Back in the early 70s, NASA engineer tests on a part indicated that a joint with 2 O-rings was too wide and could expose the o-ring. Northrop Grumman and NASA's project manager said it was fine, 2 o-rings meant one was redundent right? and the design made it into the solid rocket booster.

Then in 1977, a different test indicated 1 oring was letting gas during certain levels of mechanical stress. The engineers proposed a solution, which was ignored.

Then in 1980, they asked to test what would happen if 1 oring weren't there and what would happen if the oring was cold. This was denied.

Then in 1981, a return booster was inspected and they found soot between the orings and one eroded, and the problem was added to the critical issues list. And ignored.

This happened again in 1984.

In 1985, they realized when the oring was cold at launch, the problem got way worse. Northrop Grumman finally changed the design to fix it.

But they had a bunch of the old, unsafe part laying around, and NASA didn't want to miss deadlines, so in January of 1986, they launched a shuttle with the part that they knew was unsafe in cold conditions, coldest morning they'd ever launched and a middle-school class watched a live stream of their teacher exploding 10 miles in the air.

This is why disabling downvotes is good. Make those cowards show themselves.

Racists who know enough not to talk openly shouldn't be able to passively influence discussion either.

What exactly was wrong with Kruschev's decision to send the tanks into Hungary to stop the fascist uprising?

Given the historical context of the literal genocides the US was facilitating in asia and south america at that time, even if you ignore the literal fascist collaborators hijacking the movement and pretend it was just a bunch of liberals fighting for "freedom", keeping them from falling within the west's claws would have been justified.

If your criticism was that the USSR was too heavy handed putting down the fascists, look at what's happened since.

brigade

It's not brigading, this is the top thread on both of our instances and the admin OK'd our input. blahaj had 2 Hexbear federation threads, one including everyone and one just for blahaj users.

Also hexbear doesn't have downvotes, so we have a culture of responding to add or refute information.

debate ideology

We're pretty disdainful of debate culture. A discussion where both people are trying to appeal to a third party instead of have a genuine discussion is inherently in bad faith.

This ain't it chief

Is being an asshole back to the guy really productive, here or in general?

I've seen more posts complaining about Hexbear than actual objectionable things they've done

I've seen a few posts from instances we've never federated with claiming outlandish things about hexbear such as that we're unmoderated, controlled by ExplodingHeads, overwhelmed the moderation team at Lemmy.world (who once again, we were never federated with), accusations of racism/misogyny/transphobia, etc. There's at least a couple people who're just making shit up, but that's to be expected.

"Ukraine shouldn't even exist, long live CCCP"

That doesn't sound like something that would be posted on Hexbear, except in The Dunk Tank.

It's the kind of concern a nationalist would feel, Leftists don't typically ascribe human traits to states, rather they're evaluated by how the affect the people within. When we say Israel shouldn't exist, we're not talking about the land or the people, we're talking about the state keeping over half the population disenfranchised and in inhuman conditions.

Not spending any more blood to enrich Raytheon's shareholders and strip the copper out of Ukraine's walls is infinitely greater concern than what flag flies over Kiev to us.

downvotes

Must have been from another instance. We can only upvote.

Hexbear removed downvotes because some transphobes were using sock accounts to manipulate votes and create a hostile environment for our trans comrades. This has the added effect of encouraging people comment if they disagree rather than silently downvoting. In the short term, it makes threads as chaotic as this one, but in the long term, everyone gets a more nuanced understanding of the issue even if they don't come to an agreement.

Just for the record, nobody thinks you need to individually give up your houses. These are systemic critiques, the contradictions of capitalism aren't solvable by capitalists and landlords being more generous.

If the owners did all decide to be more generous, they'd eventually get out-competed more effective capitalists as the tendency for the rate of profit to decline squeezes them tighter.

Pol Pot

The fascist whose faction was put in power by the US, that was overthrown by Vietnamese communists? Whose gov't-in-exile the US supported against the communist People's Republic of Cambodia until 1993?

That's some "hitler was a socialist"-level bs

This is the kind of thing I really hate to see. It's the reason I'm going to be leaving

I'm sorry. I do hope you come around to at least tolerating leftist perspectives before you leave for an echo chamber. That all wealth is created by labor is one of the core leftist beliefs, you'll find anarchists, communists, democratic socialists, etc all agree on that.

where are you expecting people to live?

In houses. There's dozens of vacant homes for every homeless person. Just as capitalism requires some people be hungry to maximize profit of food, it requires some people be homeless to maximize profit of landlords.

These homes are owned by someone- they worked/paid/built them themselves.

The people who build houses deserve to be compensated for their labor. Owning a house on the other hand, is not labor.

Why do you think these people who have toiled for 40+years should just give you there invested money/work for free?

Rent isn't compensation for the construction of a home, otherwise the renter would own the home after 20 years of renting paid off the mortgage.

Why are they evil for using something they have worked for to help themselves?

I'd categorize the parasitic relationship as evil, but as for judging individual people for the poverty and homelessness caused by that relationship, it's more complicated as we live under capitalism.

Inevitably someone like you comes along and just shitposts this same rhetoric you just did with no logical backing behind it other than "evil landlords must die and be redistributed"

Are you talking about the description of the cultural revolution in that one province in China people post? In the context of generations of peasants seeing their children die of starvation-related disease or conscripted never to return, the people were more merciful and practical than just. It's easy to criticize any change if you ignore the violence of the status quo. To quote Mark Twain:

THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

How is a house different from a farm? Or a rail system? Or a insert anything created by someone and used for personal gain?

It's not.