There was a form of communism that was not totalitarian back in stone age when it was a necessity for survival.

In large numbers of today, it's likely impossible to implement even with the full agreement of populace (which is unlikely to be ever acquired in the first place and mandatory for such implementation) simply due to greed. In larger numbers, greed easily escapes the only thing that can control it - direct peer pressure.

On the other hand I'm somewhat confused as to how US isn't capitalist right now. It used to be using a mix of capitalism for top end and socialism for bottom end of populace, which is currently the best-performing system we have tried, as it allows both risk and social mobility for low end as well as provides incentives for high end to not "sit on the money and collect profits".

Unfortunately as long as there are more capitalist regions that offer less socialism for low end, that system will suffer economic drain, as happened with entire West and globalization. This is essentially the same as with North-South pre-civil war cituation, slave labor (or near slave labor) is simply too profitable for high end people to pass on. Essentially you could argue that where perfect communism is simply impossible to implement, perfect capitalism may be possible to implement as long as it's held in check by extremely tight regulation and is backed by social mobility-enabling socialism on low end (Nordic model) but it is self-destructive by its nature when even one of these checks fails (current situation in US).

Did you understand the post above? I guess not.

And have a phone constantly reminding the self-conscious user that it's thicker than his penis/her cup?

C'mon, that's not going to happen.

And now we have IRC. And twitter. And facebook.

And suddenly, it starts to look like we've regressed :D

Indeed. Perfect forms of government never existed. However adaptation of these did. Difference being that US does in fact adapt a form of capitalism, whereas USSR did not adapt any form of communism. Instead it adapted a form of totalitarianism that it chose to call "communism" to gain acceptance from the masses.

If you ever really want to find what I'm talking about, find a translated version of "Industrial communism" if there is one. It's a damnably think book that anyone getting higher education in USSR essentially required to know by heart and not getting high marks on exams on that book killed your career chances. It is a wonderful thesis on stalinism, which explains that oppression of people of the nation by party is not actually oppression but "meaningful and necessary guidance".

It's essentially how communist party of USSR indoctrinated those who were gifted enough to potentially join its ranks. Compare to: current DPRK. Note how that particular country calls itself "democratic". Should we assume that DPRK is in fact a model of democracy?

Again, snake oil talk. "Feeling of disconnect" requires MEANINGFUL latency. As in one that your nervous system would actually be able to detect. Even eyes, located on the single fastest and lowest latency data bus of the entire nervous system could not track those speeds.

Essentially, you're again talking about placebo effect. "You'll understand it once you expect it". That is the textbook definition of placebo. The fact that you chose to link the video in question reinforces the point, as it talk about capacitive touch screens, reinforces the point. Capacitive touch screens are INACCURATE BY DESIGN. As a result you get in-built latency because they have to approximate your actual input. Again: this is BY DESIGN. Making capacitive touch with high polling rate and high detection accuracy is extremely difficult and costly. That is why most applications that require low latency input and accurate input use mouse input or similar, or when touchscreen is required, they use a resistive film instead.

Do note that modern optical mice and keyboards do not suffer from such problems because they are - surprise - not capacitive touch based.

Most interesting claim with zero arguments backing it. Would you care to back it up? After all, we have several organizations making studies about corruption, such as Transparency International, and they tend to conduct wide studies on the subject.

Or is your claim based simply on the fact that you believe in capitalism, and therefore like all religions, anything that tries to deny it is simply heresy and therefore can be bashed in the best traditions of "intelligent design style bashing of evolution" as you just did?

You conveniently choose to ignore that back then top rich didn't own but a tiny fraction of the total privately owned property and industry in relation to total. Taxes are indeed relative to many things. One of them for example is what are you paying tax for. If your income is far greater in relation to rest of population than before, as currently is for top earners, you will obviously pay a bigger portion of tax.

There's just one problem: speed of input beyond certain minimum has little to no impact on actual gameplay. The little impact it has is likely in the fraction of percent compared to things like, for example, play skill, quality of environment in which player is playing, comfort of player's sitting position and other factors.

