Yes, the famous communist fascist. His name is Stalin. You've probably heard of him.
In a world gone mad, you'd have to be insane to stay sane.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 307
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 307
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Sometimes they do. Sometimes they are a useful promotional tool for the cause. Sometimes they don't work at all. How do you know which will be which? You don't.
Every person who supports a boycott very slightly improves its effectiveness, either directly or to create more awareness of the cause.
Avoid black-or-white thinking. it does not have to "win" to be part of a change, it only has to have the chance for change or contribute to change, and we won't know how much of a contribution it made, if any at all, until and unless the change eventually happens. It may be the butterfly flapping its wings that causes a hurricane, or it may be a butterfly flapping its wings that does absolutely nothing at all. Either way, let the butterfly flap its wings first, and then we'll see what happens. It is neither guaranteed to succeed, nor guaranteed to fail. That's the kind of black-or-white thinking you need to avoid. We don't live in a world of certainty, the world is a complex place full of uncertainty. We try because there's a chance, not because it's guaranteed, and the chance to make a change is the worthwhile part you should be pursuing. Seeking absolute certainty from future events is a form of self-sabotage.
You're trying to use logic to understand it but you also have to understand that the only actual logic about it is the logic we've intentionally applied to it, by choice. Money only has the meaning we give it.
It makes more sense when you realize it's all fiction. It's just a game we play our whole lives because so many of us are very competitive and the ones who aren't still have to compete against the ones who are, and at the highest levels of national policy they're not even playing the same game anyway. They're using it to metagame against other countries.
It's called a seedbox. Most of the ones I've seen support wireguard in some way, but sometimes it's not part of the basic package.
I think the risk of that approach is that if you attempt to copy their accent too literally it can sound like mockery, especially if you are clumsy in your imitation. Like you're breaking out of your own accent on purpose because you think their name spoken in their accent sounds silly, and by repeating it in an exaggerated way you're demonstrating how silly it sounds to you, and that kind of response can be interpreted as mocking or sarcastic.
I think it's safer if you try to strike at most a middle-ground between your own accent and their pronunciation, use it as guidance for the sounds but still keep it clearly in your own voice. When somebody has an accent I expect my name to be spoken at least to some degree in that same accent, so it's not going to need to be an exact facsimile of the sounds I made.
That's my thoughts anyway, as a native English speaker.
I work with a lot of people around the world and I feel like I mangle my foreign coworkers names so badly, despite my best efforts, especially if I've never heard anyone else call them by name before. Sometimes if it looks too intimidating I'll just ask how to pronounce it and do my best to mimic what they say. Most people are super understanding and helpful and sometimes even amused, but I have to imagine it must get a bit tiresome. I can totally understand why some of them choose to use "western" names instead, and I respect their choice if that's what they want me to call them. I probably would too if I were in their position.
Still, I wish I was better at it and could easily speak their native name, I feel like it's more respectful when I can finally get it right.
I still think the original actually looks great, in a way. It's so low-poly it transcends into a sort of retro-futurism. Who needs spheres when a dodecahedron already looks totally techno? Gunther's face looks so angular you could cut glass with it? Well of course, he's basically a robot!
They won't stop there. AAA game developers and the awful productivity software giants like Adobe, Oracle and Microsoft themselves have already gotten everybody used to live service, cloud software, and subscription models where they have all the control and you're just renting. They will destroy indie software and games next too, if we let them, Microsoft's TPM requirement on Windows 11 is likely just the first step in putting up unbreakable walls around their garden, which they would build even faster if Linux weren't providing real competition they can't just buy to suppress.
Analyzing your own feelings through the lens of stoicism may help. I'm not saying you have to live by the philosophy but it may help you decide which of your feelings actually make any logical sense, and that may help inform whether it's worth destroying a friendship over them.
...using this one simple trick!
Horrible idea. You'll likely end up syncing a mess of unnecessary, incompatible and conflicting binary build files onto different platforms, you'll end up with internal file conflicts that are impossible to properly resolve and will destroy your repo, especially if you're still using git on top of it. Don't do this. Git has its own synchronization mechanisms for a reason, they are extremely mature and specifically designed for maximum efficiency, safety and correctness for the task at hand, which is managing source code. Millions of people use git for source code every day. It is a solved problem.
Syncthing is literally the WRONG tool for this job. It is a great tool for many situations, but you are using it as a hammer when what you need is a saw.
You are correct, and I am still a bit sad about it, because gitea was a cuter name and logo TBH. But Forgejo is pursuing a technically superior design and socially better path at this point.
