Social Democracy is a method of operating the government.
Capitalism is a way of operating the economy.
Much of Europe's governments are classified as a Social Democracy and they also use the capitalist economic system.
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 2105
- Joined
- 11 mo. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 2105
- Joined
- 11 mo. ago
As someone with experience with people who are in the MAGA reality bubble, this is because there is no in-canon explanation of Trump's actions (yet, the story writers patch these up pretty quick). There was no setup for this, no laying the misinformation groundwork and no existing goal that this advances.
Since Greenland wasn't part of the story, it just came out of nowhere. Lacking any in-MAGA explaination, they are examining this situation as a normal person who knows normal facts and this is completely an unforced error by any measure as anyone can see.
If this was something that was serious and planned then we would have started hearing about this months ago as they started preparing the lies and the misinformation seeding into social media via paid/artificial content creators or otherwise useful idiots. This is probably the strongest indication that Greenland is a distraction and not a real move. This is probably the case with Canada too, in my opinion.
They would rather people talk about anything but the Epstein files and how they are very clearly covering them up and not complying with the law. They don't want reporters to have time to report on all of the people that he has pardoned who also have made $2-5 million dollar donations to various MAGA PACs, some of them committing even more crimes and getting another pardon...
They need to throw things into the air to distract people. Some of their planned events are polling negative (the Minnesota Invasion, Healthcare Subsidies) and they don't have anything else so instead we get more random tariffs and more random military threats because they are something that the Executive Branch can do unilaterally and suddenly to ensure that they grab the next news cycle.
This is the "Flood the Zone" tactic that Steve Bannon said that they were using during the first admin.
Waffle House's PR team is tougher than kitchen staff it seems
That's pretty slick.
It looks like they're 'just' creating 2d planes and attaching Wayland Surface or TopLevel (Desktop, App, respectively).
I use XSOverlay and you can attach individual windows to the overlay (VR Smartwatch, kinda). This seems like a much more in-depth extension of that.
Attaching individual applications is way better than the whole desktop in my experience. The desktop experience works well with a high resolution monitor... but in VR headsets you're still resolution limited, so having JUST the application window can make it much easier to read/navigate.
The only feature that I would like is the ability to pin windows to specific locations. I'd like to be able to pin a HomeAssistant application window over my thermostat, or have a monitor displaying the feed from my security camera next to my front door, etc.
There are already virtual desktop applications that can do the desktop/windows trick, but they all seem to be anchored on you instead of being aware of the space that you're in.
I'm cynical to think that proper legislation won't happen even after the crash. There's simply too much money available to buy bribes/motorcoaches for Supreme Court Justices (Clarence Thomas) and other cheaper politicians.
May you live in interesting times, indeed.
I invite you to shelter against the storm: https://lemmy.world/c/dull_mens_club
That seems like a pretty biased article full of opinion, rhetorical framing and axe grinding.
What is your point? Not the point of the author, they clearly have a viewpoint. I mean why did you think it was relevant that we read what is essentially an opinion piece written like a tabloid article you'd see in a grocery store checkout line?
Ok, to save the rest of you the headache:
The author disliked how they were using 'open source' in the past. The author notes in the next paragraph that FUTO have addressed this complaint by linking their, multiple, responses and clarifying their position. The author does not mention or even address their current position, outside of name-calling and rhetorical framing in the link text.
Immediately after, we're hit with the tl;dr summarizing everything afterward (thank god, because I was already tired of reading by this point). Unfortunately, there is more text.
The author then takes offense that FUTO claimed to give money to several organization. The scare quotes around "grant" are intended to sow doubt in your mind that the author couldn't otherwise do with facts, words and explanations. Sarcasm and implied eye rolling are doing a lot of heavy lifting in this next section.
The first ""grant"" covered, is musl libc and, after after some research it was determined that FUTO, in fact, gave money to musl libc.
Devastating argument so far, let's keep going.
Not deterred, the author quotes some text for people who want musl libc to list them as sponsors. This has nothing to do with FUTO claiming (correctly) that they they gave money to musl libc.
