• 1 Post
  • 13 Comments
Joined 1Y ago
cake
Cake day: Jul 24, 2020

help-circle
rss

Yeah so the Earth vacillates between two general phases: greenhouse earth epochs and icehouse earth epochs. You get ice ages and then periods without ice ages during icehouse earth epochs. We are technically in an icehouse epoch right now but just between ice ages. We have been in an icehouse epoch since about 34 million years ago. In a greenhouse epoch you have no ice sheets anywhere, no glaciers, no ice ages. Our most distant ancestors that can be generally called hominid go back as far as six million years. We’re icehouse earth animals.

Sudden releases of CO2 have triggered sudden switches to greenhouse earth epochs in the past due to sudden huge eruptions of volcanic activity. We are in the process of triggering such a switch right now because we’ve more than doubled the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere in about 200 years. The issue is, nobody has any fucking clue if agriculture will even be possible in a greenhouse earth epoch or how it would work or how productive it would even be. Also, the example I mentioned of a very sudden transition to a greenhouse Earth state was followed by a horrific mass extinction because ecosystems don’t take well to sudden drastic transformations like that. In the long run it all evens out. The long run being millions of years.

If the ecosystems and natural processes that allow for agriculture to take place just fall apart and nothing takes their place (no we can’t just magically fill the gap agriculture is literally reliant on ecosystems doing a huge huge amount of work for us), you’re just going to have a sudden collapse and then probably a very, very very long time of effectively no agriculture being possible, or only very sparse and small scale agriculture that would not allow for populations approaching anything like we have today.


Yeah Linux and the Linux foundation are corporate as fuck these days. Linus Torvalds has a net worth of $150 million and if you rank Linux contributors in general big companies are the biggest contributors. Hell Microsoft is a top tier member of the Linux Foundation.

You are literally not dealing with Free Software activists at the Linux Foundation. You are working with gigantic corporations that like the technical and economic advantages of a collaboratively developed, free of charge open source OS kernel. Of course they don’t care about fucking principles. Torvalds never cared about principles and was always up front about this.

There is no salvaging the Linux project from the corporatizing processes. You can find ways to accommodate it or jump ship. Linus himself is far too “pragmatic” to ever change this direction. Why would he? It’s working out well for him, to about the tune of $10 million a year.

I wish there was a good GPLv3 kernel out there. I like GPLv3 as a license.



it’s not really clear why they think they’re going to be banned. They just allude to the fact that they’re violating the code of conduct in one way or another, which is very vague.

Your question is easily answered by consulting the Code of Conduct in question. This is the one for this instance. There’s literally nothing in there about not promoting Lemmy alternatives.


This is a neat little trick I’ve used before to good effect. Leveraging mathematics FTW



Their definition of efficiency is extremely specific and only relevant to capitalists (economic efficiency is defined as maximizing profit, basically, making every other efficiency consideration secondary).

Capitalists literally live in their own little world. You want to know how capitalist economists defend the idea that scarcity is a basic feature of human existence? You can always imagine wanting more. For them, wanting another yacht in your fleet is the same kind of scarcity as dying of malnutrition and we can’t and shouldn’t try to distinguish them analytically.


You are completely correct insofar as it’s not necessary on its own merits, but certain purists find it a consistent talking point and basically all that has to be done to satisfy them AFAIK is to actually just fork the code so the trademark claims can be left to one side. Everybody can be aware that Stainless, or whatever name, is just Rust with trademarks stripped. Then they can recommend Stainless – or whatever name – instead of forking everything to get away from Rust.


As time goes by more and more “issues” will most likely pop-up and the other major Linux distributions will possibly regret the integration and adoption of systemd into their projects

People have been predicting this literally since it was released and no major issues have cropped up that I have ever heard of, except for technical nitpicks that don’t really amount to anything (ie, the hardcoded DNS issue in the optional DNS resolver). I’m still waiting to hear about a single attack that actually exploited systemd as a vector. Some bad bugs have cropped up over the years, yes. Bad bugs have cropped up in all system-critical software over the years. And usually when people point at a longstanding “bug” and go “z0mg they don’t care about security” it’s usually because they’re overlooking valid considerations about real-world use and are literally just nitpicking because it’s not abstractly perfect.

And their rationale for example disliking having a hardcoded DNS server is that that’s only valuable for embedded. So what? Now init software should only serve unixsheikh’s use cases because… no reason?

From a technical perspective I don’t believe there is anything wrong with systemd as an init system.

That’s because there’s nothing wrong with it and it’s the best init system and that’s why everybody uses it. Everything else is just conspiracy theorizing to be frank. If people want to displace systemd they need to write something better. Not something that has one or two features like parallel starting, like actually do everything systemd does and do it better.

A lot of the supposed “security” issues are really just nonsense. For example they cite a bug with how systemd handles invalid usernames leading to root escalation. They ignore that in order to exploit this bug you already need root privileges.

They conflate fragmentation with freedom. A fragmented ecosystem isn’t necessarily free (UNIX was non-free and horribly fragmented for a long time), and a more cohesive ecosystem isn’t necessarily unfree (almost everybody was standardized on SysVInit for a long time and there was no wailing about the death of freedom). Interoperability is valuable and not a bad thing. Standardizing certain aspects of Linux systems improves interoperability between systems.

If you didn’t admin Linux systems before the switchover I can imagine not getting how fucking direly something like systemd was needed however.



But that Arch dev said nothing about including proprietary firmware to make your wifi chip work out of the box. That has nothing to do with systemd. The issue is that system v was released in 1983 and it’s archaic and out of date. Systemd is not proprietary. People hate it because they got used to system v and hate that this replacement supplanted their favored way of doing things, which sucked and was awful.

There’s no virtue in spending hours writing and troubleshooting custom init scripts just because it’s less advanced and requires more work.

Linux isn’t getting “bloated.” Process supervision and service dependency management isn’t “bloat.” These are necessary and valuable features. People are just put out that how it used to be isn’t how it is now and are spiralling into conspiracy theorizing because all the major distros moved on and now they’re in the minority.


Someone should fork Rust and rebrand it as Stainless just to get past the licensing issues.


If anything, the Internet needs saving from tech oligopolists like Google.


I don’t see any indicators that their governance of China has produced socialism. Developed the economy, doubtless, reduced poverty, doubtless, but neither of these are definitional of socialism and the Deng period saw many political reversals that had nothing to do with a historically limited use of state capitalism.

It’s been a few years now since I read it but in Some of Us: Chinese Women Growing Up in the Mao Era at least one of the contributors talks about the retrenchment of traditional patriarchal norms in the Deng era, for example, which is unjustifiable.

Will they reach socialism by 2050? Not without a revolution!