Squeezing extra milliseconds out of your keyboard is snake oil because just like snake oil, it focuses tiny fraction of things that impact performance and only offers a tiny improvement at best and only at that narrow subset. As a result, it is wholly irrelevant to actual performance beyond placebo effect.

You can find this in professional sports in droves. Creation of placebo effect is very easy to profit off.

What you call "communism" was "totalitarianism" that called itself communism.

About the only times when humanity actually had communism as far as historians know it, was back in the stone age when small tribes were effectively forced to share everything because tribe could only survive as a whole. USSR's communism for example severely lacked in the whole "communistic" features, as it had the party that was awash in riches, while people were dirt poor. In this regard, it wasn't very different from capitalism in most 3rd world countries, with exception of it having some social net (i.e. guaranteed jobs for everyone, but these jobs paid for bare necessities in life and that's it).

Capitalism just as the name suggests is "power of the capital". Fascism is a subset of capitalism, where financially powerful megacorporations are in power, rather then capital itself.

Indeed. I'm talking about socialism that actually exists in reality. You are talking about totalitarianism that chose to call itself "socialism" to get wider public acceptance.

Tell me something: when you walk by a man and a woman, and man is savagely beating a woman, you stop and ask if there's something wrong and man tells you this is normal behavior between two married people - do you also accept this as truth? Because your definition of socialism including the source teaching you what it is is very similar to accepting the wife beater's assessment of his violent behavior.

Let's not make such hilarious sweeping assumptions which carry a huge error margin. Your keyboard latency for example is slightly less then one order of magnitude off. Even more so for PS/2, which is IRQ based port, but regardless...

I have even better one for you. One of the most if not the most competitive game in the world, League of Legends has had a brilliant example of just how little small mechanical changes in game dynamics actually do. They had a champion who was considered massively underpowered. They posted a patch that apparently buffed him. Suddenly pro circles picked the champion and used him actively with great degree of success. This lasted for a while.

Then suddenly came the apology from Riot, the company behind the game. They forgot to actually push the changes into the patch.

Vast majority of competitive scene "little tweaks matter" is same as various variants of snake oil for top athletes. They allow people who are already in extreme shape for their discipline to get the extra "push" from thinking they have an advantage. It's literally all in the head of the recipient. A pure example of placebo effect. Because when you spend a little time actually thinking about it, you'll realize that round trip "signal received in optical nerve, signal transferred into brain, signal processed into thought which produces desire for action, signal is sent to brain area responsible for pressing keys, signal encoded into actual signal that causes finger action, signal is transferred into appropriate muscles, muscles contract causing pressing action" simply takes so long, that a difference of a few milliseconds is simply IRRELEVANT. It is far less then difference between taking that same long neural signal trip on two different occasions. I.e. error margin.

But reality is, placebo works. As long as you're convinced that you have uber keyboard, you'll likely perform better. Just like athletes who apply snake oil to their bodies before performance will perform better if they believe that snake oil gives them the edge. And the hardware companies want to sell you the expensive snake oil. Win:win.

Only one problem - it doesn't work on people who don't believe in that variety of snake oil.

Actually it went FAR beyond that. Hitler's agenda wasn't just killing jews , even though many like to present it as such. He was driving the purity of the aryan race through elimination of all those he viewed as inferior in general. There was a great example in the letter exchange between the fuhrer and a certain german father who had a son with severe form of learning disability. Father requested permission to kill his child in the name of purity of aryan race. Hitler got personally involved in the issue and after an exchange of letters gave his personal blessing to the father to kill his child.

Because you never lived in actual socialism. You lived in a society that leaders told you was socialism, and that had as much to do with socialism as Nazism (which notably was also called a form of socialism in spite of being a polar opposite of it).

And notably I'm a finn. I live in a socialist country. So how about you do not tell me not to talk about my country, and I won't tell you not to talk about yours?