I'm a membership organiser with a community union and spend an inordinate amount of my time prepping excel spreadsheets with membership data. Is there anything out there I could use to split the entire data set into sheets with tables of, say, 20 members each, their contact details, plus boxes for whether or not they can attend this or that event?
I've been thinking about acquiring one of these for a while, because RISC-V sounds quite interesting, but I think I should ask about it here before I spend money on this stuff and the shipping...
First of all, how well does it run Linux? It appears that MangoPi uses their own distro, so I could imagine that a standard one wouldn't run... I don't know about the Sipeed chips. Did anyone here try?
Secondly, which specific model do you have? It's a little hard to get an overview of what's currently available (MangoPi and Sipeed are the only two that I know), I would appreciate a list or just the name of the one you have.
And, in general, what's it like? Does the shipping take long? What are you using it for?
Aside from the proverbial legal use of "linux ISOs", file sharing software is best known for the facilitation of digital piracy. I'm not gonna lie, as a third world person who grew up in the days of dial-up internet, before YouTube and legal music streaming were even concepts, my cultural horizons would have been much more narrow without P2P software growing up. Radio stations only played (and still play) whatever was popular at that moment, in that place; CDs were expensive, and stores didn't allow you to preview music before purchase other than a few high-charting albums; my family was poor and we were unable to afford video games, and so on.
Piracy via P2P software allowed me to get my hands on a vast amount of music, games, software and movies that I wouldn't have even known about without it. It shaped my life beyond belief, and that's just my personal experience with it. Legal streaming services wouldn't have appeared if the traditional business models of the entertainment industries hadn't collapsed due to P2P piracy. My cultural enrichment experience was certainly not the only one in the world, and there are quite a few popular musicians out there who credit music piracy for introducing them to tons of music they wouldn't have found otherwise.
That said, from a workers-centric Marxist perspective, the collapse of the music industry in particular only worsened material conditions for every musician and band that wasn't a superstar already, as they were no longer able to make a living off selling albums, since sales plummeted directly as a result of P2P file sharing becoming so popular. While the immediate adaptation of the music industry in the early 2000s (iTunes) did try to get on with the times and offer the purchase of individual songs for 99 cents and albums for $9.99 from the comfort of your computer, it did not end piracy, and only the arrival of the streaming model managed to do that.
The streaming model, however, has devalued music more than ever before in history:
- Streaming pays $.004 per stream in average (Spotify numbers, other platforms pay slightly more or less). A small local artist who might receive 1000 streams a month would be making $4 a month or $48 a year. An artist would need 14500 plays every day to make minimum wage off streaming.
- [Only the first 30 seconds of each stream count as a play, de-incentivizing artists from making longer musical explorations and bringing us back to '50s AM radio-era 2-minute tracks as standard.](https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/28/18642978/music-streaming-spotify-song-length-distribution-production-switched-on-pop-vergecast-interview)
- [Spotify will only let artists pitch one song off each album for their curated playlists and for advertising on users' front pages](https://spinnup.com/blog/how-to-use-spotify-for-artists-playlist-pitching-tool/), de-incentivizing the album format as a whole.
- Spotify's algorithm also likes to see constant YouTube creator-style releases from artists, promoting artists that value quantity-over-quality creatively, and hurting musicians who would rather take their time and release one album a year or less. (You might recall your favorite band releasing one album every 3 or 5 years, even. These would fare horribly on Spotify's algorithm).
On the other hand, listeners love the fact that for only $10 a month they can instantly enjoy all the music they can listen to, legally. But aside from the streaming services themselves, only huge artists benefit from this deal. All in all, this represents an absolute worsening of material conditions for the vast majority of artists.
There's this essay here that explains the reasons way better than I can (tl;dr it's the capitalists' fault, both the streaming services and big record labels): https://medium.com/@michaelcbrook/this-is-why-spotify-pays-so-little-how-to-fix-it-1e0c0e1ef860
Now, my questions are: did this devaluing of music really begin with P2P file sharing, and did it directly lead to today's terrible conditions for artists, or is it only capitalism's fault for "locking in" that devaluation by offering unlimited music to customers for the price of a single album a month with a model that benefits the biggest labels over the actual artists? (my personal opinion is that this could be overcome with a different royalty model, as the one proposed with services such as resonate.coop)
But most importantly:
- **Has the revolutionary potential for P2P file sharing been exhausted as of 2022?**
- **Is piracy still revolutionary? Was it ever?**
- **What is revolutionary software now?**
I know I'm focusing on music in this post, since as a musician, that's the field I have the most first-hand experience on, but I'd like to know if the P2P file sharing phenomenon had a similar effect on other industries. Let me know guys if you have any experience on that.
Hacker culture fundamentally contradicts with capitalism in their principles; capitalism is based on surplus value, while hakcer culture is based on communist values: collectivization (of program code) and revolutionary action.
