I wish I could just buy more RAM every time I hit a memory constraint.
EDIT: There’s a more general performance reason for using swap at the default settings (doesn’t cover every case but is fine for lots of situations). At the default settings it will start actively swapping at about 40% memory used. This is because the system actively benefits from the fs cache mentioned in the article and performance suffers in low-memory conditions due to the fs cache not having free RAM to work with. You’re waiting more on I/O (which has a big performance hit even with fast storage) as opposed to getting files from the cache. As RAM use increases, you can swap some of the less-needed program code to disk to keep more free space available for the disk cache. The default swappiness parameter might not be optimal for your computer/RAM use patterns and you might need to do some experimenting to find optimal values, but overall some amount of swapping is probably a good idea
Here’s another aspect of how crappy Lunduke is, as he literally always has been (seriously, I saw that guy speak at one of his first “Linux Sucks” talks IRL and he was fucking awful then too, I don’t know how people never picked up that he was a massive asshole). Danielle deleted those tweets because they contained sensitive information about Cassidy’s exit negotiations. It’s just crappy to both Danielle – on top of being a fucking transphobe – AND Cassidy to dredge them up from the Internet Archive anyway.
EDIT: I do like how Lunduke’s bootlicking ass admits at the very end that he can’t tell the difference between what’s right and what’s legal. Since the terms were published anyway – Cassidy has the legal right to do what he’s doing, but he’s still being an asshole about it. The first purchase agreement was totally reasonable especially for a project that’s likely to die. His revised terms make it clear he’s now just trying to bleed the project for money.
“Multi-polar” literally just means there are multiple “poles” of power. This is in contrast to the “unipolar” world order the US set up after WWII. Unipolarity is the real historical anomaly here.
There is nothing inherently radical about wanting a “multipolar world.” Do you know why we wound up with a unipolar world to start with? The capitalist international system was “multipolar” up until the end of WWII. WWI and WWII were the result of “multipolarity.” America took advantage of the chaos to position themselves as world hegemon. This is not an inherently stable configuration for capitalism so it’s now falling apart after a few generations. Now we have “multiple poles” again when in reality having multiple great powers competing for power, territory, etc has literally always been the norm.
It is plainly in the rational self-interest of every state other than the US to want a multipolar world, but in fact, all it means is the collapse of American hegemony. In itself, the collapse of American hegemony is fine, but we still should care about what comes after it.
As far as I can tell, the only real bright spot is that without American hegemony global capitalism absolutely will be significantly more unstable, although as bright spots go, that’s pretty grim.
Users get to use networks on terms dictated by their ISP’s. My ISP blocks self-hosted email. They did so because it was not in their interest – spammers were using the functionality to run spam ops. They still allow for self-hosting, but as self-hosting becomes more popular, ISPs’ residential networks are going to become a security minefield and an increasing liability. They will tighten the screws on what people are allowed to self-host and how, or they’ll just make it painful to impossible.
You could do a “self-hosted” turnkey email VPS, I guess, but then the users have to rent and spin up VPS’s. You could run a VPS provider that provides an API to streamline the process, but now you’re positioning yourself to be the next big cloud provider instead of decentralizing the web.
See table “Email Hosting market share table” https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/email-hosting--23
Google, Microsoft, and Godaddy collectively control 79% of the email market. You effectively can’t deliver email if they – the first two in particular – say you can’t. So every other provider has to dance to their tune. This is, at this point, an economic problem.
If you want to re-decentralize email, and the web overall, you have to figure out what to do about the increasing concentration of Internet infra into an ever-smaller number of hands. I’m guessing there is not a technical solution to this.
This was honestly a terrible article. Social media is not now, and never has been, a genuinely viable way to organize. At best, organizers can use it as an auxiliary to spread info etc. This is what /r/antiwork was good for. But people tried to use it to actually organize. No. Organize in your community. Spread the word on social media.
The NYT’s basic thesis – this wasn’t going to make the leap to real organizing – was predictable even before the “collapse” (it still has 1.8m subscribers). Sorry if that bursts anyone’s bubble. Sharing content and consciousness-raising can lead to organizing, but how people were going about it on /r/antiwork was not realistic.
Of course, that’s to be expected. It was a lightning-rod for discontented workers. Almost none of whom have any organizing experience. It’s difficult to make good organizing decisions when you have no organizing experience.
The NYT’s way of exploring this, however, just amounts to a hit piece. After all, countless people reported standing up to their bosses in that subreddit and getting raises and improved working conditions. It does foment worker action and it was encouraging people to start standing up in their workplaces in a disorganized way.
The contribution this can make to organizing is lessening workers’ fear of doing anything at all.
The fact that the NYT didn’t cover this aspect and just focused on “quitting your job” and “hating your job” speaks a lot to their “journalistic integrity” in publishing this piece.
Most of the people I’ve met IRL who are boosting fintech and crypto are actually Gen-Xers
I’ve known like two Millennials who were enticed into it – by Gen-Xers, incidentally – and both got right the fuck out
Anyways, there are absolutely generational dynamics in class politics, although you’re right, the main thing going on is class stuff. For the most part, Boomers are just privileged workers who benefited from a social contract that expired a generation ago and are insulated from the struggles younger workers face, yes.
