Do you ever get tired of being angry at everything?

I would argue that Wikipedia is wrong or misguided. There is no serious debate about whether or not dark matter exists. I also think you’ve completely missed the point of my argument regarding the EM field just being only one way to detect the existence of things.

Did you run though a field of wheat like Theresa May?

But it is visible, it’s visible in terms of gravitational effects. We can “see” the effects of dark matter. That is evidence specifically for dark matter, i.e. matter that is very hard or impossible to detect via the electromagnetic spectrum but is observable through gravity.

Dark matter is the explanation, the question is more what form does it take.

It just takes a bit of acknowledgement that actually the EM spectrum is not the only way to view the universe. In fact it’s just one of four (maybe five) fundamental forces. We’re just used to that being the default for seeing because it’s how we physically see. It’s an anthropocentric bias to say something doesn’t exist because we can’t view it via EM radiation despite the fact gravity is clearly showing it to us.

You could use your logic to argue against the existence of black holes. We don’t see them by definition but they are most certainly there.

You make the patents too easy to get and it fucks the little guy over as the big corps hoover up all the ideas. You make them difficult or impossible to get then that also benefits the big guys over the little guys as they will just steal people’s ideas and produce them for cheaper with their existing infrastructure which creates an even bigger monopoly.

There is a sweet spot that society is trying to reach. It’s imperfect like any system but it’s far far better than having no system.

You’ve not even considered that in order to get a patent granted you have to disclose your invention to the public which stops big corporations hoarding too many trade secrets.

All in all, the idea that patents shouldn’t exist benefits nobody except the large corporations. Say goodbye to start ups growing in size if that is the case.

Just because something seemingly doesn’t interact with EM fields doesn’t mean it isn’t there, it’s just something that only really interacts with the rest of the universe on a gravitational level.

We have gravitational evidence. We can only ever infer the existence of anything. An example of this is we didn’t actually see the Higgs Boson we just deduced it’s existence from the cascade of interactions that happens when particles collide. Similarly we can deduce from the gravitational evidence that dark matter exists.

That’s all any theory in physics is. You don’t see an electron, you observe what it does.

It’s all fine calling patents bullshit until you start getting large corporations stealing technology from small and medium enterprises.

The way to ensure that large corporations and no small businesses can thrive have an even bigger monopoly is to get rid of the patent system.

Tired of this shit on Lemmy. Do your homework.

We don’t because we have experimental evidence for it’s existence.

I’m a millennial, just trying to not let the world’s ills bother me now. Life is too short and what you make it.

Why does investment entitle people to live off said thing? That’s because there are agreements between the parties involved. If I want to start a business and need seed money I willingly enter a contract with investors just as they willingly risk their investment capital.

Of course they are more efficient, nobody sets up co operatives. If they were a more efficient way of running a business more people would do it.

Only 1 live album though. That’s surprising considering.

I’ve already admitted the word raid was the incorrect one. I was just questioning the idea that farmers should produce food for no compensation and that anybody should be free to work their land.

But the crucial thing is, people are already allowed to form co-operatives, there is nothing stopping you doing it for example. But outside of a select few niche industries they are generally less efficient and get outcompeted by traditional top down companies.

I invented a hypothetical scenario for a thought experiment yes. I don’t think it’s implausible as a scenario in a communal situation. If there is no private farmland property there is nothing to stop people just straight up taking things and abusing the goodwill of the farmer.

I’m aware that’s not how the modern world works,but evidently there are many in this thread who thinks that’s how it should work. I don’t think I’m engaging in bad faith whatsoever, I’m trying to actively address your points.

Why should workers own the means of production? What is incentivising them to even create the means of production without profit motive?

If workers own the means of production, what would stop them from deciding they’d rather sell said means to a capitalist for a profit?

Does every worker have an equal ownership? Does someone who has been working there for 10 years have the same rights as someone who is new? How do you decide this and who is overseeing this? What mechanisms exist to stop the primary shareholders from just assuming control and deciding to pay wages to people instead?

I agree the word raid was the wrong word to use there

They don’t just find land and build a fence around it though in the modern era, that’s extremely reductionist. They pay for the privilege to work the land. Society as a whole agree the land is his because of this.

How do you parse how much belongs to the farmer and how much belongs to the community? I would argue we already have an arrangement like that. Who oversees this and what do they get out of if?

Most importantly where is the incentive to maximise yield if people are just growing personal crops? What if you want to eat but don’t want to work the land?

deleted by creator

Instead of an ad hominem attack you could try and explain it better.