The appeal of Gentoo is not compiling everything from source, it's having the freedom to install anything you want on nearly any hardware all with stellar documentation and minimal roadblocks. Want to run Enlightenment with OpenRC and NetworkManager on a laptop from 2008? Install Gentoo! Want ZFS as root on a smart refrigerator? Install Gentoo! Want a vanilla Gnome + SystemD install on a brand new laptop? Install Gentoo! The decision to ship binary packages only gives users *more* choices while other distributions have been actively removing one's freedom to choose. Debian, the so-called "universal operating system" just dropped 32-bit x86 support. You can install an alternative init system on Debian if you'd like, but it's a bit of a PITA. Meanwhile Gentoo allows you to pick between 17+ different stage 3 tarballs and 35 eselect profiles. Personally, I enjoy compiling everything from source and the flexibility that comes with it. On modern hardware it's painless. If you disagree, great! Go install a shiny new binary. The selling point of Gentoo has never been portage. It's always been the flexibility and the community.
You’re not alone! I run Gentoo on all my devices. GPD Win 4, Pixelbook with coreboot, my NAS, and a VPS. Why (IMO)?
1. Best documentation I have ever used.
2. Infinite amount of customization. Your system can be as minimalist or maximalist as you’d like.
3. Portage overlays > AUR any day of the week.
4. Choose your own init system. Want SystemD? Fine. Want OpenRC? Go right ahead!
5. It’s hard to understate the power of a good community with well-described values. I feel safe and at home with Gentoo because I know that it will always value the #1 thing I care about on Linux: freedom. Gentoo is like a choose your own adventure. Want to run SystemD + Gnome + PulseAudio + binary packages? You can do that. Want to run OpenRC + Hyprland + Pipewire + NetworkManager instead of netifrc? Go for it!
Gentoo isn’t about compiling everything, it’s about choosing everything. Today’s announcement (although irrelevant to me) gives users more choices.
Honestly, this is a very privileged take based upon false assumptions. As someone who doesn't have disposable income ~90% of the books I pirate I would have never read otherwise. I'm not depriving the creators of income because I never had any to give them in the first place. Over 53% of Americans between the ages of 18-34 do not have any disposable income [1]. Additionally, Americans that do have disposable income should probably be saving it all in case of an unexpected medical emergency or layoff. These problems are only worse outside the United States. Before you lecture me about public libraries, go ahead and take a bus outside of San Francisco or whatever major city you live in and try to rent a book published in the last 5 years... I'll wait. For all of human history the poor simply didn't read. Digital piracy has changed the world for the better. As an (unsuccessful) author myself, I beg anyone who cannot afford to pay for my work to pirate it. Most authors I know feel the same way. If you're only into writing for the money your work probably sucks anyway!
It's basically effortless to implement such changes and helps foster a more inclusive and educated online community. Why can't we aim to right all wrongs? Just because there's more pressing issues doesn't mean we can't tackle all forms of injustice.
What would you rather have us measure a mass-extinction event in, "sad puppies per second?" This shit is life-and-death. I'm sorry that reality offends you.
"If you believe that anthropogenic climate change is going to be a global disaster, you should probably reasonably assume that some country in the world is going to allocate serious resources to mitigating it."
Not when mitigating it requires ending and reversing economic growth. You're assuming there's a single nation on Earth run by good-faith actors. Furthermore, if climate-drive austerity doesn't occur, the Earth will kill billions of people until it reaches a new equilibrium.
Climate change is a result of overpopulation and overconsumption, though. It's right there in the name. The climate is changing as a result of anthropogenic activity. I fail to see how eco-fascism affects the outcome here, if we do not cut our population and consumption the planet will do it for us.
Yes, but more specifically, all technological progress since the industrialized revolution. Prior to that, we at least had a reasonable credit limit in the form of a fixed Nitrogen cycle. Advancements in pre-industrial technology primarily made life easier, not more abundant.
