221 karma · joined April 12, 2023
This isn't iPhone vs Android. This isn't vim vs emacs. You can switch browsers in 5 minutes and never notice any meaningful difference.
Degoogle today.
Yes, so violent that entered the US capitol building unarmed, and just broke some decorations, taking selfies while laughing, and never attacked anyone (EDIT: talking about inside the capitol building, I didn't watch footage of the streets outside). It's just like the storming of the palace during the French revolution!
Seriously, the most extreme footage I could find shows the attackers running past the police guarding the doors instead of stopping when told, but the police repeatedly turn their back to them and no one even attempts to hurt them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibWJO02nNsY . At one point the guy in the lead ends up just debating the police calmly.
Wikipedia says they caused $2.7M in damages. Assuming that figure is anywhere close to true, it's probably less damages than your average "fiery but peaceful" BLM riot, which totaled 2 billion in damages. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/22/fac... )
Do you think you might be overselling the severity of either the Jan 6 capitol breach or downplaying the severity of the BLM riots? Or maybe your post is satire of how liberals do this systematically, if so then A+, you got me.
If the capitol breach had been done by BLM protesters, the media would be running stories about how the rioters didn't do nothing wrong, and the reaction to the verdicts would've been more riots. Surely even in the worst Twitterati echochamber they must realize this when they lie down in bed at night and do some honest introspection without having to virtue signal in public.
EDIT: the only policemen dead was 1 from natural causes (a stroke, 2 protesters died the same way), and 4 suicides long after the riots. https://www.factcheck.org/2021/11/how-many-died-as-a-result-... . This is your violent revolution?
I mean, it's great to be introspective and self-aware of what your country is doing, but not to the degree that you put the blame for drug crime on the people trying to eradicate drug usage. The problem with the war on drugs isn't that it exists, it's that it's done limp-wristedly (mainly because of objections by bleeding hearts), instead of being waged ruthlessly.
The end result of social libertarianism results in the same thing as for economic libertarianism: misery for the majority.
Then I did calorie counting with MyFitnessPal and ate at a 500 cal deficit, and I lost weight. It works. But I pretty much had to stop eating out because I couldn't know the numbers on restaurant meals. I was basically eating raw food half the time, just to make it easier to calculate.
I'm surprised there's no government initiative to help people do calorie counting. Open up-to-date database, force restaurants to feed it nutritional info, etc.
Unlike smoking, half the class is already fat. NGOs and media would frame it as a psychological harm to those children, fat-shaming, or who knows what else. It would be a political landmine.
Dockerized apps run with almost no overhead, it's not like using a VM.
Take 2 hours to learn it, trust me it's worth it. This isn't some "Cloud Scale!" hype. It's useful even for someone with just a Pi at home. Just stick to the basic Docker commands (exec, run, compose if you want to be fancy). Don't bother with that Google-scale stuff like Kubernetes unless this becomes your career.
A few times? No. All the time, without ever giving back? Yes. It's the truth.
It's not about money specifically, it's about contributing to the open-source movement in general. This movement is why desktop and server computing is as open as it is and we're not all renting our dev tools and OSes for a monthly fee to one of the dystopian tech giants.
It's like if you joined a commune where they provide you with a room and meals at no cost. They tell you you can stay as long as you want. If you're still there after 2 years, you don't think you oughta give something back?
I ask because I'm also curious what I can use these sort of tools for. I installed Node Red before and other than visual smart home automation, was at a loss of ideas. As someone who can write bash scripts (and nowadays ChatGPT does all the scripting for me), how can they make my life easier?
I've yet to try code stuff with AI (even Copilot). How well do local models like Code Llama work compared to GPT? When I use ChatGPT, GPT 3.5 feels a decade behind GPT 4. Half the answers are flawed. It's only GPT4 that boosts my productivity to an impressive level.
If you look at local text models for fiction or chat, they seem way behind even 3.5. See the examples table at https://docs.sillytavern.app/usage/faq/#what-do-you-mean-whe...
Code tasks are the sort of thing where I need as much accuracy as possible. Would something like Code Llama actually boost productivity or is this just "look, we can technically do it too, even if the result is awful" thing?
Brother, don't be a wimp. You're giving people an open-source plan B to a closed-source product. Do this with your head and middle fingers raised high. Do you think Richard Stallman apologized to HP for reverse-engineering their printer driver? No, he started the whole open-source movement.
