10 ms·

To simplify the argument you presented - 'they need to use the system while simultaneously attacking it'. This makes the assumption that they want to preserve a

by Produce 15y ago

To simplify the argument you presented - 'they need to use the system while simultaneously attacking it'. This makes the assumption that they want to preserve and modify the current system as opposed to outright decimating it. One way of framing their campaign is that they are basically doing what the Allies did to the Nazis, which is to say, bombing without restraint in the hopes of leaving nothing but a pile of rubble where they currently stand. I'm also not entirely sure that they are on the side of the people but more that they are simply against the regime. This makes some sense because, as they say, and I'm paraphrasing here, you can paint shit gold but it's still the same shit. If a century of playing by their rules has brought us no closer to resolving the corruption then its not far-fetched to say that the playing field is skewed by it's very nature. Disclaimer: I don't advocate this approach but I agree with the general assessment of the situation. Personally, I think that it would be more effective to go Gandhi on their asses.

ChuckMcM 15y ago
Without getting into deep political theory here, you realize that the US system at least has built in mechanisms which allow it to be completely replaced right? I understand how some people are frustrated by what seems like an unchangeable system (not saying that you are, just an example) when in fact it is quite changeable. If you have the time and energy to learn how to 'politic' changing the system becomes a question of scale much like if you understand how compilers are built changing GCC becomes a question of scale. New system call interface for an embedded architecture? Pretty straight forward. Changing operator precedence and making integers 37 bits long? A harder thing (still doable, its just code, but the scale is larger because you touch more of the code in the compiler). So to put your comment in 'tech' terms and continuing my gcc analogy, you posit that the goal isn't to change the compiler since that is too hard, rather delete every copy of the source code everywhere and every executable so that folks will have write a new gcc/binutils from scratch. That way the new compiler and binutils will be better than what we have today.

by Produce 15y ago

ChuckMcM 15y ago

Without getting into deep political theory here, you realize that the US system at least has built in mechanisms which allow it to be completely replaced right? I understand how some people are frustrated by what seems like an unchangeable system (not saying that you are, just an example) when in fact it is quite changeable. If you have the time and energy to learn how to 'politic' changing the system becomes a question of scale much like if you understand how compilers are built changing GCC becomes a question of scale. New system call interface for an embedded architecture? Pretty straight forward. Changing operator precedence and making integers 37 bits long? A harder thing (still doable, its just code, but the scale is larger because you touch more of the code in the compiler). So to put your comment in 'tech' terms and continuing my gcc analogy, you posit that the goal isn't to change the compiler since that is too hard, rather delete every copy of the source code everywhere and every executable so that folks will have write a new gcc/binutils from scratch. That way the new compiler and binutils will be better than what we have today.