So some people are wondering if whatever the MAGA/Linux crowed is up to is planned and on purpose.
Uncategorized
35
Posts
6
Posters
1
Views
-
@karolherbst the reality is that these people create these artificial philosophical divides, so they can have something to be angry about, and have a community that can feed their superiority complex. They have nothing going on in their lives.
In some ways it reminds me of the climate change skeptics.
@jonkoops most of them are also climate change skeptics anyway 🙃
Like it's not just about replacing oil&gas with renewables, but changing how we do the economy including balancing out our use of "resources".
Pro nuclear is also part of climate change denial, because it refuses to accept, that we can't just pump heat into the environment anymore and hope it's gonna work out somehow. Or they just refuse to accept the impact we have.
It goes quite deep.
-
@karolherbst Sorry, but no, you are being dishonest here. You are purposefully conflating 1. contrarianism and "divide and conquer" tactics in the service of a harmful ideology with 2. legitimate technical and political criticism of your chosen technology, political being defined here as "the way a project spreads and impacts the community". These are not the same.
Are there ill-intentioned asshats in the anti-systemd crowd? Yes, absolutely, and unfortunately, they are the ones who tend to make headlines.
Are there good, alternative communities who object systemd because we find it is not the ultimate technical solution that it pretends it is? Also yes, and they are full of wonderful, generous, honest, extremely talented people with no other political agenda than "we want what is best for the community". We are not many. We are not nearly enough. We are working on alternative solutions, and it is difficult because we do not have as much manpower or funding as people who work on systemd or freedesktop projects.
We are not gratuitously contrarians, we legitimately want to work on alternatives, and your rhetoric is making it more difficult for us. Calling "MAGA" everyone who disagrees with you is an insult and a crybully tactic worthy of the very authoritarians you're saying you hate (and that I hate as well, for the record).
(Edit: typo)
@ska there is a difference to say that systemd is bad due to irrelevant technical "ideaologies" and having substantial and fundamental criticism about the specific technical choices made.
And I haven't said the criticism is the issue, it's getting rallied into the "anti-systemd" (or whatever" crowd by _agreeing_ on irrelevant points and thinking you make a good point.
If you jump on the "systemd sucks because it's monolithic" hype, you are getting played.
-
@jonkoops most of them are also climate change skeptics anyway 🙃
Like it's not just about replacing oil&gas with renewables, but changing how we do the economy including balancing out our use of "resources".
Pro nuclear is also part of climate change denial, because it refuses to accept, that we can't just pump heat into the environment anymore and hope it's gonna work out somehow. Or they just refuse to accept the impact we have.
It goes quite deep.
@karolherbst @jonkoops errrrrrrrrrrrr that's dramatically misunderstanding the impacts of thermal output *and* the causes of global warming. (tl;dr global warming affects the capture of radiated heat from the earth, which changes the temperature indirectly, producing heat itself on the surface of the planet doesn't impact this particularly, other than locally)
-
@karolherbst @jonkoops errrrrrrrrrrrr that's dramatically misunderstanding the impacts of thermal output *and* the causes of global warming. (tl;dr global warming affects the capture of radiated heat from the earth, which changes the temperature indirectly, producing heat itself on the surface of the planet doesn't impact this particularly, other than locally)
@dotstdy @jonkoops no it's not.
If we'd replace all power generations with nuclear, we would heat up the earth significantly, especially if you take future growth in power consumption into account.
It's not a problem today, but it will be. But the point is more that we can't just do things and hope it works out long-term. It's a mindset thing.
And global warming is just _one_ aspect of what we do to earth. Resource exploitation and living outside the boundaries are others.
-
@dotstdy @jonkoops no it's not.
If we'd replace all power generations with nuclear, we would heat up the earth significantly, especially if you take future growth in power consumption into account.
It's not a problem today, but it will be. But the point is more that we can't just do things and hope it works out long-term. It's a mindset thing.
And global warming is just _one_ aspect of what we do to earth. Resource exploitation and living outside the boundaries are others.
@karolherbst @jonkoops resource exploitation is its own concern, but if you say something like "nuclear power's thermal output will itself cause global warming" then that is trivially false. and based on a pretty deep misunderstanding of the causes of climate change.
-
@karolherbst @jonkoops resource exploitation is its own concern, but if you say something like "nuclear power's thermal output will itself cause global warming" then that is trivially false. and based on a pretty deep misunderstanding of the causes of climate change.
@dotstdy @jonkoops but it's not... like for real. We do have that impact. And if you convert latent energy into kinetic energy, then you do heat up earth.
We just need to scale up power consumption by a few OOMs so it goes to the same scale as fossil fuels are (because the mechanics of fossil fules are entirely different), but eventually it will reach that impact.
It won't happen within our lifetime though, so it's more of a concern within 100-200 years.
-
@dotstdy @jonkoops but it's not... like for real. We do have that impact. And if you convert latent energy into kinetic energy, then you do heat up earth.
We just need to scale up power consumption by a few OOMs so it goes to the same scale as fossil fuels are (because the mechanics of fossil fules are entirely different), but eventually it will reach that impact.
It won't happen within our lifetime though, so it's more of a concern within 100-200 years.
@karolherbst @jonkoops fossil fuels don't heat the atmosphere by the release of heat, they heat the atmosphere by changing how much heat is retained in equilibrium with how much heat is radiated into space. the planet is both constantly creating heat (radioactive decay), and being bombarded with it (sun), these numbers are not impacted by human scale heat generation.
