Bluesky is pretty decent and has features that I like over X, but much of its user base are from the Great Xodus (pardon the pun): people who frame their switch to Bluesky as some kind of boycott of X, ie, a bunch of moralists. They didn't leave X because it's a hellscape of trashing and toxicity, no, they left because the politics changed. And so Bluesky is now saturated with people who are very opinionated, very loud about it, and very willing to engage in trashing.
Nah, Twitter is still absolutely rotten with toxicity. The Great Xodus happened due to the rapid chuddification of Twitter under its new management: it was over politics, not toxicity. As such they brought the toxicity with them like a plague.
Bluesky has this nice feature where you can mute lists, so someone made a MAGA list (https://bsky.app/profile/skywatch.blue/lists/3l53cjwlt4o2s), and yet I was still seeing MAGA stuff on my feed because all the Twitter refugees were screenshotting Twitter nonsense and laundering it into my feed. Utterly ridiculous.
I find myself agreeing with this a lot, as well as the secondhand amplification many do. I get some want to brigade but often times that very action is what leads to all sorts of awful content coming upon social media feeds in general, because they simply have to show others how awful this thing they saw was.
Its not exclusive to bluesky by any margin, but it does become especially concerning as a double standard to filter lists.
Except that this holds true for everything. For example, I only just today found out about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8yo7_Inikg&t=1157s, ie, Oracle's apparent complicity in genocide. Now that I know this, I now have to rethink things: what am I using that depends on Oracle that I need to migrate away from? This wasn't something I was concerned about just 24 hours ago. This is not to say it's not a valid concern: we should divest from companies and organisations complicit in genocide, but this is demonstrably a case where I have given myself more work, more worry, from gaining knowledge.
Conscientiousness is incompatible with monotonicity of capability. That is:
1. We tend to believe "more power/knowledge/choices" is universally a good thing; that we are rational creatures in some sort of game theoretic landscape where we are free to optimize for our own outcomes, and extra options or information can only be to our optimization benefit.
2. We tend to believe that as moral agents, we have obligations to Good. More specifically, knowingly choosing against Good should in proportion produce Guilt.
The bind that results from (1)+(2) is distinctly Christian to me, obsessed as Christianity is with the notion of shame as a moral whip. It is an exercise in religionmaking how to structure one's psychological incentives so that solipsism is avoided while not sacrificing (1).
You’re aware IBM was not just complicit but essentially made the Holocaust possible with their counting machines? Had technicians permanently staffed in the fucking camps? The the numbers on people’s arms corresponded to IBM punch cards?
I wasn't aware of that, no. I can say that it wasn't a feature of our history lessons in school, nor in various Holocaust documentaries I have watched, nor something that came up in conversation with friends and colleagues, nor have I personally seen it when it's been posted to HackerNews (if this is anything to go by: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=IBM%20holocaust&sort=byDate&ty...). I only learned about Oracle's complicity because it has resurfaced in coverage regarding the current ongoing genocide. But you are proving my point: what do I do now with this information?
Perhaps like Oracle you reconsider the use of all their products? You don’t need Red Hat linux right?
But perhaps too, consider that the information you receive in history lessons, documentaries, hell even conversations are steered by forces who would conceal the truth from us at any cost. Consider that the entire system is broken and not worth fixing because of the evil it perpetuates.
I don’t know what to do with this information either. What it has done is forced me to recede from life in out society. I no longer wish to participate.
> But you are proving my point: what do I do now with this information?
I would use it to question the premise
> we should divest from companies and organisations complicit in genocide
which in reality I decided was obviously wrong the first time I heard it, many years ago. In fact, I don't think this concept of "complicity" is morally valid at all.
They were, and still are - multiple times a year. But THE german holocaust was the most effective by orders of magnitude. And they have technology to thank for that. Computing machines (primitive as they were) made it possible to track the status of each Jew. Railways made it possible to move them. Chemical plants produced the gas in the needed quantities. Industrial incinerators made it possible to dispose of the remains. They didn't just go down to Home Depot and buy a bottle of poison gas. They had a system end-to-end as efficient as any factory.
Certainly this world comprises many other things than the Holocaust and IBM's support of it. Perhaps your awareness is lacking if you think that is the main thing to be aware of in this world.
Maybe say what you think they were saying? What is it with these maximally ambiguous comments?
To me "Are you aware of the world you live in?" suggests "If you don't even know this, you don't know anything. This is the first thing anyone should know". I'm willing to learng if they meant something else, but I guess that's asking a lot.
The point is that Oracle's actions are unremarkable in the context of the existing state of the world, and that corporations are generally not concerned with the morality of their customers.
This was, to my thinking, such a straightforward interpretation that it didn't bear making explicit; and your interpretation genuinely didn't even occur to me.
It doesn't surprise me that corporations [whose primary, if not sole concern is the profit motive] don't care about the morality of their customers. What I don't understand is why you're objecting to me voting with my wallet, something that's been a popular retort against progressive and humanitarian movements for at least the past two decades.
> I simply said that I disagree with your stated motivations for your vote.
That's a semantic distinction without a difference.
> The way that you discuss your plan makes it sound as if you consider it morally incumbent upon others to follow suit. I do object to that.
