement or university endowments. I believe it is the requisite to dismantling capitalism.

This is an odd one. Genetic testing of parents and embryos to eliminate serious hereditary disease and other similar issues is already a thing. You'll have to clarify what you mean when you say that Eugenics would be nice to have.

Generative AI is dogshit.

Could you just give me a brief explanation of how these work and why that will make them good tools for the uses you lay out?

If you can't give me a high level or rough explanation of how they work, can you explain why you would trust them in these situations?

Makerspaces and tool libraries, my friend. They are real. Not as common as I'd like, but the more people who know the concept, the more might help put one together. Incredibly helpful

Some places have tool libraries which work the same way.

Tool libraries are a thing, lots are setup by the community hall.

Communist! Terrorist! Anti capitalist!

This is my garage more or less. I call it Steve’s communist hardware store.

We couldn't have such a thing here because the surrounding cities round up and dump all their crackheads and methheads here, meaning nothing that isn't nailed down can sit outdoors without being stolen within the hour. They're a plague here and the police are completely and utterly useless.

What are you really saying though?

Here charities do sell a lot of this food, where it's possible and viable to do so.

You can't sell food which is out of date because there's a high likelihood it will be harmful.

Yes, there is a lot of food waste, but IMO that's the inefficiency of logistics rather than greed or trust.

That was a racist pile of garbage aimed at exterminating everyone who isn't white.

It's also patently false.

Look at libraries, museums, national parks, taxes and their use in civilized countries.

Sure, there's shitbricks that feed the bears, but there's more people who will help out and give a shit than there are shitbricks

Sorry, I'm gonna be that guy; this is one of those thought terminating cliches that people love to repeat, but it doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny.

Everything you just described is a problem with literally any political system, as you yourself acknowledged. You literally shot down your own argument, in the same breath as you made it, and then left the falsehood hanging out there anyway. Why? If you've already determined that your case against communism, specifically, is actually just a case against all forms of corruption in any political system, so why would you even post this?

And to dig further into the underlying premise, the idea that Communism "can't work because people can't be trusted" is genuinely ludicrous. Let's set aside the arguments about political corruption, because you already disposed of those yourself, and consider the other framing this is usually given; that any form of commons will be abused. That people are lazy, or selfish, and so sharing is impossible. This sounds intuitively correct, but it simply isn't true.

First off, communism actually requires less trust in people, not more. Communism says "Let's share resources equitably. Let's make sure people actually have what they need so that no one person can take too much." It's capitalism that says "Let's give everyone the freedom to take as much as they can and then blindly trust that somehow a few individuals won't climb their way to the top and horde everything for themselves." The whole "People are greedy" argument is an argument against capitalism, and it's the exact problem that communism solves.

Then there's the "People are lazy and no one will work" argument. We've actually tested this. Multiple countries have run trials of UBI, and in every single case, employment actually went up. When you pay people to do anything they want, including not working, it turns out people actually want to work. People like feeling useful. People like having things to do, and contributing to stuff, and feeling like they're making a mark. The claim that everyone is inherently lazy is thoroughly debunked bullshit peddled by right wing news networks, with no basis in reality.

There's this adage, "The tragedy of the commons"; "commons" referred to land and other resources that were held in common good. Most typically, a "commons" would be a piece of land in a village where everyone could graze their animals. These eventually went away, and the saying supposes that it did so because of a fundamental human failing; a thing shared by everyone became everyone's responsibility, and so it became no one's responsibility. Everyone left the care of the commons to someone else, and so the commons died uncared for.

This adage is complete bullshit. Commons existed for hundreds of years without issue. They went away when we started allowing wealthy capitalists to buy and enclose those common lands and start charging rent for them, or building on them. The people who shared the commons did so without issue for generations. It was allowing a greedy few to do whatever they wanted that killed them.

You're right, we should try to do better. So maybe be the change, and stop repeating right-wing propaganda. They've got enough people on their payroll spreading these lies for them, you don't need to do it for free.

Finland has achieved the eradication of homelessness. (Minus a scant thousand or so people who are willfully nomadic)

The real problem is billionaires.

The research on the topic mostly concludes that giving homeless people housing is very effective.

Throwing out a lot of bad, unfounded assumptions there, boss.

Housing first programs have repeatedly shown to be the most effective way to ...drumroll fucking please, house people!

Most people who become homeless, do so not by bad choices but because they get fucked. Fired at the wrong time. Arrested by overzealous cops who beat the shit out of the first guy that looked like an easy target. Screwed out of rent by roommates ditching with no notice. And so on.

And yeah, a lot turn to drugs and alcohol, because being homeless fucking sucks! Go figure! Enforcing people into a housing program who're gonna get the shakes on the second night is a non fucking starter.

The vast, vast, vast, majority of people Will and Do work to better themselves, given a chance to do so.

Look at every single time a UBI has been trialed anywhere.

Utah, conservative, judgmental, hellhole it is, implemented a housing first program, because it's more effective.

Don't be a nimby piece of fucking shit, you're closer to being homeless than you think

Lobbying is just the act of proposing ideas to public representatives. The problem isnt that lobbying exists, its that its been twisted by monetary incentives.

I dont think that contradicts your general point, mind. As you say, the problem is how money affects politics, the need for representatives to fund their campaigns (and for the less ethical ones, their personal comforts).

Feels like the only issue here is the "unsupervised" part. A simple mechanical dispenser would solve the problem.