It’s class politics, and it’s generational.
Nope. Web tech is designed from the ground up to give the end user full control over how they render the documents they are sent. That’s why the pages are sent without DRM to your browser using a well-documented standard and every browser has extensive infra to let you write code that modifies browser behavior and allows you to automatically edit the pages you’re sent.
Content creators are free to bundle ads with their content, and content consumers are just as free to strip the ads out and refuse to view them. This is literally how the Web was designed to work.
You want something else, go help Google kill the Web and replace it with DRM-infested walled gardens and let Google tell you how and when you can communicate with other users as the inevitable price.
Under most circumstances you can’t even call adblocking a DMCA DRM circumvention violation because for most web documents there isn’t even any copy protection embedded in the page??? (Might be different for YouTube admittedly since there absolutely is DRM embedded)
It’s literally as if as someone was selling their novel as an unprotected Word document, included a bunch of paid product placement in their novel, and then got mad and called it piracy when readers opened the Word document and stripped it out AFTER the users had downloaded it.
Of course this is different with YouTube and streaming video platforms in general since they generally have TOS that cover adblocking and they do bundle DRM. However, it’s up to the video platforms to actually do the legwork of implementing DRM and enforcing the TOS, and putting up with irate users who inevitably get screwed out of money for one reason or another or just have the user experience degraded in the name of intellectual property.
yes, the article has a link to the paper at the very, very end with all the deets: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6
Isn’t that just survival bias?
Well, no. If they had not performed the largest Arabidopsis mutation accumulation experiment in history and had not carefully tracked all mutations occurring across a population of thousands of plants growing in controlled conditions across multiple generations, you might be able to argue survivor bias.
They demonstrated that germline mutations that affect actual functional proteins are passed on only has as often as junk dna mutations. The key point is, they proved these mutations do not get passed on and instead get repaired before there is a real chance for natural selection to operate. That’s a pretty big deal in itself.
Whether or not histones are the exact mechanism is a little beside the point.
Based on their description, this sounds like they rewrote ananicy in rust and added some kernel tweaks. I worry about NIH syndrome, since ananicy already exists and the other optimizations described could literally be done with shell scripts and udev rules. But it’s a nice idea and tbh actually very useful for low-end hardware.
I use more or less exclusively low-end hardware and for laptops/desktops without a lot of oomph being able to intelligently parcel out cpu time to applications that are actually a priority for the user is pretty important.
This kind of optimization is probably useless on anything approaching decent hardware, however.
The part that really stuck out to me was where companies started calling the developer of cUrl demanding he fly out to their sites to fix their stuff just because they downloaded his software. So many companies are making so much off open source software, almost none of them donate, and then some of them even have the gall to demand open source devs function as free auxiliaries to their enterprises
Right, but my point is, they learned about the pragmatic benefits of cooperation from the ecosystem the free software movement had already pioneered for explicitly political reasons.
Free software, for all the faults of the FSF, is valuable but not just because the development model can help companies cooperate where it makes sense and soak up contributions from the community – it’s valuable because it aims to establish ecosystems of software (and increasingly hardware) that allow people to use their devices on their own terms.
But that doesn’t matter to big companies who showed up and saw – a variety of ways to lower costs by externalizing them in a variety of ways (getting other companies to underwrite part of development, using open source without contributing anything back, in Amazon’s case, copying the competition to undercut them, etc) and spun off open source into its own thing that explicitly had no higher aims regarding the need to establish a copylefted software commons to safeguard user and developer autonomy.
Showing up to an economic and political project to build a commons and turning it into a corporate cash cow in a variety of ways seems pretty inherently exploitative to me. Also, it’s not mainly about AWS creating “Amazon Basics” versions of open source software, although that’s definitely an interesting one. It’s much more about situations like, for example, how so many people used, but nobody thought to fund OpenSSL until there was a catastrophic security bug and the only explanation was “OpenSSL can afford exactly one developer to maintain mission-critical encryption software for like, everybody, because nobody contributes back.” Only then did companies start pledging money to make sure their “mission-critical” infrastructure was up to snuff.
I mean, the point of open source as against free software was to make it easy to make money off of. It’s a little contradictory to turn around and call developers greedy for wanting literally exactly what big companies want from open source – value – especially when developers are trying to keep the lights on and these companies are literally just trying to extract as much value as they can.
I can’t really view this differently from, say, workers being called greedy for wanting better wages. It’s the same. Of course people want to be paid for their work, especially if they’re going to be expected to maintain something important for a private, for-profit business – or depending on the code in question, hundreds to thousands of them – especially when we still live in a capitalist society.
Well, it’s early, I’m caffeinated, it’s on a topic I’m interested in, here are some takes
The author’s approach feels fairly abstract and I feel this undermines his analysis.
It’s easy enough to psychoanalyze the scarcity mindset instilled from 5,000 years of class society, but also, actual individuals who are prisoners of class society still have to pay rent.