That's more or less true: I do believe that people should BDS corporations that knowingly and willingly harm humanity (eg: aid and abet genocide); that it's not within our interests to let such things slide. And while I am biased, this doesn't feel like a particularly controversial take: it feels like I'm just spelling out basic civics. But.. this is also just like my opinion, man. You do you.
> why do we put it up for human review? I would wager that [...] a human has placed themselves as a gatekeeper
Well, yes, presumably because the maintainers have an obligation to their users (or whoever else they answer to), so I doubt they're overly willing to relegate themselves to being a rubber stamp for whatever some LLM hallucinates as looking good to it.
This is, funnily enough, something I've been periodically searching for for nearly a decade, and even renewed my search yesterday. For those wondering, my use case is a model Parliament (context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43474850) and deciding on using git to store the laws, with the commits representing the Acts of Parliament themselves. The problem is that we need to guarantee that every commit has the correct metadata: we do not care at all about the conservation of commit hashes. And if we've accidentally missed a law and need to interactively-rebase it into the git history, it should NOT reset all the subsequent commit dates to the current timestamp. Basically, we're wanting to use git as a historical archive. I'm delighted to have found this.
Fwiw, in plain git, there's 2 dates associated with commits. The author date tells when the content was authored, and doesn't change with rebase. Only the commit date changes. So the correct metadata is already there, and even more precise. It can tell you both when it was authored, and when it's history was last changed.
The author date was when it was introduced to Parliament, the commit date is the date of Royal Assent. Ditto with the date a referendum was called versus when its results were certified, etc.
I will say that even though I really don't like having a cluttered home folder, I do appreciate things being more or less in one place and so can be easily uninstalled and cleaned up. Flatsweep even being a thing is a testament to the tedium created by dispersing everything across the file system. It reminds me of macOS and not in a good way: I had an equivalent to Flatsweep on my old macbook but I couldn't remember its name so I searched "macos app cleanup tool", and the first page is just a bunch of comparison articles for the 10 (or whatever) best cleanup tools. This shouldn't be a thing. Alas, it is because applications can't or wont clean up after themselves.
Totally valid, and the Unix-style filesystem sprawl is definitely a pain sometimes. On the other hand, when an application does follow standards, you always know where something is, and just by looking at the name of the directory you know what's in there.
The other thing that's nice about the XDG standard is that it generally encourages developers to split binary state data, configuration, etc. even if you do it all within one folder, that's better (for the user) than jumbling it altogether in one big SQLite database or whatever.
It is a note that a lot of applications and even package managers are kind of moving back to the model you describe. For example Homebrew installs each package into its own prefix and symlinks into /opt/homebrew/bin,lib,etc...
I still don't like hard coding the MYAPP_HOME dir in ~/.myapp and prefer an environment variable to configure it. Personally I put all such folders into ~/.local/opt/$MYAPP if possible.
I'd also add that convenient recursive folder creation was only added relatively recent for many languages (eg: "std::filesystem::create_directories" was only added in C++17). And since "~/" is pretty much guaranteed to exist, the fewer folders you needed to create, the less code you had to write.
except 99% of AI—written content is spam. If the article was an ad for some company and also made no sense, would you hate on the guy who commented "this is an ad"?
Because that's not what happened? What? Neither smartmic's root-level comment or rdsubhas's response mention it being an ad. I was criticising adhamsalama's dismissal of rdsubhas's comment as AI, who also said nothing about it being an ad. I'm so baffled. Can you not see the structure or the content of this thread?
This is something that bothers me about languages that proclaim C/C++ compat because it's almost exclusively just talking about the ABI. I will say that Zig's build system is definitely one of the better ones, just look at the sqlite3 repo: it just points to the amalgamation zip and compiles it statically, meaning you can compile it with whichever flags you want, knowing it's guaranteed to work exactly how you want. Even though I personally don't use sqlite, I cannot help but appreciate the simplicity here, whereas other systems languages with C/C++ compat (eg: D) cannot do this.
With that said, Zig falls well short when dependencies have more involved build systems that are too obnoxious to recreate, eg: libevent. I have a bit of a sentimental attachment to libevent and would love to use it within my Zig projects, but the only viable options are: 1) dynamically link; 2) have two [or more] separate build steps; or 3) wait until allyourcodebase does the obnoxious work for me. None of which are appealing so I end up using different libraries just for the build-system integration. And by their nature of being Zig libraries, they're usually less known, less battle-tested, and riskier to use because it's more likely to be some random guy's side project.
Putting aside the StackOverflow tier "why would you ever do/want that?" troll argument, the issue is that I'm being obstructed from using the libraries I want to use over build system incompatibilities. It feels somewhat similar to the complaint about having two [or more] languages within the same codebase.
I think Nix can help you here; as you can delegate all the make/cmake/ninja handling to Nix package derivations and you final package can consume a bunch of .a files from them.
Yes obviously, and they've already said that. What they're pointing out is that people are being petulant whiners about it. If we can all agree that Codeberg is free to make its decisions, and a decision has been made that you don't like, then just choose another provider. Going around slandering Codeberg is being a petulant whiner.
I think one of the issues is that people who already have repositories there have to migrate them, migrate the issues, existing pull requests, community, etc. For larger projects this can be quite a large time sink.
I think it would have been more palatable to people if the terms said something like "Additionally, for repositories after July 24, the following additional requirements apply:".
reply