Ape hierarchies, at least within the troops, are mostly about mating not resource distribution. It’s not like the alpha male gets first pick of the fruit and all the other chimps wait until he’s done and then go in hierarchical order, they just disperse and grab what they can.

If you want to go down an essentialist path most pre-agricultural societies were anarchic. There may be a chief but they “ruled” at the discretion of the tribe. The chief, or anyone really, couldn’t hoard resources because

1. they couldnt monopolize violence and coerce people since there’s no specialization in anything much less violence so violence becomes a numbers game.

2. There’s only so much you can carry. Pre agricultural tribes were nomadic mostly and when the tribe moves camps you have to carry everything with you. So even if you were able to hoard enough food that won’t rot you won’t be able to carry it to the next camp.

3. Because of the above, wealth isn’t really a thing. This forces cooperation because without wealth, the individual can’t protect themselves from hardship. Selfish individualism only works if you’re able to build up some wealth to act as a buffer for leaner times. If you don’t have that wealth then you’re reliant on your social connections so you tend to cooperate and redistribute because it’s in your best interest to stay in good standing with the group so they will help you in harsher times.

All this changes with agriculture and the invention of wealth, first in grain then in gold and then stocks etc. Now your dependence on society is directly porportional to how much wealth you have, to the point where really rich people can fuck off to a cabin or island and never work or contribute to society ever again.

Violence specialization also becomes more or less a thing, increasing up until the invention of firearms at which point it becomes more of a numbers game and the hierarchies lessen.

All of this is to say that hierarchy is not natural, but the result of the ability to accumulate wealth combined with violence specialization and monopolization. If we get rid of those two concepts then anarchy may take over, how we do that in the modern world is another question.

It is anticapitalist by nature in that capitalism is a system where a person can own the means of production and use that ownership to acquire profits. That ownership is a form of domination and creates an arbitrary hierarchy, who makes all the decisions: the owner, why do they make all the decisons: because they had the wealth to buy the company.

You can have organization and markets though without capitalism, such as with anarcho-syndaclism. Basically you have a bunch of coops that are run and controlled by elected workers councils that can trade with each other voluntarily.

Cigarettes don’t need advertising though to stay on your mind, nicotine does a pretty good job of that. I agree with you for things people need, or are addicted to, but there are a lot of things that need advertising to keep there growth.

Like car insurance is a necessity and a fixed market, you aren’t going to buy more insurance or buy it more frequently, so their advertising is mostly to maintain their current market position. If the insurance companies all stopped advertising, their profits would probably go up. But cars you can get people to buy more expensive cars more often and expand the market if you advertise to the people enough and convince them to upgrade. If all the car companies stopped advertising, then people wouldn’t see the need to upgrade unless their car is broken, so there would be fewer car sales, and the market would shrink.

The enemy of this infinite growth scheme called capitalism is satisfaction. If you don’t have a product like cigarettes that generate dissatisfaction from their absence, then you need to create that dissatisfaction with advertising.

You’re making the mistake of viewing a car as a reliable means of transport and not a way to show off how cool and rugged you are.

But then line stops going up, or *shutters at the thought, it could go down

Seems to be more complaining about the lack of it. The better the skill based matchmaking is the larger those yellow slices would be. But a lot of gaming companies know about the gambling mindset of players who want to roll the dice and hope they get in the lobby where they stomp the other team so they’ll make the matchmaking not as good and make it a coin flip on whether your on the stomping team, so the yellow slice becomes smaller.

Yeah, if you repeated this test with the person having access to a stack exchange or not you’d see the same results. Not much difference between someone mindlessly copying an answer from stack overflow vs copying it from AI. Both lead to more homogeneous answers and lower critical thinking skills.

How does that compare to microk8s? I have been using that for a while and like the plugins.

Arms without organization are useless. If you’re thinking about getting a gun for defense against the government first figure out who you’re going to use that gun with.

Individually owning a gun for the sake of owning a gun does nothing for the cause and is just posturing.

but I have to buy one now because there gonna stop selling them

That is gun industry propaganda to get you to buy more guns.

There are like 5 people who post 90% of the content on lemmy. Cm0002 is one of them and really hates tankies / anyone to the left of them.

Most of the content on the “tankie triad” is general left wing anti-us stuff. Occasionally they’ll be some post praising China then some liberal will comment something about tianemen square or uyghurs, get banned , and then complain that the whole instance is full of genocide apologists.

It’s not like there are regular posts praising Kim jung un or maduro like the liberals make it out to be. There are a decent amount shitting on liberals, like the reverse of this post, which perpetuates this dumb instance war. It’d be best if it stopped as were all “radical leftists” in The eyes of the rest of society and were gonna need some sort of solidarity to accomplish the 90% of things we agree on.