• 14 Posts
  • 173 Comments
Joined 10M ago
cake
Cake day: Mar 25, 2022

help-circle
rss

Reminds me of those aereal photographs of the Sentinelese.


Is it like /dev/null or should I be selective with what I post there?

When trying to fall asleep some words came to me, but they haven’t really been gnawing at me, but I desire to write them somewhere.


I don't know who the photographer is.

Oh no! Europe has been corrupted by China and is now following their example and banning videogames!



The China Bad Times

My search engine doesn’t show anything for that term. Is it a real thing?


Business as usual.

(Just wanted to say that. Regardless of whether it make sense in this context.)


Yeah, you are right. Now that I think of it, nsfwing it sort of allows people to choose a middle ground (since blocking it would, make it so that you never see it, which may not be desired by some who want to avoid that type of content but still sometimes want to see it regardless).


Not sure if that would be necessary, since the user can just block the community, if they don’t ever want to see it. I think it should be marked as NSFW if the posts within were able to cause harm to some people by just viewing a single post.


I just tried that game.

Is there any way to decrease emissions? It seems that regardless of what I do they always increase (the lowest increase I ever got was when I turned everyone vegetarian where emissions only increased by 0.4, and then immediately continued increasing). I completely got rid of fossil fuels in energy production (relying now on nuclear, wind and hydro), funded mass-transport to cut fuel usage (I haven’t changed fuel production one bit, because every alternative seemed equally bad, so the most reasonable choice was to simply decrease its consumption) and, as mentioned earlier, enforced vegetarianism. Nothing seems to decrease emissions.


But others may not and even with a big display it can get bothersome if you have multiple buffers open on screen.



Some comments sound a bit weird, when you don’t know SS stands for Secret Service here.


I think there’s actually a subreddit for those maps: r/portugalcykablyat/


That green country on the south east of Africa is not Zimbabwe. It’s Moçambique.


I think it’s the same on Reddit, I guess. Reddit’s algorithms just avoids showing you the posts that don’t seem to be so popular (though, at least on the subreddits I was, I remember there were a lot of posts that didn’t have any comments or only had a bot comment. I actually think Lemmy might be even more active in the comments than on Reddit)



In this case, it’s because the main focus shouldn’t have been to electrify individual transport, but to to get rid of it and built up public transportation.


It’s called The Deprogram, for anyone wondering.


I’ve for a while had the idea for a game in my head wherein you can kill people, but the player will really need to get out of their way to do it, and if they do, the game will go great lengths portraying the corpse as something that once was a human that had thoughts, fears, desires and dreams, just like the player, making sure they understand the gravity of what they had just done.

Of course it’s easy to come up with such ideas. What is hard to do is to come up with some good game mechanics to be used in conjunction with that.



Yeah, they often change the street names with the countries.


Ok, I was going to say that it looks like an Onion article, but seems it actually is intended to be something in that direction.


Soon the riots begin, the Mycus grows, New England gets quarantined, animals become larger and more aggressive, otherworldly horrors begin to walk the Earth.



For software development I would have thought of Lojban (the logical language). It’s supposed to be syntactically unambiguous, so there are even parsers for that language.

Esperanto seems to me kinda… meh. Like, if we are going to do something as ambitious as establishing an IAL, why not shoot for the stars? Why not choose something that by some standard most of us can agree on, is the best of all for the job (not saying Lojban would be one, since it doesn’t even aim to be an IAL)? Let’s say ease of learning was one of the most important criteria: Then toki pona or some other derivative could be something we ought to look at. Or maybe even create and entirely new language. The one thing I see that Esperanto excels in is its popularity, which is useful to avoid the “Why would I learn that language if no one else speaks it?” situation, but I believe we should go beyond that if we have the choice of establishing an IAL.


Be thankful it was a signed integer. Otherwise we’d have to deal with eighteen trillion, four-hundred and forty-six thousand billion, seven-hundred and forty-four billion, seventy-three thousand million, seven-hundred and nine million, five-hundred and fifty one thousand, six-hundred and fifteen comments.


Wait, why is this happening? How did the bots get through the verification process (or are they from some instance lemmygrad is federating with that doesn’t have that verification?), also why this specific post? What’s so special about this one post showing a tweet with this weird outlook to the world that I don’t think anyone else has?


On the 25th of April 1974 the Armed Forces Movement crowned the long resistance and reflected the deepest feelings of the Portuguese people by overthrowing the fascist regime.

Freeing Portugal from dictatorship, oppression and colonialism represented a revolutionary change and the beginning of an historic turning point for Portuguese society.