An example of the difference, in case it isn't obvious to you, is that I can say I gave money to Doctors without Borders. If I actually gave money to Doctors Without borders then I'm telling the truth. If I want Doctors without Borders to list me as a sponsor on their site and advertising materials then I have to go through a different process. If I don't go through this process, it doesn't invalidate my donation.
In this case FUTO claimed that they gave money to an organization, and the records show that they did in fact give money to the organization. They did not go through the process of asking the organization to officially list FUTO as a sponsor. This is written as if it were an important distinction, but explaining why it is important is beyond the scope of this article, I guess. (I can use sarcasm too!)
Then the author lists a bunch of other projects many of which FUTO claims to have donated. I have also donated to many of these projects and, much like FUTO, they also don't list me as a sponsor, hmm curious.
Undeterred by reality, the author moves on to character assassination.
Step 1 is to find a bad person, Curtis Yarvin will be the authors choice here. A few quotes to establish their fascist credentials and we're on to the next step. Step 2 is to find a person from FUTO who has interacted with the bad person. Louis Rossmann once appeared on a show in 2022 and Yarvin was also on that show.
Through the logical power of guilt by association the author has now demonstrated why Rossmann is also bad. The next bit is to criticize Rossmann's response. Sure, he may have disagreed with Yarvin during the debate and also afterwards wrote a comment further disagreeing with Yarvin but by simply yeeting the goalposts into the past, the author can attack Rossmann for not doing it sooner.
The last few paragraphs are trying to make a huge amount of hay out of this appearance. The author bravely takes a stand against fascism and implies that FUTO should reflect on the author's opinions of fascism (the implication being that they are not and are therefore, possibly who would say?, fascists themselves).
So, my TL;DR from this article is:
FUTO is bad because they don't claim to be open source despite not being open source. They also claimed to give money to organizations that they gave money to.
To make matters worse, one person who is neither a developer for FUTO or Immich, once went on a YouTube show 4 years ago with a fascist and didn't disagree with them strongly enough for the authors taste. If FUTO didn't want to be fascists, which the author never says only strongly implies, then maybe they should have sent Louis Rossmann back in time so that he could have denounced it more eloquently instead of in a follow-up comment.
As we all know, people who post follow-ups are insincere and should never be trusted.
In his follow-up, the author notes that FUTO has addressed most of the issues that he complained about. However since FUTO still has not explained why Curtis Yarvin still exists and what they are doing about it, combined with the fact that fascism is bad (Source), implies that they should reflect on the fact that fascism is bad.
Since this is not happening and FUTO has done nothing about Yarvin still existing I'll leave the hanging implication that FUTO, fascism and Yarvin are related in some way.
Fascism.
THE END
It is already happening.
The distractions is that you only see the AI companies which have been blitz scaling, dumping unlimited amounts of money into orders and plans without any revenue plans for the other side. This move only pays off if they can essentially buy the entire market and lock out any competition (and then the rent-seeking enshittification will being). The long-term prospects of these companies is shaky at best, but that doesn't matter to the people currently dumping funding into them... they're going to sell everything at the IPO and leave some other suckers with the bag.
Because of this, there are many many times the amount of advertising and promotional hype than is justified by the actual progress in the field.
Everyone is familiar with this. If someone says AI, do you think of ChatGPT or an LLM? That's because you've been affected by this hype wave that is being intentionally propagated in order to drive valuations for AI companies who are looking to hit an IPO so all of the early investors can get out quick before the bubble bursts (It's like a crypto rugpull, except it is using the stock market instead of a meme coin).
'Actual' AI. By which I mean machine learning, including neural networks, has made huge progress in a lot of fields following the discovery of the Transformer model (the T in GPT). The, very real and impressive, improvements that have been gained are not flashy, they do not make for immediate next-quarter profits and are mostly public discoveries coming out of academia so they benefit everyone which makes them worthless to the people trying to horde emerging technology in order to push this bubble/rugpull.
Your life will be WAY more affected by the slow and incremental work being done in the field of robotics than having a slightly more personable chatbot. Your life or the lives of people you love will be saved by the advances in protein folding which allow rapid development of new treatments which can be customized to the individual. Cancer therapies that are optimized for the exact mutations in the patient's cancer cells or customized medicine aimed at reducing side effects or harmful interactions.