This is an emotional response and not a scientific one. The Haber–Bosch process was the biological equivalent of a deferred-interest loan. It gave us enough food to scale from 2 billion to 8, but now the planet is coming to collect its dues. We never had the natural resources to support humanity's current numbers, and by inflating our Nitrogen supply and stripping the Earth of everything else we need, we've utterly fucked it all up. Degrowth would be the worst tragedy in human history, but it would at least give future generations a chance. Geo-engineering is like paying off one credit card with another. It's a recipe for further disaster and doesn't solve the underlying issue. Humanity has to default.
Testing YakGPT right now, excellent work! I would recommend adding some screenshots to the GitHub README so that people can get an idea of how it looks before entering their API key.
I'm trying to make the term AGC or "Artificial General Competence" stick. Perhaps this makes me a huge arrogant asshole, but I would argue that most humans are not even competent, let alone intelligent. GPT-4, in my mind, has already surpassed the bulk of humanity in terms of competence. This milestone is (IMO) significant enough to blow up society.
My entire point was that we should strive for neither. We could half per-capita energy consumption in the US and still consume twice as much as Brazil. If everyone in rich countries stopped being greedy we could easily meet global demands with renewables alone.
Call me chicken little but my beef with nuclear has always been about the people not the science. If we paint the Earth with reactors it’s a statistical likelihood that through corruption or incompetence someone will screw up. We can’t even keep 50 year old bridges from collapsing in the U.S and meanwhile every time a republican gets into office they bleed FEMA and the EPA dry. We currently have 55 power plants total but would need about 100x that to even put a dent in our electricity bill. Who’s going to build them? Contractors? How are those F-35s Lockheed made going? Another issue is that there are significant odds that global society is on a path towards collapse or backslide due to climate change. If we entered a period of catabolic collapse and governments around the world no longer had the money or infrastructure to manage the upkeep of these facilities what would happen. You can’t just flip a switch and turn the whole thing off. I’m not someone who thinks the world is going to end in a day but look how quickly things have deteriorated in Pakistan recently. Would governments have plans in place to deal with reactors if their economy suddenly collapsed? Honestly the biggest thing to me though is that nuclear is greedy. We’re trying to find cheat codes to avoid conservation and continue consuming copious amounts of electricity. It would be vastly more cost-effective and far less time consuming to dump all that money into energy reduction measures but that would disrupt capitalism and America’s addiction to endless consumption. Residential energy usage in the U.S is higher than commercial usage. Imagine if we banned cars in cities tomorrow, dumped money into public transit and high speed rail, banned meat, built sustainable urban housing, forced tech companies to do away with planned obsolescence, stopped flying unnecessarily, and so on. We could solve climate change in a decade through conservation but that would destroy the profits of those in power. Nuclear might sound great on paper but it’s the planetary equivalence of taking tums instead of putting down the Costco hotdog.
What privilege you must enjoy to have such fucking stupid "ethics" lmao. You wouldn't last a day in my shoes. Money only gets you so far in life, kindness and mutual aid goes a lot further.
That is a wildly skewed outlook. The per-capita income in America is $35,000 (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/SEX255221). Household income, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, includes the gross cash income of all people ages 15 years or older occupying the same housing unit, regardless of how they are related, if at all. Meaning my household income is somewhere above $100K because I have 3 roommates. Typically, the lower your income the more roommates you have. Median household income is a useless figure for determining how well the average American is doing.
I am absolutely genuine, and I think you do not understand the average American. The rest of the world may dream about our wages but it's still putting lipstick on a pig. Most the people I know can't even feed their families right now, let alone buy a book for pleasure. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but the lives of college-educated middle-class Americans and above are not representative of the majority. I will clarify, I obviously DO NOT think that my situation compares to someone in another country, specifically under-developed ones. In the context of books and recreational activities, however, I think you are vastly overestimating the US.