The Revolution restored their fundamental rights and freedoms to the people of Portugal. In the exercise of those rights and freedoms, the people’s legitimate representatives are gathered to draw up a Constitution that matches the country’s aspirations.

The Constituent Assembly affirms the Portuguese people’s decision to defend national independence, guarantee citizens’ fundamental rights, establish the basic principles of democracy, ensure the primacy of a democratic state based on the rule of law and open up a path towards a socialist society, with respect for the will of the Portuguese people and with a view to the construction of a country that is freer, more just and more fraternal.

Meeting in plenary sitting on 2 April 1976, the Constituent Assembly does hereby pass and decree the following Constitution of the Portuguese Republic:

In the preamble, but I’d say it’s mostly a left-over from the Carnation Revolution (the people had obviously very strong left aspirations back then), coupled with the fact that the term “socialism” only to marxist-leninists has a firm definition and to everyone else means different things. If you look at the constituent assembly that wrote the constitution you’ll see some parties with some left sounding names:

Not actually socialist in the leninist sense, but social-democratic at best. At the time really liked to surround itself with the æsthetics of socialism.

Not actually social-democratic.

Repressed by and opposer of the New State. It existed even before the end of the first republic, being the oldest still existing portuguese party. It is a marxist-leninist party and had a big role in what would happen right after the 25th of April. One could accuse it of being revisionist, like some once US funded parties do, but I’m not going to do that since I do not know enough about the party.

  • Some other parties (CDS-PP (Democratic and Social Center - People’s Party (lol)), MDP/CDE (no longer exists), UDP (also no longer exists), ADIM (Macau is no longer a Portuguese colony)),




Not going to justify the HN stupidity, but it is my opinion the original poster should have linked joinlemmy.ml, instead of an instance of Lemmy (lemmy.ml). Because the topic of the discussion should be the Lemmy network, rather than the lemmy.ml instance. One should avoid spreading the misconception that Lemmy and lemmy.ml are the same thing.


You may want to look at the hardware that according to the FSF respects your freedom: https://ryf.fsf.org/


There are also spices that exist merely to give a smoky aroma, for anyone who misses it. Rauchige Fetsau is one that comes to my head (which is smoked paprika, unlike what the name suggests).



The definition they give is indeed different.

Anarquismo. Corriente político-social,hostil a todo poder político o jerárquico entendido como control social y voluntad que se le impone al individuo . El anarquismo bajo concepciones políticas tiene como objetivo promover un cambio social hacia una sociedad mas justa,según principios anarquistas, respecto a la sociedad con proposiciones como la igualdad,el voluntarismo,el derecho económico y otras que se oponen entre las diversas corrientes anarquistas.

The image may have taken the information from the section «Diferencias de marxistas y anarquistas»:

Las diferencias esenciales de los criterios de los marxistas y anarquistas las redujo Lenin a tres puntos fundamentales:

  • En que los primeros, cuyo fin es la destrucción completa del Estado, reconocen que este fin sólo puede alcanzarse después de que la revolución socialista haya suprimido las clases como resultado de la instauración del socialismo. Los segundo, en cambio quieren destruir por completo el Estado de la noche a la mañana, sin comprender las condiciones en que puede realizarse esta destrucción.
  • En que los primeros reconocen la necesidad de que el proletariado, después de conquistar el poder político, destruya totalmente la vieja máquina del Estado, sustituyéndola por otra nueva. Los segundos propugnan la destrucción de la máquina del Estado y tiene una idea absolutamente confusa de con qué ha de sustituir es máquina el proletariado y de cómo ejercerá esté el poder revolucionario. Los anarquistas rechazan incluso la utilización del poder estatal por el proletariado revolucionario.
  • En que los primeros demandan que el proletariado se prepare para la revolución aprovechando el Estado moderno, mientras que los anarquistas lo rechazan.

Although there are some overlaps in the the things said, it seems to me they might have used an older version of the article (specifically due to the subordination of the working class to the bourgeois politics part).




That’s not correct. Debian distributes both SystemD and sysvinit. Any use that does not want to use SystemD can install the latter.

Then I was mistaken. Sorry. Seems like they were bothered by the fact that systemd was going to be the default (and some more things).

This is in no way a Debian-specific topic.

I know, but OP mentioned “Duvian” which sounds very close to Devuan, which made me think that’s maybe what they mean.


