Math or no math, it's simple in this case. You specified: corporations never create jobs.

Then you specified: corporations create jobs.

Too bad I guess that you are missing the most important part of this conversation, your complete inability to admit and learn from your own mistakes.

Individual freedom has never been as important as it is now and is needed more than ever. Individual freedom is exactly is what is missing and the 'libertarian song' as you derisively called it is exactly the idea of individual freedom.

Unions don't help people by the way, people outside of the unions cannot compete for those jobs since union is a labour monopoly. More to the point a union is not just about united individuals it is about special government protections that unions get, so it is about government oppression of individual freedoms.

Lastly you cannot force somebody give you a job. It is just not possible to do legitimately and if it were it would be completely immoral and against individual freedoms. Without freedoms an individual is nothing. Life without individual freedom is not worth anything.

If your ideological position allows you to divide people into groups in the first place (men, women, straight, gay, white, black, rich, poor, etc.), then the people who find themselves attacked as a group in the contemporary space based on that ideology will suffer from discrimination and it shows in courts, in laws that are passed, etc. If a group of people is attacked there will be a counter movement created by that attack, why do you find that surprising or even wrong?

Yes, there are men who have genuinely suffered bad consequences of this ideology where they themselves are in no way proponents of any type of oppression towards any group.

As to the movie itself, well the media is the message, I can see how some people can take any media and message and put theirbown perspective on it. But calling for a boycott is not the same as calling for discrimination or violence.

Calling for a boycott is speech. By the way governments hate speech. Canadian government wants to prosecute a group of people calling for a boycott of Israel because Israeli forces are given orders to target civilians on purpose. Canadian government wants to use so called 'hate speech' laws to prosecute those people criminally.

So AFAIC whether there is something or not behind this call for a boycott, it does not make the claims behind the calls into bad faith claims.

My point is that the advertiser can sell an ad but he cannot make the movie director or producer buy the ad and do something stupid with it. If you are shooting a movie you can decide to take the money and put an ad into the flick the wrong way, but how is it the advertiser's fault or problem if you make that decision?

Sure, no disagreement, but that is not the advertiser who put that coke bottle into a 14th century person's hand, and unless the movie is of quality and type of National Lampoons the movie will pay with horrible reviews. Seriously, if the ad is out of place that is on the director and the movie production company. Considering what people watch today, the Marvell universe, seeing a bottle of coke in the hands of an alien somewhere off this planet and even in a different timezone would be a curiosity more than anything, probably generating hot topics and discussions around the plot twists and gotchas. But Citizen Kane remake with Samsung Android in it would be met with derision. Context and common sense still matter even today, no?

Billboards are immoral? Products in movies? What is the difference what beverage an actor is holding in his hand? It could be anything at all, or it could be somebody paying him for it. Movies are not reality. Commercials between songs? Do you mean on the radio? And how will a radio station stay open if not for commercials? I think using the word 'immoral' in this context is way overreaching. I see immorality in using force and violence of let's say the State to oppress a group of people. But to advertise a brand of jeans in a movie? To put out a billboard? That is a sound practice to let people know you exist and by the way it is not free, the advertiser is supporting something. A radio station a movie, a website.
Now blocking ads is in no way shape or form immoral either, just to make sure you don't misunderstand my position.
I block advertising. But I don't see either advertising or blocking it as immoral. Annoying is the word.

and in your estimation what is the problem with that type of meritocracy?

You are now just stuck to a completely losing position, after being shown that you walked into it yourself by both proposing that A is true and that NOT A is true.

Too bad for you, math is so simple in that case. Corporations create jobs and you said they are not and have never been creating jobs.

You said corporations can buy labour, they are customers of labour and as customers they create jobs.

Too bad for you that you were taught never to admit that you are simply wrong. Simply wrong and shown to be wrong in your own words but the system of so called 'education' that you were put through did not intersect you with the concepts of logic and reasoning, instead it instilled the religious ideology into you.

Only religious ideology will never accept that it is wrong under any circumstances, scientific reasoning, logic, math, these principles understand what a mistake is and people exercising these principles can admit to being wrong and they can adjust their own understanding by admitting being wrong and learn from it not to be wrong again. Too bad this is not something you understand.

At some point you want to buy something from outside of your town or towns and you have to pay a manufacturer or a distributor or a retailer in some form of currency, where are you going to get it if all that your towns' economies are based upon is barter with each other for 'mowing lawns' and other services that are absolutely local and cannot be exported?

The point of trade is to exchange exportable goods (and services if they can be exported), not to move paper around (as many so called 'economists' today believe).

If you want to buy a tractor from a Swiss manufacturer you will have to pay him in some form of money and it's likely that you cannot barter with him and it's likely that you cannot export your lawn mowing services to him either. You will need money and you will need money that somebody will accept, and even more so where it concerns crossing borders.

It's not meaningless if your goal is to steal and that's what that 'article' proposes - theft.

1. Government steals by forcing people to declare all of their cash savings and to justify them to transfer them into the electronic form.

2. Government steals by creating inflation electronically, so it's cheaper and faster for the government to create vast amounts of virtual money and dilute existing savings, thus stealing (creating inflation).

3. Government can steal everything at any time by simply emptying your bank account and leaving you with nothing.

4. Government will steal by setting stupid exchange rates that are absolutely fake, like pegging the exchange say 1USD to 10Pesos while on the 'black market' you would get many times more pesos, for example 100 for 1.

5. Government can control you if you do not have access to your own money, and it can prevent you from doing anything they don't like and punish you for doing anything they don't approve of.

It's a gigantic con, don't fall for it, it doesn't matter what the name of the currency is if you are not even able to have it in your own hands.

Basically if you cannot hold your own money in your own hands but government holds it for you (directly or through proxy banks) you are fucked, you have nothing.

If you try to switch to gold and other currencies of your choice, you will be labeled a 'speculator' and 'enemy of the working class' etc., and you can be dealt with criminally.

I don't get it, is this entire post advertising to sell nolink.com?

I think a wholesale rewrite is unlikely, but I would guess that they are going to eventually do something about the GNU code they use. Apple doesn't like the GPLv3's patent clauses, so they have frozen all their imported GNU utilities at the latest GPLv2 version. Some of these are now getting quite old and not maintained upstream, so Apple has to handle even routine maintenance. They managed to transition off one big one by moving from gcc to clang/LLVM, but there is still a bunch of old GNU code shipped in the base system that I don't see them keeping forever. Now whether they rewrite it in Swift seems more questionable.

Even if you solely cared about white people, the incarceration rate among that population, too, has tripled over the past 50 years.

That's not too far from the direction Linux has been going in general, though it's usually baked on top through the use of something like Ansible or Chef that does the factory-reset bit. As the post mentions, CoreOS is also aiming for something similar.

Like I said the markets are manipulated by the Fed and government 'wizzards'. They do control your mind, such as it is.