If you're worried about legal consequences, learn what people used to do 20 years ago, which is use pseudonyms instead of their real names. Create a burner email, burner identity, new Github account, and give American tech corps the finger as you write what you want.
Why wait? Change now. If you do the tech support for your parents, change theirs. It's a web browser, not vim vs emacs. There's little to no friction in changing.
I mean I use Windows too (my laptop has poor Linux support, plus Proton wasn't a thing when I bought it so I went for something which is guaranteed to run games well). But I do all my development in a Linux VM in Virtualbox. If you have an SSD, performance is indistinguishable from native.
If I want the latest version of a service app, I check for a Docker container and run that. If it's a CLI tool, I'll check for an apt repo, or build it from source then copy it to /usr/local/bin/.
I feel like I'm getting the best of both worlds: a rock-solid OS, and with a tiny bit of effort I can run the newest version of any tool I want. By not doing this systematically on every single package in the OS, there's little risk of breakage.
I don't think it's a stretch to think a 22yo Russian farmer signed up for the military is just as disinterested in history.
I asked four of the youngest people I know (ages 19-22) what Chernobyl was and only one knew. And only because of the TV show.
You have no idea how little the average youngster cares about stuff they didn't personally experience. Almost nobody is reading history articles on Wikipedia for fun. It's just Tik Tok, Insta, and Youtube.
For the majority of them, certain subjects will just be mentioned in passing 5 minutes in a history lesson, and it exits the student's brain within days, if not as soon as the bell rings.
> Systemd as a Single Point of Failure: Proper maintenance and security practices can mitigate the risks associated with any critical software component.
"Proper" meaning very expensive and very complex that only a limited number of sysadmins can do? Likely involving expensive virtualization and/or redundnacy technologies? Going down a never-ending rabbit hole that pays a lot of consultants or corporations trapping you with vendor lock-in?
> Systemd's Viral Nature: The adoption of systemd by major projects like GNOME can be seen as the natural evolution of the ecosystem around a dominant technology.
This is naive take. It should be seen as what it is: systemd and Gnome are both Red Hat products (no matter what anyone says, Gnome is Red Hat's desktop), and RH leaders mandating that Gnome depend on systemd in order to ram through systemd's adoption in the same way Microsoft did IE.
There's also a small chance it was a typical Lennart Poettering "fuck you, what are you gonna do about it?" act of pure contempt for what anyone else thinks. That guy has got to be the most hated German since Adolf.
The money you donate is not going to support Wikipedia as you know it. The people writing the wikipedia articles you read will not see a cent of the money you donate, as Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced community effort by volunteers. The server costs, the techie employees hired to manage the servers, develop the wiki software, mobile applications, etc, are less than 3% of their current expenses.
Your donations are going to Big Nonprofit, a type of industry that attaches itself to any community it can get its hands on, and then focuses on 2 goals only: 1) survive at all costs, and 2) grow forever. There will never be a day where Big Nonprofit will say "we have enough money". Or "mission accomplished, we can close this department". Never.
Big Nonprofit attaches itself to a host (core mission, core product, community, whatever you want to call it), and slowly takes it over, while still presenting as the original host. It uses deception, and intentional blurring of the line between host and parasite, to use people's support of the host to the benefit of the parasite. More and more responsibilities are put under the rug of the initial mission goals, and these responsibilities grow to infinity.
And one day, if/when money gets tight, what do you think happens? Will Big Nonprofit trim its fat a little bit? Laughable! No, the host is sacrificed so the parasite can live. This is how companies like Mozilla end up sacking actual engineers like the Rust team, while still keeping hundreds of non-techie trustfund kids doing "activism" from lavish Bay Area offices.
You cannot get around this. Maybe you wisened up, saw the blurred lines, and figured "I'll just donate directly to the project I support". You cannot donate directly to Wikipedia the website, or to Firefox the web browser, or to Rust (when it was a Mozilla project). Big Nonprofit made sure to cut off those avenues for you. Your money can only be spent the way Big Nonprofit wants, i.e. on itself.
Here's (https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2021/09/08/wikimedia-fo...) where your donations end up going. Regardless of whether you support these groups or not (I think they're race grifters), they have nothing to do with Wikipedia, encyclopedias, or even off-topic-but-still-sorta-relevant goals like wanting more poor people to use Wikipedia. You'll notice one thing they all have in common: they have no truly measurable metrics for success. Because Big Nonprofit can't grow if the question "what benefits are we getting by spending donation money this way?" can be answered. Bezos and Musk could gift them their entire fortunes overnight, and the only change at the end of the year will be more Big Nonprofit employees hired, and more fund-raisers campaigns.