I think they may be referring to Systemd, which is not proprietary, but an init system very heavily criticized by some people. When Debian switched over to Systemd, there was fork made called Devuan that doesn’t use systemd. But I think the init system used by a distro shouldn’t be too much of a concern for a first time user. Instead they should try some popular and easy to use distro at first and then switch over to something that better suits their needs, tastes and concerns, in my opinion.

Unlikely, but they may also be referring to the fact that Stallman doesn’t endorse Debian: https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.en.html (though neither does he endorse a lot of other distros OP mentioned that are a lot worse in that regard)


How to download Android backup from Google Drive to Desktop?
I don't see the backups in my drive, but I also want a copy of them on my desktop.

Elections for the supreme people’s assembly in the DPRK: two questions
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/410209 > I have two questions regarding the election of the deputies to the supreme people's assembly in the DPRK. > > --- > In the [English translation of the nation's constitution I'm using](https://www.hrnk.org/uploads/pdfs/DPRK_Constitution.pdf) (article 34.) it says: > > The Supreme People's Assembly is composed of deputies elected on the basis of > universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot. > > And in the translation of the law document [*Deputy Elections for People's Assemblies at Each Level Law of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2010)*](https://www.lawandnorthkorea.com/laws/deputy-elections-for-peoples-assemblies-at-each-level-law-2010) (article 5.) it says: > > Deputy elections for People's Assemblies at each level shall be done by the method of secret ballot. Constituents shall be guaranteed the freedom of voting for or against. No one may require the publication of the fact of having voted for or against a constituent, and may not place pressure on or retaliate against someone related to the vote. > > And again in article 64.: > > Votes shall be done by method of secret ballot. If constituents agree, they shall not make a marking, and if they oppose, they shall horizontally strike out the name of the candidate. > > And most most relevant to my question in article 65.: > > In cases where constituents agree or make a mark of opposition in their vote, no one may enter or look into the polling rooms. > > All these articles seem to indicate to me that the vote is secret, and at the time of the casting of the vote no one else but the voter is allowed to be in the polling room. > > However [in videos depicting these elections](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=HbYItXAcV3M) we see some citizens entering the booth and casting their vote. This means there is a camera in the same room they are casting their vote. Doesn't this violate the principle of secret ballot stipulated by the constitution? One could argue that the citizen could have chosen to approve or reject a candidate in a separate room from where they cast their vote, but article 56. says this: > > Polling rooms shall be set up by 3 days before the election day so that the confidentiality of votes can be guaranteed. The polling room shall have a polling box and writing supplies. Election halls may be decorated with things like flags and flowers. > > If writing supplies and a polling box are supposed to be in the same room then that means that they are supposed to choose to approve of reject a candidate in the same room they cast their vote, so that means that in the video we are able to see whether they approved or rejected the candidate (one leaves it empty to approve a candidate and crosses out their name to reject), which means the principle of secret ballot was violated. > > The citizens seen in the polling room all were wearing medals or pins, which leads me to believe they were members of a party or had some official position. Could that be the reason we see them, considering it's pretty obvious whether they are going to approve or reject a candidate? > > Q: Why do we see citizens in the video casting their vote, if the ballot is supposed to be secret? > > --- > In many news it is said there is only one candidate per electoral precinct: > - [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47492747](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47492747) > - [https://www.scmp.com/video/asia/2189528/everyone-votes-there-no-choice-north-korean-elections](https://www.scmp.com/video/asia/2189528/everyone-votes-there-no-choice-north-korean-elections) > > Where can I find a source for whether or not there was more than one candidate up for election in each precinct? > > The document I mentioned earlier seems to indicate that there can be more than one candidate in a precinct up for election (otherwise why even make the election, besides serving as a census of the population?) (article 42 (Number of candidates for deputy to be registered at the electoral precinct)): > > The number of candidates for deputy registered with each electoral precinct at deputy elections for People’s Assemblies at each level shall not be restricted. > > If there was only one candidate up for election in each precinct, why weren't there more? Article 35: > > Candidates for deputy for People's Assemblies at each level shall be recommended directly by constituents, or recommended jointly or alone by the Party or by social organizations. The person making the recommendation must inform the recommended candidate for deputy to the district election committee. > > Article 36: > > Candidates for deputy recommended for People's Assemblies at each level may only be registered as candidates for deputy in the relevant electoral precinct by going through a deliberation over their qualifications at a meeting of more than a hundred constituents. The constituent meeting for the deliberation on qualifications of candidates for deputy shall be organized by the district election committee. > > Article 39: > > The registration of candidates for deputy by People's Assemblies at each level shall be decided by the agreement of more than half of the participants at the constituent meeting for deliberating on the qualifications of the candidates. > > Assuming that in article 35 "constituents" here means means members of the 100+ people chosen by the election committee (I'm assuming they are random citizens of the precinct, but I don't see anywhere anything about how those 100+ members of the constituent meeting are chosen, so this could be the source of my confusion), then citizens could bring up a potential candidate that they consider better represents them than the one brought forth by the DFRF. I would be surprised if that were the case and not have even a single instance where there was more than one candidate up for election (even if the country were to have an extremely unanimous view on who best represents them, I find it hard to imagine there isn't a single case where there was more than one candidate up for election). > > If we consider that the potential candidate has to be approved with a vote with an approval greater than 50% by the constituents in order to be registered as a candidate, then maybe one could say that maybe there were more potential candidates brought up but in the end it was decided to approve only one person to be registered as a candidate. But wouldn't that be an abuse of the system? I am interpreting the role of that constituent meeting to be the filtering out of candidates that do not meet the requirements to run for election, not to choose for the whole population of the precinct what candidate should win. > > Q: Do these elections really only have a single candidate up for election per precinct, and if yes, why aren't there more?