He ignores the collective economic and political project of building a software commons – the “pay it forward” incentive of free software is that you know future work on your code will be public in a society that otherwise places absolutely no value on this. Seems kind of weird to act like capitalism’s approach to the commons isn’t a problem.
He ignores that companies all over the world, as long as companies have existed, have rapaciously exploited to the point of exhaustion every single common resource they can figure out how to tap into. The risk that open source as such could become untenable because all it does is create value for shareholders is very real.
This guy dismisses literally everybody’s ideas other than his own as irrational, psychologized reactions and tbh it’s kind of gross. His critique of Richard Stallman’s essentially libertarian take on why free software would matter is fair enough – who really wants to spend time defending Stallman anyway – but he ignores that even within the FSF Stallman is just one guy and that much of GNU and most of Free Software in general is not written or maintained by Stallman.
He also misses the exploitative dynamic – parallel to dynamics in the non-profit industrial complex and in more traditional workplaces – wherein open source software developers are guilted into maintaining core infrastructure for hundreds of software companies for free or a pittance because of everybody relying on their ever-so-important code. This is also the same tactic used against workers who might consider withholding their labor for improved working conditions – has anyone ever observed the reaction to nurses or schoolteachers going on strike? “Won’t someone please think of the patients?” “What will families do?” etc etc etc. The end result is the same – some poor person with bills to pay generates vast amounts of wealth for private capital but still barely scratches a living by.
But he also ignores the impacts on users, who are also victims of the exploitation of open-source, when companies skimp on R&D by using someone’s spare-time volunteer project without spending a dime to make sure it’s up to par and not spending a dime to make sure it’s being adequately maintained. This is how we end up at disasters like log4j. This affects working-class people’s lives literally because they have to interact with businesses that are built on top of volunteer projects that don’t have the resources to do Q&A needed for use in production. Because, again, disturbing amounts of important or critical infra are held together by volunteer projects. Why did this guy forget this aspect of the whole discussion? What companies do with their code matters because they monopolize social production.
Dismissively psychologizing any effort to resist exploitation within capitalism as “trauma from 5,000 years of class society” necessarily presupposes the people considering using a proprietarian framework (within an oppressive class society that violently coerces all of us into participating in a proprietarian framework to survive) are not being exploited and are not struggling to survive
You know who else takes the perspective that they don’t care if some company makes a fuckton of money off their work and gives nothing back? Well, academics with a bit of job security seem to be fine with it, because they keep creating permissive licenses named after their institutions – MIT, BSDL, etc – that them for their work. They don’t have to directly hack it on the market like the rest of us, so they can afford to be generous.
EDIT – also, this guy co-owns a privately held company with $7.9m in annual revenue and one of their main projects is maintaining Ruby on Rails so he is explicitly speaking from a position of like, extreme privilege and does in fact appear to be being paid for open source
Karl Marx analyzed how explotation is inherent in wage labor by pointing out how the use-value of something is different than the value/exchange value of something. You show up to work and make your boss thousands of dollars, and that’s the use-value of your labor. But the exchange-value is just about enough to keep you showing up day after day. Your boss knows they’d be a terrible capitalist if they paid you more than enough to keep you showing up day after day. Their job is to maximize profits, and that means they have to pay you the bare minimum regardless of how valuable you are to the firm.
A lot of volunteer open-source development is exactly like this except the volunteer is being exploited by about 40 firms none of whom owe this dev anything on paper, so you end up with these absurdities like the corejs person having to beg for a job in NPM while providing core infra for huge swathes of the web.
A lot of open source is way more exploitative than traditional software development if you actually factor in how much money is being made off projects volunteers do in their spare time.
And this is dysfunctional and exploitative as hell, but it actually makes sense. Open-source was an effort to rebrand free software to appeal to companies on depoliticized grounds. We should completely expect that companies who embraced open source because it saves them money and no other reason would freeload. That’s what they were sold on – you can just show up and take it, no questions asked, no price tag attached. So they do.
TBH how we need to think about open source as a whole is as a referendum on capitalism. Free Software as a movement had critiques of capitalism but was ambivalent. Eric Raymond and company explicitly gambled that if you depoliticized free software and got the corporations on board, you could fix the problems free software was facing.
Well, open source depoliticized free software, Microsoft <3’s Linux now, and open source devs are afraid to even try calculating how much money basically all of Silicon Valley would owe them if there was a shred of justice on this Earth.
/r/Linux has an official policy of removing and scrubbing comments from non-verified accounts and threatens users with possible “action” if they keep commenting without verifying their email.
The threatening message the automod sends now told me to switch to Lemmy if i don’t like it, so I did.
I can totally understand how not requiring email verification enables harrassment etc, it’s just odd because reddit has literally always been carefully structured to enable and promote harrassment. It’s why their user block feature stops you from seeing content by users you’ve blocked, but it doesn’t stop them from seeing and interacting with you.
I started using non-verified accounts on reddit precisely because of how inherently unsafe the platform is by design.
Marketing gets people in the door; everything else about the experience determines if they stay on the fediverse or not.