At the end of the day all governments are desperately afraid of making people angry (at them), from the healthiest democracy to the most totalitarian dictatorship, because the people are always the overwhelming majority, creating all the goods and services, creating the surplus that the rich and powerful exploit and enjoy, and therefore ultimately holding all the real power no matter how much legal, policing and enforcement structure is built around them. Some governments are just extremely creative at making people forget that or preventing them from learning it in the first place, while finding ways to manage their expectations to either convince them to be happy enough, or to make sure they're always going to be angry at somebody else (or each other), or some combination of the two. They usually turn to the latter when they fail at the former. When they fail at both, it tends to become a revolution.
Redundancy. I have two independent firewalls, each separately routing traffic out through two totally independent multi-homed network connections (one cable, one DSL, please god somebody give me fiber someday) that both firewalls have access to. For awhile was thinking of replacing the DSL with starlink until Elon turned out to be such a pile of nazi garbage, so for now DSL remains the backup link.
To make things as transparent as possible, the firewalls manage their IPs with CARP. Obviously there's no way to have a single public IP that ports itself magically from one ISP to another, but on the LAN side it works great and on the WAN side it at least smooths out a lot of possible failure scenarios. Some useful discussions of this setup are here.
I regret attempting to answer your question in good faith. I should've known you'd be an asshole about it. All your other comments on this thread are asshole replies too. Fuck off, loser.
This is an overgeneralization. It is not always okay to insult someone for their state. In fact, I would argue that it is only rarely "ok" and that requires certain rather specific conditions to be the case.
People often do it without it being fully okay, because not everybody agrees exactly what these conditions are, and that creates an unwinnable situation where you're guaranteed to offend somebody, and some people decide that is acceptable. Is this is a "majority rules" situation where if the majority are not offended it is okay? Not really, but many people (perhaps even the majority) treat it that way.
I would offer to describe some examples of the sort of conditions that apply, but doing so is fraught and dangerous, not just because nobody agrees universally, but also because anything I could possibly say about someone's state, someone else will invariably chime in and try to apply the same logic to gender or race. They will use it as an excuse to justify racism and sexism as if they are simply being reasonable. It is a trap and I will not fall into it.
Instead I will offer you some questions that you can use for yourself to decide what conditions you might think should apply. And then you can feel free to apply them or not. I'm not your dad. None of these are absolute anyway, they are always on a sliding scale, there are always situational elements and not every situation is going to be the same.
- Does a person choose to live in a state? Were they born there, and did they have a choice about that? If they do live there, would they choose something different given the opportunity? Is it plausible that they might get such an opportunity eventually?
- Does a person sometimes insult their own state? Is it okay when they do it? Is it a joke when they do or are they serious? Familiarity breeds contempt, but sometimes we just need to vent about our own situation, and that doesn't mean it's automatically okay for others to do the same or double-down, or sometimes you are welcome to play along. How do you know the difference?
- Could the target of the insults be interpreted to be directed at the state's government, law enforcement, education or other specific state-level systems rather than an individual or the state's population as a whole? These sort of things probably qualify more as free speech rather than hate speech.
You're absolutely incorrect about IRC. Would you like to learn? Open IRC federation is basically never used anymore and the few networks that exist are very stable (if not completely calcified), but it is a core feature of the design, and in the old days, massive interconnected networks of IRC servers like EFnet and Undernet spanned the globe, there were even some servers that allowed open federation (EFnet is actually named for it -- eris-free-net referring to the last server "eris" that supported free federation), and at some points Netsplits were a frustratingly daily occurrence. Like with any federation, abuse is the reason we can't really have nice things anymore, but IRC absolutely supports federation. Not very well from a modern standpoint since it didn't really keep up with the abuse arms race, but when it was first conceived it was way ahead of its time.
This is why I don't trust mandatory 2FA/MFA. When I am forced to use it, I am very careful about how it is implemented and ensure that alternatives are available if possible. Most people won't be so cautious, as the article describes. So many people have allowed verification their identity to be inextricably attached to their phones and phone numbers -- devices and services which, in almost all cases, they do not actually fully control. This is by design on the part of the companies doing this. They say it's about trust, but trust is a two-way street, and I do not trust these companies, these devices, or their motives.
IRC and XMPP are infinitely less painful, honestly, and both were designed around federation from the ground up, long before it was cool.
The problem with "necroposting" in a forum is that it bumps the topic to the top as if its new again, some people think its actually new, and it usually starts the whole discussion over again, stealing attention from topics that are actually new and relevant. That's why people hate it.
It doesn't work like that on the threadiverse. The only person who gets notified is the person whose post you are replying to. It does not get "brought back to the top". It only exists if someone searches for it, and that doesn't trigger the same "viral" flood of comments as it does from being bumped to the top of a forum.
Some people don't understand the distinction, and have evolved their habits in forums that frown on such things, so they continue to frown on it here without thinking about why they hate it so much. They will still hate it if you do it to their posts, and that's perfectly valid for them to feel that way, even I feel that way sometimes, but you don't have to abide by their rules. In summary, fuck the haters, necro everything, at worst you're simply leaving your wisdom for some future searcher.