Elections for the supreme people’s assembly in the DPRK: two questions
I have two questions regarding the election of the deputies to the supreme people's assembly in the DPRK. --- In the [English translation of the nation's constitution I'm using](https://www.hrnk.org/uploads/pdfs/DPRK_Constitution.pdf) (article 34.) it says: > The Supreme People's Assembly is composed of deputies elected on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot. And in the translation of the law document [*Deputy Elections for People's Assemblies at Each Level Law of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (2010)*](https://www.lawandnorthkorea.com/laws/deputy-elections-for-peoples-assemblies-at-each-level-law-2010) (article 5.) it says: > Deputy elections for People's Assemblies at each level shall be done by the method of secret ballot. Constituents shall be guaranteed the freedom of voting for or against. No one may require the publication of the fact of having voted for or against a constituent, and may not place pressure on or retaliate against someone related to the vote. And again in article 64.: > Votes shall be done by method of secret ballot. If constituents agree, they shall not make a marking, and if they oppose, they shall horizontally strike out the name of the candidate. And most most relevant to my question in article 65.: > In cases where constituents agree or make a mark of opposition in their vote, no one may enter or look into the polling rooms. All these articles seem to indicate to me that the vote is secret, and at the time of the casting of the vote no one else but the voter is allowed to be in the polling room. However [in videos depicting these elections](https://yewtu.be/watch?v=HbYItXAcV3M) we see some citizens entering the booth and casting their vote. This means there is a camera in the same room they are casting their vote. Doesn't this violate the principle of secret ballot stipulated by the constitution? One could argue that the citizen could have chosen to approve or reject a candidate in a separate room from where they cast their vote, but article 56. says this: > Polling rooms shall be set up by 3 days before the election day so that the confidentiality of votes can be guaranteed. The polling room shall have a polling box and writing supplies. Election halls may be decorated with things like flags and flowers. If writing supplies and a polling box are supposed to be in the same room then that means that they are supposed to choose to approve of reject a candidate in the same room they cast their vote, so that means that in the video we are able to see whether they approved or rejected the candidate (one leaves it empty to approve a candidate and crosses out their name to reject), which means the principle of secret ballot was violated. The citizens seen in the polling room all were wearing medals or pins, which leads me to believe they were members of a party or had some official position. Could that be the reason we see them, considering it's pretty obvious whether they are going to approve or reject a candidate? Q: Why do we see citizens in the video casting their vote, if the ballot is supposed to be secret? --- In many news it is said there is only one candidate per electoral precinct: - [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47492747](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47492747) - [https://www.scmp.com/video/asia/2189528/everyone-votes-there-no-choice-north-korean-elections](https://www.scmp.com/video/asia/2189528/everyone-votes-there-no-choice-north-korean-elections) Where can I find a source for whether or not there was more than one candidate up for election in each precinct? The document I mentioned earlier seems to indicate that there can be more than one candidate in a precinct up for election (otherwise why even make the election, besides serving as a census of the population?) (article 42 (Number of candidates for deputy to be registered at the electoral precinct)): > The number of candidates for deputy registered with each electoral precinct at deputy elections for People’s Assemblies at each level shall not be restricted. If there was only one candidate up for election in each precinct, why weren't there more? Article 35: > Candidates for deputy for People's Assemblies at each level shall be recommended directly by constituents, or recommended jointly or alone by the Party or by social organizations. The person making the recommendation must inform the recommended candidate for deputy to the district election committee. Article 36: > Candidates for deputy recommended for People's Assemblies at each level may only be registered as candidates for deputy in the relevant electoral precinct by going through a deliberation over their qualifications at a meeting of more than a hundred constituents. The constituent meeting for the deliberation on qualifications of candidates for deputy shall be organized by the district election committee. Article 39: > The registration of candidates for deputy by People's Assemblies at each level shall be decided by the agreement of more than half of the participants at the constituent meeting for deliberating on the qualifications of the candidates. Assuming that in article 35 "constituents" here means means members of the 100+ people chosen by the election committee (I'm assuming they are random citizens of the precinct, but I don't see anywhere anything about how those 100+ members of the constituent meeting are chosen, so this could be the source of my confusion), then citizens could bring up a potential candidate that they consider better represents them than the one brought forth by the DFRF. I would be surprised if that were the case and not have even a single instance where there was more than one candidate up for election (even if the country were to have an extremely unanimous view on who best represents them, I find it hard to imagine there isn't a single case where there was more than one candidate up for election). If we consider that the potential candidate has to be approved with a vote with an approval greater than 50% by the constituents in order to be registered as a candidate, then maybe one could say that maybe there were more potential candidates brought up but in the end it was decided to approve only one person to be registered as a candidate. But wouldn't that be an abuse of the system? I am interpreting the role of that constituent meeting to be the filtering out of candidates that do not meet the requirements to run for election, not to choose for the whole population of the precinct what candidate should win. Q: Do these elections really only have a single candidate up for election per precinct, and if yes, why aren't there more?

