Microsoft abuses their de facto monopoly to engage in gross invasion of their users’ privacy, and continues to try to wrest their users’ control of their system from them by altering system settings after updates, and making some settings nearly impossible to change. And that’s to say nothing of MS’s attempts to turn their operating system into and advertising platform.

That particular statement wasn’t directed at Grayox specifically, it was more about a particular subset self-identified communists on the internet, including (some of?) the lemmy.ml admins, and many users of lemmygrad and hexbear. The ones that correctly identify that the USA is bad, but then prop up the likes of the Soviet Union, the PRC, the DPRK, and even Russia (which doesn’t even claim to be communist) as paragons of good, when often times they’re worse than the US.

Capitalism does not self regulate[…]

Correct, hence “In theory” and “nonsense” in the words surrounding that phrase.

You should try reading Marx and Lenin’s actual writings[…]

I certainly would like to read at bare minimum some of Marx’s works, but ADHD is really not conducive to being able to read even mildly long texts, like I couldn’t even get all the way through Einstein’s Why Socialism?.

There are multiple free audio recordings[…]

Audio is even worse on that front, as I’ll end repeatedly tuning parts out and have to go back and listen to those parts again, which just isn’t good for motivation.

[…]you seem very earnest[…]

I like to think so at least. I just don’t like when people fall into the “A is bad, B opposes A, therefore B is good” trap.

Humanity must escape the all powerful driving forces of the profit motives Capitalism enforces[…]

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

That process if it is to take place will appear extremely authoritarian to those who value profit above all else.

They may attempt to paint it as such, but it need not actually be so. Even if that process were to take the form of a violent revolution (which, to be clear it doesn’t need to.)

Alright, firstly, I think you’re mistaking me as advocating for capitalism. I’m not. Whilst I’m not a fan of labels (they’re so easily contorted away from their original meanings by those seeking to undermine the ideologies they describe), I believe “Socialist” would reasonably describe my beliefs.

Secondly,

[…]authoritarianism isn’t the end goal of ML.

I think you’ve got that backwards. Marxism-Leninism starts with democratic means, then implements an authoritarian regime.

[…]can you tell me what the end goal of this system even is?

No, because there isn’t one. Capitalism actively punishes any form of forethought or long-term planning.

[…]The end goal of Marxist-Leninism is a classes society where each person contributes what they can to society and receives back what they need to live a fulfilling life. They are extremely different.

In theory, maybe. Just like in theory Capitalism self regulates through competitive pressures, or whatever nonsense it is that Capitalists spout.

I’m more concerned with actual effects, and empirical evidence than hypotheticals. Authoritarian regimes invariably turn oppressive, one way or another.

lemmy.ml is run by marxist-leninists (hence the .ml), which is an explicitly authoritarian ideology, and for the record trading one form of authoritarianism for another is not a worthwhile improvement.

I’d rather my worker’s rights didn’t come with a side of authoritarianism, but maybe that’s just me.

It’d be dead easy, actually. Don’t even have to actually ban it: For image generating models, every artist whose work is included in the training data becomes entitled to 5 cents per image in the training data every time a model generates an image, so an artist with 20 works in the model is entitled to a dollar per generated image. Companies offering image generating neural networks would near instantly incur such huge liabilities that it simply wouldn’t be worth it anymore. Same thing could apply to text and voice generating models, just per word instead of per image.

Almost like AuthComs are authoritarian before they are communist, and thus have more in common with the American Fascist Party than any actual leftists.

One more thing I think is relevant to the discussion on the meaning of ‘roguelike’ is the Berlin Interpretation, though I personally think it’s a touch too narrow to be a usable, non-academic definition. Plus roguebasin (where that link is) could probably be placed in the Additional Resources section, being a wiki dedicated to roguelikes.

Yeah, opinions on roguelikes/-lites are definitely very divisive, a problem I think that mostly comes down to prescriptive vs descriptive linguistics. Given that, I think you’ve done a perfectly good job in the OP.

My personal definition of ‘roguelike’ is a game that is turn based, with perma-death and procedural generation, and ideally is also grid-based. A ‘traditional roguelike,’ to me, is more a specific set of games (Angband, NetHack, etc.), rather than a genre, but if you did want to use ‘traditional roguelike’ as a genre, it’d have all of the above, plus be a fantasy dungeon-crawler RPG. I also do think roguelikes and rogue-lites are meaningfully distinct, or atleast should be, even if most people don’t consider them to be. Rogue-lites can be very fun games, but when I want a roguelike, I want a roguelike, not a fast-paced bullet hell whatever. The best roguelikes I’ve played thus far are Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead (CDDA), and Cogmind. Plus I’ve been thinking of picking up Jupiter Hell and Dead Cells when I can, though AFAIK Dead Cells is more of a rogue-lite than a roguelike.