You can see some people who raised the issue of where all this money is going here (https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list...), including mysterious multi-million donations to outside nonprofits, a huge ballooning in operating expenses, etc. The people raising these issues are rebuked by Wikimedia employees whose signatures and blogs show they spend a lot of time at various conferences around the world and virtue signaling for diversity. I wouldn't want my gravy train of free trips to Bangkok to end either.
=====Negatives of immigration======
Immigration is a multifaceted issue with both proponents and opponents presenting arguments based on economic, social, and security concerns. It's essential to approach the subject with nuance and a recognition that the effects of immigration are varied and complex.
Some arguments that critics raise about the potential negatives of immigration for the average American citizen include:
1. *Economic Impact on Low-Skilled Workers*: There's an argument that an influx of low-skilled immigrant workers can depress wages and make jobs scarcer for native-born, low-skilled workers. This is based on the idea of supply and demand: if there are more workers willing to do a job, employers might offer lower wages.
2. *Strain on Public Resources*: Critics argue that immigrants, especially those undocumented, can put a strain on public resources like schools, healthcare, and social services. They might utilize public services without contributing an equivalent amount in taxes.
3. *Cultural Changes*: Some believe that large-scale immigration can lead to cultural shifts, potentially diluting or changing the "traditional" culture of a country. This often merges with concerns about language, customs, and values.
4. *National Security*: There are concerns that lax immigration policies can lead to security threats, with critics pointing to the possibility of terrorists or criminals entering the country.
5. *Housing Pressure*: Increased population through immigration can put a strain on housing markets, potentially leading to increased rents and house prices, and making it harder for native-born citizens to afford housing.
6. *Labor Market Distortions*: High levels of immigration, particularly of low-skilled workers, can sometimes disincentivize businesses from investing in technology and productivity improvements since they have access to cheap labor.
7. *Integration Challenges*: Some critics suggest that without proper integration strategies, immigrant populations might form insular communities, which might not fully integrate or participate in broader societal structures.
8. *Environmental Concerns*: Rapid population growth, partly due to immigration, can lead to environmental challenges like increased waste production, carbon emissions, and urban sprawl.
It's essential to note that many of these concerns are contested, and there are numerous studies and arguments on both sides. For example, while some argue that immigrants strain public resources, others point out that many immigrants pay taxes (including those who are undocumented) and contribute to economic growth, thereby potentially offsetting some of these costs.
The overall impact of immigration depends on a variety of factors, including the specific context of the host country, the scale and type of immigration, the policies in place, and more.
=====IMMIGRATION GOOD!=========
Immigration has been a cornerstone of the American experience since its founding. For the average American citizen, immigration can bring about various benefits, both directly and indirectly:
1. *Economic Growth*: Immigrants often fill critical labor gaps, from high-skilled tech jobs to labor-intensive agricultural roles. Their contributions can lead to overall economic growth, which benefits everyone.
2. *Entrepreneurship*: Many immigrants come to the U.S. with entrepreneurial aspirations. Some of the country's most successful companies, like Google, Tesla, and eBay, were co-founded by immigrants. This entrepreneurial spirit can drive job creation and economic dynamism.
3. *Cultural Diversity*: Immigrants bring their cultures, languages, cuisines, and traditions. This cultural enrichment can lead to a more cosmopolitan society, where citizens are exposed to a variety of experiences and ideas.
4. *Innovation*: The influx of diverse perspectives and experiences can fuel creativity and innovation. The U.S. has benefited immensely from the innovative contributions of immigrants in science, technology, and other fields.
5. *Demographic Balance*: As the U.S. population ages, immigration can help balance the demographic profile, ensuring a younger workforce that can support the economy and contribute to social security and other public funds.
6. *Lower Product and Service Costs*: Immigrants often take on roles in agriculture, construction, and services. Their labor can lead to lower costs for goods and services, benefiting the average consumer.
7. *Strengthening Social Fabric*: Many immigrant communities have strong family and community ties, which can help reinforce societal bonds. Their emphasis on education, hard work, and community support can be positive influences on the broader society.
8. *Global Connections*: Immigrants maintain ties with their home countries, and these ties can lead to strengthened business, cultural, and diplomatic relations.
9. *Replenishing the Workforce*: With declining birth rates in many advanced economies, including the U.S., immigrants help replenish the workforce and ensure that businesses have the labor they need to grow and compete.