Powered with Godot.

Collaborative editing on Emacs across editors/IDEs?
Is there any way to use Emacs for collaborative editing, while there is at least one person who doesn't use emacs, but rather some popular IDE? It should also be possible to edit multiple files at the same time. Other solutions seem to expect all people to be using Emacs.


How good of an idea would it be to damage cars on the dealer’s and manufacturer’s side?
Some months ago there was this post on this community: [https://lemmy.ml/post/189513](https://lemmy.ml/post/189513). The idea suffers from the fact that it pretty much only harms normal people who just bought SUVs because they live in a car dependent society, where if you want to feel empowered you need to buy the biggest most inefficient cars available, people who now are led to hate the anti-car movement. I wonder if instead of slashing tires of random SUV drivers in the streets, one could significantly damage the cars before they are sold, harming the automotive industry and (possibly) lowering supply. But would it actually be a good idea? - Wouldn't it just be a waste of materials? Now, nature not only suffers from the production of a car, but also of the fixing of a car. - Would it actually have any impact, besides maybe calling attention to the problem? So many cars are produced in a day. Would a few damaged ones have any major impact? - Is it even feasible? Can people just go into wherever a lot of cars are stored before they are distributed or sold, and significantly damage some without getting caught?

What meals do you know which aren’t too time consuming to prepare (or if they are last for a very long time), are cheap and whose ingredients are easy to acquire?
Bonus if it isn't just mainly carbon-hydrates and if the ingredients don't need to be used immediately (unless the meal itself when done can last for many days). I'm getting tired of tuna masala spaghetti.

How do I only sign a mail with mailvelop on Posteo?
I only see the option to encrypt the mail. ![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/e24f7dcb-58f3-48aa-aaf3-fa358eff33f3.png)




Advocacy on subreddits that are involved in the DOSing of the Lemmygrad instance of Lemmy?
Is it counterproductive to explain misconceptions about Lemmy and advocate for its use on anti-communist subreddits that have suddenly given Lemmy a lot of attention (some by DOSing) due to the quarantining of the GenZedong subreddit and subsequent migration of its users from there to Lemmygrad? I thought it could be a great way to increase Lemmy adoption now that it is getting so much attention from them. However, some people on there actively are trying to harm the Lemmygrad instance, and I worry commenting on there would bring more of that unwanted attention to that instance. Should I or should I not get involved? I'm talking about these people: * [https://old.reddit.com/r/EnoughCommieSpam/comments/tmi1o4/we_found_out_where_genzedong_went_feel_free_to/](https://old.reddit.com/r/EnoughCommieSpam/comments/tmi1o4/we_found_out_where_genzedong_went_feel_free_to/) * [https://old.reddit.com/r/GenUsa/comments/tm0ils/guess_who_else_is_on_lemmygrad/](https://old.reddit.com/r/GenUsa/comments/tm0ils/guess_who_else_is_on_lemmygrad)