☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
- 2.29K Posts
- 2.73K Comments
2·6 hours agoI’ve already explained repeatedly how systemd goes against core Unix philosophy. Communities can form around all kinds of things, just because a community forms around bad idea that doesn’t mean it should be automatically accepted. Linux did get modular design largely right, that’s the whole problem here. Systemd throws the baby out with the bath water. Monolithic design was basically more convenient for companies trying to monetize the platform.
Systemd has gotten plenty of backlash as well, I’m certainly not the only person who sees the problems with it. The problem is that it’ll keep getting pushed by commercial interests. And the same thing will happen with AI incidentally.
pretty good overview here https://www.thomasfazi.com/p/the-ukraine-wars-big-lie
Protocols were understood well enough that you could build a single app that could communicate across different platform. That’s basically not feasible today.
2·1 day agoIn certain conditions that’s true.
The lack of interoperability between modern chat apps is a real tragedy. I remember the days when you could have a single messenger app of your choice and talk to people across different networks instead of having to juggle a whole bunch of apps like you do today. Really shows why open protocols are so important.
I would imagine that hydro would actually have to deal with more friction leading to more energy loss.
Yeah for sure.
The fact that it has been around since 2011 and still suffers from UI problems and other bugs really highlights the problem with your arguments. You also very clearly have no idea how software development actually works if you think that code written manually by a human is inherently more reliable. Humans make mistakes all the time that’s why we have software bugs in the first place. The way we ensure that code works is by having things like tests, specifications, and code reviews. All of these same tools work just as well with LLM generated code as they do with code written by hand.
Energy density has nothing to do with this. It’s the cost of how much pollution refining the rare earths and making batteries produces vs the amount of pollution associated with construction of a building with pulleys that move weights up and down.
What I meant is that you need to build a unit of a certain size before it becomes efficient enough to be practical.
Incredible to suggest using for an objectively worse and less mature project just because it’s artisanally written.
Once again, you’re omitting key facts in your narrative. The USSR suffered massive destruction during fascist invasion, and then was thrown into a cold war by a the US which was able to develop its economy, and used that leverage to suffocate the socialist bloc. It wasn’t ‘productive forces of a capitalist rival.’ that USSR couldn’t endure. It was the advantage of the US not being a direct participant of the war. If you ignore this reality then you end up with absurdist analysis as a result.
And of course, you can suggest anything you like, but that wouldn’t make it true. The German communist movement lacked the will of the Bolsheviks and they thought they could attempt reformism and work within the system. Then they were summarily betrayed by social democrats who aligned with the nazis. Had German communists been more principled and achieved a revolution, then they would have been able to ally with the Soviet Union and there was no chance of English or French capitalists overthrowing them. In fact, western capitalists tried doing exactly that in USSR in 1918 and they failed there too.
Or maybe the Germans really did have the secret sauce to make Global Communism work, in a way Communists in Russia and India and Latin America and the Middle East didn’t? I just don’t think so. Not given how easily the country collapsed into the most enthusiastic kind of self-immolation.
You’re once again entirely missing the original point I was making which is that the reason capitalist world has the advantage is due to the fact that the second world war happened because Germans fell into fascism. Had that that not happened, then the advantage would have been reversed.
I don’t think there’s any economy in the 1930s that was going to come off the plate, swing one, and do International Communism right on the first try.
Great, because nobody has been making that argument here. Let me know if my point is still unclear for you.
it does look very promising, and nice that it’s easy to self host too
So, going back to my original point, had Germany gone communist instead of fascist, we would be living in a very different world right now where communist was the dominant system in the world.
It was a completely different world after WW2 because the US got to develop its productive forces while the rest of the world burned, and then dragged the Soviet bloc into the Cold War right after which was specifically designed to force socialist nations to divert inordinate resources towards the military. The Cold War was also what justified communist purges in the US and how the communist movement was gutted under McCarthyism.
a lot of nazis were killed in ww2 I suppose