I appreciate your sentiment, and trust me I really do want to support people like your friend, but no I literally do not have any money for recreational activities (and if I did I would buy a videogame or boardgame because it would last longer). I make $13.50 / h (which is above minimum wage here in Arizona) and go to school full-time. Rent is $1,000 (absolute cheapest I have found in my college town), groceries are roughly $500, gas is $50-$100 depending on world affairs, utilities are $250,public transportation (so that I don't have to pay for parking at shool) is $50, and the list goes on tbh. I'm lucky enough to have a Prius that was given to me by my family so no car payment even. I'm one of the lucky ones for being in college at all. This is the America that most people live in. Well even that isn't true, I have it way better than most.
It goes back to opportunity though. Most people who pirate books don't have the income or ability to purchase them new. The scale is irrelevant if the per-user profit opportunity is 0. The only thing that changes is more people read and further their education.
That's a logical race to the bottom that makes me think you have never checked out a book from a US library. If you were to calculate how much an author makes from their book being in libraries it's miniscule. For starters most library books are donated secondhand and not purchased new by libraries. Secondly, most libraries only have a single copy of a given book unless it is a major title (It's not uncommon for waitlists to be booked up for months where I live). Additionally, most titles are shared across multiple libraries in a state or city. Where I live you can return a book to any library because they just circulate copies around the state. Regardless, there are roughly 9,000 public libraries in the U.S. let's pretend that every single library purchases 1 copy of a given book new (an extremely generous estimate). Most authors are not self-published and earn 10-12% royalties, but let's pretend this author is self-published and earns around 40% from their printer before operational expenses. Let's also pretend it's an absolute banger of a book and is selling for a whopping $20/copy. That means they make $8/copy before taxes, bookstore fees, shipping, and other expenses that the self-publisher does not pay for. Let's be generous and say they somehow make $8/copy after all of that. If every library bought 1 copy (which, again. They do NOT) the author would earn $72,000. That's absolute peanuts compared to what they earn on Amazon from people who can afford firsthand books. The point of libraries and piracy is not to stop people who CAN afford books from buying them. It's supposed to enable those who CANNOT. A more productive approach would be to publicly fund authors but according to Americans that's filthy communism.
It's very simple actually. You (and most of HN) live in a tech industry bubble. Living wages in the U.S are terrible and disposable income is non-existent. I work a 9-5 just like everyone else but when it comes down to it I don't have the money to buy new books. I can either buy used paperback from a second-hand store, go to the library, or pirate an epub. None of these options pay the original author and are effectively the same. Given that I was never going to pay anyways, why do you find the third option unethical? It hurts absolutely no one but greatly enhances my quality of life and (in some cases) helps society by making me a more educated individual. The only thing piracy costs authors is opportunity (which in my case was always 0).
While the Julian calendar was clearly more secular, The motivation for the adjustments in the Gregorian calendar was to re-align Easter to a historically accurate date and to ensure that people around the world were celebrating it at the same time. While you are definitely right that the Gregorian calendar stems from Roman culture, one cannot deny that its revisions were religiously motivated and funded. Further, that its history and global adoption is intertwined with the spread of Christianity around the world. With its global adoption cultures all around the world have lost their connection to their own calendars and practices.
While the Julian calendar was clearly more secular, The motivation for the adjustments in the Gregorian calendar was to re-align Easter to a historically accurate date and to ensure that people around the world were celebrating it at the same time. While you are definitely right that the Gregorian calendar stems from Roman culture, one cannot deny that its revisions were religiously motivated and funded. Further, that its history and global adoption is intertwined with the spread of Christianity around the world. With its global adoption cultures all around the world have lost their connection to their own calendars and practices. As for the BC/AC part I believe it was always part of the Gregorian calendar? The Julian calendar also used BC/AC. :)
EDIT: I meant to say that the Julian calendar did not always use BC/AC but adopted it some time prior to the invention of the Gregorian calendar.