Marketing gets people in the door; everything else about the experience determines if they stay on the fediverse or not.

I find that degraded performance is pretty much always preferable to playing Russian roulette with system processes.

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

Why don’t liberals just spin up their own instance? Wasn’t that the point of making the code base open?

deleted by creator

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.

deleted by creator

We’re all going to be in for a nasty shock when we get the schematics and realize there’s simply no way to make those cards stable /jk

deleted by creator

“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.

Decentralizing network ownership is the best way to go imho. Start building locally-owned and controlled networks! Then start building connections between them!

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.

There are political premises embedded in the framing. It’s an intractable question up until you ask homeless people. Dehumanization and exclusion of homeless people from discussions of how to help them are the norm.

You ask what “society” does with “homeless people” as though “homeless people” aren’t part of “society”

deleted by creator

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.

Bypass Paywalls Clean for Firefox successfully bypasses the NYT paywall for me

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.

I always turn it off. It’s literally never reasonably accurate and it gets in my way more often than it helps.