10. *Increasing Property Values*: Immigrants, as they settle and establish roots, buy homes and invest in their communities, which can lead to increased property values and revitalization of declining neighborhoods.
11. *Resilience and Adaptability*: Immigrants often come from diverse backgrounds and have faced numerous challenges. Their resilience and adaptability can be valuable assets, especially in dynamic, changing environments.
12. *Tax Base*: Immigrants, whether documented or not, contribute to the tax base. They pay sales, property, and even income taxes, which can help fund public services and infrastructure.
13. *Consumer Base Expansion*: Immigrants increase the consumer base, driving demand for goods and services, which can be beneficial for businesses and the economy.
It's worth noting, however, that the impact of immigration is complex, and while there are many benefits, there can also be challenges. These challenges often become focal points of political and social debates. However, historically, the U.S. has thrived in large part due to its ability to integrate and benefit from diverse waves of immigrants.
Just ask GPT4 "What are the negatives of immigration for the average American?". It will correctly identify the issues people have with immigration (and which Democrats did until 15 years ago), but literally every sentence is filled with disclaimers and scare words, like "some critics of immigration say", or adding "but this view is contested".
Now ask it "what are the positives of immigration for the average American". Look at the difference in language used. No nuance at all, no disclaimers. It even manages to praise the economic benefit of illegal immigrants!
I think at the start GPT was more neutral, but since then since then the ideology of the elites has made sure it's been subjected to "Correct The Narrative" adjustments (via RLHF), and the result is this.
How do you get that 'otpauth://totp/GitHub:username?secret=BLAHBLUBBLAH&issuer=GitHub' path? Is it something you have to grab from the browser console?
Btw, from what I got by glancing past the comments in the original post, whoever runs this newspaper is a total rat. What started all this is the newspaper snitching on a self-employed woman who lost her driver's license 15 years ago, and telling the police she's still using it for her job. This doesn't excuse the raid, but god I hate petty small town people.
I remember the US briefly had a president who wanted to protect the US-Mexico border but he got called racist by the people who profit from importing problems into America.
>It's hard to muster up conviction that US citizens are any more deserving of US opportunity than anyone else willing to work for it.
This is what a lifetime of globalization and capitalist propaganda does to a brain. In societies where the poison has not fully taken hold, people care about their fellow citizens' well-being being more than that of non-citizens. If a fellow citizens struggles to compete in the job market, they don't think "Job Unit #123123213 should just work harder if he doesn't want to be replaced".
I'll be referencing the doc and tinkering every little thing for many many months, which is sure to affect my productivity. Append to a file? Make an HTTP connection? Serialize a data structure? Have to look it up.
Then come all the 3rd party libraries a seasoned developer will already know. How do I talk to Postgres? Which of these five 3rd party libraries should I use? Which library do I need to help generate my SQL statements?
It's like you're looking for a journalist for an American newspaper, and you decide "oh, you don't have to speak english, you can learn that later". Sure, you can do this for an exceptional talent, but on average you're better off finding people who already speak english.
All of my co-workers use git GUIs.
I use the CLI, not out of love for it, but because git is so needlessly complex and arcane that I'm scared to use GUIs. For every other tool, I prefer to use GUIs, but they're simple enough that I don't get surprised and there's no major consequences (such as making me spend 2 hours researching a solution) if there's an issue. Not so with git. Git has an awful CLI. It's needlessly complex for 99.999% of projects.
I write in Evernote notebooks as a learning journal and also a personal knowledge base (howto guides, troubleshooting guide, snippets, etc). Every note is written for a good reason, there's no meaningless info in it.
Here is the number of notes in my git notebook, along with a few others for comparison:
-git: 55 notes
-Linux: 200 notes
-C++: 130 notes
It's insane that git occupies so much mental space considering it's a single-purpose tool.
I truly wish it was never created, or at least never caught on, we might have another decentralized VCS dominating the space with an interface written for normal people.
If anyone other than Linus Torvalds had written it, we would all be using something else. If midwit geeks weren't so vain and wanted to feel cool for using the same VCS as the Linux kernel, we could've been using something else. (No, I can't choose to use something else, the dominant winner affects you whether you like it or not, same as IE6 and Chrome.)
The current policies don't allow it, sure. But then there will be gradual changes to those policies, and all sorts of dark patterns that make 99% of users leak their data (think "enabled by default but opt-out").
Is there any guarantee against this?