Pubbies :siren:
He's getting better, possibly going for a walk soon
By god, imagine the labor savings we're about to experience
Oh yeah, certainly. The US Government isn't openly censoring the Internet and most of the 'censorship' is done by private individuals (who, I would argue, have even more power over the average person's life).
I'm not making a false equivalence, just pointing out that even if the government isn't doing it the people in the US shouldn't be so smug because they are also getting viewpoint-filtered Internet, except their viewpoint dictator is some tech bro billionaire of questionable morality.
I will say, to the passive readers, it's very possible to live without a site that recommends you content. Avoiding those sites avoids a huge amount of propaganda and emotional priming (which affects you even if you know it is misleading, very important!). Get your news from reputable polls, primary sources (like court documents and case filings) and trusted news organizations (which absolutely exist, despite the drumbeat of 'don't trust the media(trust Elon instead!)' propaganda over the past decade).
Delete Meta, TikTok and X as if your sanity depends on it. Stay away from Reddit, stay away from Lemmy communities that primarily pedal in content that makes you angry, outraged or afraid. If you see a piece of media that makes you outraged, angry, afraid or to think conspiratorially stay far away. Those emotions can be primed into your subconsciousness through content that you rationally know is misleading, knowing that something is misleading does not protect you from being conditioned by it.
Read psychological textbooks about how this works. Look for terms like respondent conditioning, semantic/context/social priming. The Social Dilemma and The Great Hack are excellent documentaries that show the technology involved(The Social Dilemma) and how it can be used to affect political outcomes like Brexit and Trump's first campaign (The Great Hack, and also any journalism covering Cambridge Analytica).
These are techniques that have been used for advertising purposes for a long time. Now instead of promoting body shame to make you buy makeup, they're selling conspiratorial thinking so that you doubt the reality that you see with your own eyes or fear of government agents so you avoid the polls and fear of social/career/legal retribution so that you don't speak your mind on social media.
Get rid of that garbage and protect yourself from this kind of attack, anyone who is paying attention can see the damage being caused in the world... this is how it is being done. Delete it.
I don't think promoting population growth through cutting off porn, there's no data to suggest a correlation between those two things.
Population growth is more influenced by providing the population with enough income and secure housing so that they're not stressed and scared all of the time. This would hurt earnings and that would upset the handful of people who control most of the private/public equity in the country, so obviously this will not stand a chance of happening until they can't buy politicians.
Banning porn is mostly a 'I'm going to do this thing for this niche group in order to get votes to get/stay in power'. It's to give the social conservatives/Sunday preachers an excuse to talk politics and to do campaign rallies for the people voting for the bills.
You're welcome. It is way easier than you're expecting I promise.
Not that you won't run into problems, every OS including Windows has problems that require reading, troubleshooting and jumping through hoops. An example I love is that trying to create a local user account on Windows 11 has more steps than the entire Linux Mint install.
The problems in Linux often come with logs, error messages and debug information which can make it a lot easier to diagnose correctly (instead of just changing random shit as dictated by assorted Googled Reddit posts from 5 years ago). It may look like heiroglyphics at first, but you'll be able to see the matrix soon enough.
If my account still exists, you can reach out if you have problems and I'll point you in the right direction at least. Enjoy :)
The goalposts didn't shift, you started talking to a different person.
This person says that this issue is small, the impact of exploiting this system would be minor (if it ever happened), and the hypothetical attack on this subsystem is also demonstrably not occurring.
Therefore, treating this issue as if it were some sort of red-line issue or, really, even worth discussing outside of the context of the project itself (where changes can actually be implemented) is misrepresenting reality.
As to your direct point, it wasn't my point but I do agree with it so I'm happy to directly address your argument.
The quote you seem to take issue with was :
Wait, Digg gave the community to a Reddit moderator so Reddit could control the communities with the same name on both platforms? That’s wild.
That’s also how the corporate side of Reddit works. Someone will register a subreddit, and then a bunch of related ones, so anybody who tries to use any of them has to follow the same set of rules — and if you piss off the wrong person in one, they can ban you from all of them. They can also use their “first” or “official” or even “user count” status to bully smaller subs into redirecting to them. Effectively centralising information.