# How the UNIX philosophy favors capitalism
The UNIX philosophy is a philosophical guideline for software development that was formed in the 1970s; it formed because hardware resources in all computers were minimal during that period. An important detail (that is not mentioned) is that computers were under the influence of capitalism. **The lack of hardware resources favors capitalism; because it demands that the consumer must buy more hardware.**
This means that computers developed under capitalism necessitates arbitrarily gradual increments in sold computer hardware. It is in this system that the UNIX philosophy forms. Practice is directly related to theory; **so the resulting theory of capitalist computers in the past is the UNIX philosophy.**
**So, capitalism subverts hacker culture by favoring profit over technology.** LISPs (and by extension LISP machines) have a cultural association with hacker culture due to being efficiently flexible. (I wouldn't be surprised if there was or are propaganda against LISPs and LISP machines as a result.)
Hence, the UNIX philosophy was heavily promoted to fight against hacker culture.
## "Write programs that do one thing and do it well."
This allows the capitalist to easily profit by selling each program under the guise of being efficient due to the UNIX philosophy. Base UNIX tools could have a heavy expense, while more complex programs with redundant functionality have a cheap expense.
# LISP machines...
Lisp machines are general-purpose computers designed to efficiently run Lisp as their main software and programming language. Lisp is an efficiently flexible language that is fostered in hacker culture; LISP's read-eval-print-loop promotes collectivization through interactivity.
Lisp machines are technologically superior in efficiency and flexibility as a result.
## ...promote socialist values.
LISP promotes collectivization (of program code) to the person through the read-eval-print-loop (REPL). A REPL promotes interactivity and experimentation, an environment were a person can freely learn at their own pace.
### Revolutionary Action
**LISP promotes revolutionary action through (the *interactivity* of) the read-eval-print-loop (REPL).** This seems absurd, but think it.
Compilers that do not use a REPL result in programs that can *only* compiled machine code. Program code is difficult to reverse engineer without the source code; because the source code is often converted to machine code. The result is that **programming languages that lacks runtime interactivity dissuade socialist values in users.** The user cannot freely tinker with the program code without the program becoming unstable.
Users of compiled programs, formed with languages designed to soley be executed, are dissuaded from collectivizing machine code in the program and utilizing revolution action to improve the material conditions to achieve goals; even when the program's source code is open.
For example: C is a popular programming language in operating systems; because it lacks interactivity. Open source code often works against the capitalist's advantage, so they close the source code to prevent the proletariat from freely copying the source code and compiling it themselves.
Although the Linux kernel is free and open source, there is still a contradiction between the program code and the user. The program code runs independently of the user because it was not designed with interactivity in mind.
## ...contradict capitalism's principles.
Profit forms the base of capitalism.
Developing high hardware resources for computers are expensive investments; therefore capitalism promotes minimalist hardware resources to increase profitability. LISP machines were expensive to the consumer because more labor needed to be invested in them.
**LISP machines are technologically superior in efficiency and flexibility (due to being a list processor and the REPL);** but capitalism demands halting development for profit; and Lisp machines were only expensive to build because developing good computers works against the capitalist's profit.
**The UNIX philosophy seems to be a mostly corporate philosophy that carries a reformist message;** a philosophy to weakly justify the lack of hardware resources in computers developed in capitalist countries, and distract the proletariat from real change. The present material conditions work against the UNIX philosophy; yet it's still promoted as being efficient.
**LISP contradict capitalism's principles** because it's based on socialist (arguably communist) values: collectivization and revolutionary action. LISP promotes these values through the REPL and favoring linked lists.
I suspect that the UNIX philosophy is intentionally promoted by the capitalist to slow the inevitable development and use of LISP and LISP machines. (This idea hasn't been confirmed.)
So what do you think of this? I'll probably append more details in the future.
For anyone that doesn't know, [rustlings](https://github.com/rust-lang/rustlings) is a "project [which] contains small exercises to get you used to reading and writing Rust code. This includes reading and responding to compiler messages!"
I'm going to help someone with learning Python. After we go through [*Automate The Boring Stuff With Python*](https://automatetheboringstuff.com/), I was hoping we could work through something similar to rustlings, as it's really an incredible set of exercises that helped me immensely.
If there isn't, I might look into creating something similar that follows along with [Python 3 tutorial](https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/index.html), as that covers a good chunk of the language and would also expect a basic grasp of Python and programming concepts.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/351928
> Lisp is a very flexible language; I don't see why people can't just use LISP instead of other language, since it technically has every feature of every language.
> This proposal, for the next standard of C++, which is a general-purpose programming language, lists hardware architectures, OS platforms, and environments that should be prioritized.
From a technical point of view, this is absolute nonsense. It is not the place of a programming language to prioritize hardware architectures or OS platforms. It is the job of a compiler for this language to implement the specification for various platforms and the implementation may be more or less optimized depending on the backend, but the language itself should be entirely agnostic.
And even if you accept the premise that it makes sense to define a list of priorities, let's take a look: none of the various BSD operating systems have made the list, despite having significant, vibrant communities and a long history of working, but Fuchsia, Google's own, not-ready-yet operating system, has. Hmmm. Also, there is a curious insistence on prioritizing little-endian hardware, which would be detrimental to a certain number of embedded systems and other platforms, but it so happens that Google uses none of them.
> And it just so happens that out of the 17 authors of that document, 8 of them are working at Google.
Seems like Google is trying to recuperate the ISO to convert C++ into corporate bloatware. I would be cautious when using C++ in the future.