The Fediverse doesn’t work like that.
Or, more plainly:
The Fediverse doesn't allow a single user to scoop up all of the similarly named/themed communities and use that power to dominate those topics of conversation.
Your reply:
Maybe Mastodon does not, but Lemmy, in particular lemmy.ml, works more like that than you realize. e.g. a change is soon going to give lemmy.ml veto power in what communities are allowed to be acknowledged as existing to new instances, which is baked right into the code and there is no way to change it. A third-party listing could have been used instead but… no, this is rather much more on-brand for the Lemmy developers to have chosen.
Your reply references code affecting the Lemmy server instance, that runs once on server instantiation, which uses lemmy.ml as the source to populate the list of communities that users of the new instance will see when they click the 'Communities' link at the top. This is true.
Your inference that lemmy.ml has the ability to veto what communities are allowed to be acknowledged as existing to new instances is a bit of hyperbole. Lemmy.ml is the source of the initial list, true.
But new instances acknowledge communities existing regardless of those community's status with lemmy.ml. The moment that a single user reads a single comment in a community that isn't on the initially seeded list, then it appears in the new instance's community list regardless of the status of that community on lemmy.ml.
If we were a security researcher and were analyzing the scope of this problem we would consider that
- This only affects new instances, so the vast population of Lemmy as it stands now, is not affected by this code at all. Only a hypothetical future population.
- The list on lemmy.ml is not treated as authoritative. Outside of the initial values, lemmy.ml is not checked for any other functions related to adding or displaying communities
- Any attempts by lemmy.ml to game this system are both not happening and also easily detectable as the list is public and can be compared to other instances.
So, this veto power isn't being used. If lemmy.ml were attempting to leverage this power, it would be detectable. In the worst case, if were actively being exploited then it would affect very few people(none of the current Lemmy community), and the people that it did affect are impacted only until a user reads a comment or post from a 'vetoed' community.
Also, this is an open source project so saying things like:
and there is no way to change it.
Simply make no sense at all.
You can change it. Any admin who thinks it may be a problem can change it. I linked to the exact section of code where you can just change the URL and compile the .rs file again to use a different instance.
You could change it so that the URL is read from the options file that the administrator sets prior to launching the instance. You could also submit that as a PR so that future administrators could just apply your patch (independent of it being accepted by Lemmy) because that's how open source development works. That's what the quote that you provided means:
If you dont like it, fork it. Stop bothering us about it
- Nutomic
It sounds dismissive, because it is. This isn't a product, you're not a consumer. You're going to people who donate their time and telling them to do work in a way that you want it done. They may agree, and you may be able to make good arguments to convince them but if they don't, then brigading social media or spamming their issue tracker with requests isn't going to get it done.
If you don't like it fork it and fix it. It is a fundamental concept in open source software that you can always fix problems that you see and other people can use your fixes regardless of what the project thinks. If you think the project is going in the wrong direction then you are perfectly within your rights to take a copy of the code and develop it in your own way and if you can find other people who believe like you do then they can use your changes as they see fit.
But going online and misrepresenting the risk of some code update that you disagree with by exaggerating the scope of the problem isn't how you get anything done except creating needless drama.
the above humorous example bypasses very many very good safety precautions and conveniences.
I was taught in school that security and convenience are diametrically opposed, so if you can find any way of making this less secure/more convenient I'd be happy to deploy it to the entire credit union.
They’ll probably still get pornhub though, right?
Exactly, China filters their Internet. Just like Facebook and Twitter do. Instead of being at the whims of two rich individuals it's at the whim of the government.
Not that one is better than the other, but US users experience the same (from a technical standpoint, not ideologically) kind of filtering but they're not told that it is the great Zuck firewall or the great Elon firewall even though it is used in the same way to filter topics and ideas that the owner doesn't like.
I think you replied to the wrong comment.
I agree with you, but it looks like you intended to respond to Sierk directly :P
Ye Power Trippin' Bastards @lemmy.dbzer0.com Dogma and "Transphobia"
Version 2.0 uses memes