-
@karolherbst @jonkoops fossil fuels don't heat the atmosphere by the release of heat, they heat the atmosphere by changing how much heat is retained in equilibrium with how much heat is radiated into space. the planet is both constantly creating heat (radioactive decay), and being bombarded with it (sun), these numbers are not impacted by human scale heat generation.
@dotstdy @jonkoops I know, and I haven't claim they do.
I'm just saying that eventually nuclear power through our increase in power consumption will get to the point where the mere production of electrical energy will heat up earth rapidly.
That's why you need renewables, which convert power from the ecosystem into electrical energy. Not nuclear power which only adds energy to the ecosystem instead of using existing energy.
-
@dotstdy @jonkoops I know, and I haven't claim they do.
I'm just saying that eventually nuclear power through our increase in power consumption will get to the point where the mere production of electrical energy will heat up earth rapidly.
That's why you need renewables, which convert power from the ecosystem into electrical energy. Not nuclear power which only adds energy to the ecosystem instead of using existing energy.
@karolherbst @jonkoops the sun radiates approximately 44 quadrillion watts of power upon the earth's surface continuously.
the total electrical capacity of all the world's nuclear power is ~400,000MW. ~10% of world's supply. if we make that 100%, it's 4,000,000MW, let's lowball thermal efficiency at 10%, 40,000,000MW thermal, and then multiply by another order of magnitude for fun, 400,000,000MW. In this scenario nuclear power represents 1/1100th of the sun's radiated power.
-
@karolherbst @jonkoops the sun radiates approximately 44 quadrillion watts of power upon the earth's surface continuously.
the total electrical capacity of all the world's nuclear power is ~400,000MW. ~10% of world's supply. if we make that 100%, it's 4,000,000MW, let's lowball thermal efficiency at 10%, 40,000,000MW thermal, and then multiply by another order of magnitude for fun, 400,000,000MW. In this scenario nuclear power represents 1/1100th of the sun's radiated power.
@karolherbst @jonkoops If you want to show evidence that this is actually a problem I'm interested, this is just napkin maths and it's always possible to miss important details, but please, dismissing of basic scientific understanding as a "climate change denial talking point" is just really not ideal. (if you want to walk that road i'd also note blaming random other human impacts for climate change is *also* a climate change denial talking point, "it's because of cities", etc)
-
@karolherbst @jonkoops If you want to show evidence that this is actually a problem I'm interested, this is just napkin maths and it's always possible to miss important details, but please, dismissing of basic scientific understanding as a "climate change denial talking point" is just really not ideal. (if you want to walk that road i'd also note blaming random other human impacts for climate change is *also* a climate change denial talking point, "it's because of cities", etc)
@dotstdy @jonkoops as I was saying, we need a couple of OOM for it to matter. But with exponential growth it is a concern unless we are aware of the problem.
I'd have to look up the concrete numbers, but it will take us a while until it becomes an issue. Nothing _we_ specifically have to be worry about yet, but like give it a couple of centuries.
The conclusion here is that nuclear power can only be a temporary measure at best though. And as long as it's known, it's fine.
-
@dotstdy @jonkoops as I was saying, we need a couple of OOM for it to matter. But with exponential growth it is a concern unless we are aware of the problem.
I'd have to look up the concrete numbers, but it will take us a while until it becomes an issue. Nothing _we_ specifically have to be worry about yet, but like give it a couple of centuries.
The conclusion here is that nuclear power can only be a temporary measure at best though. And as long as it's known, it's fine.
@karolherbst @jonkoops that *IS* a couple of orders of magnitude! that's what those bonus multiplications by 10 were for. and this also doesn't include the thermal output from natural radioactive decay in the earth's crust, idk what the order of magnitude there is, but I'm not really expecting it to be small either.
-
@karolherbst @jonkoops that *IS* a couple of orders of magnitude! that's what those bonus multiplications by 10 were for. and this also doesn't include the thermal output from natural radioactive decay in the earth's crust, idk what the order of magnitude there is, but I'm not really expecting it to be small either.
@karolherbst @jonkoops there's plenty of reasons that <literally everything> cannot scale to infinity, but making up things like "thermal output from nuclear power will cause global warming" is tremendously bad for everyone's understanding. making shit up to own the to the moon crowd ain't good.
> "If we'd replace all power generations with nuclear, we would heat up the earth significantly"
this is a blatantly untrue statement (the opposite is true, due to greenhouse gasses)
-
@karolherbst @jonkoops there's plenty of reasons that <literally everything> cannot scale to infinity, but making up things like "thermal output from nuclear power will cause global warming" is tremendously bad for everyone's understanding. making shit up to own the to the moon crowd ain't good.
> "If we'd replace all power generations with nuclear, we would heat up the earth significantly"
this is a blatantly untrue statement (the opposite is true, due to greenhouse gasses)
-
@karolherbst @jonkoops that *IS* a couple of orders of magnitude! that's what those bonus multiplications by 10 were for. and this also doesn't include the thermal output from natural radioactive decay in the earth's crust, idk what the order of magnitude there is, but I'm not really expecting it to be small either.
@dotstdy @jonkoops we do grow an OOM of electricity demand each 80 or so years? Accelerated even because we have to replace fossil fuel burning for heating with electricity as well.
I'd have to check up on the real number again, but not sure I'm gonna find it because it's a massive pita to find anything nuclear power related giving how the field is also flooded with bad faith studies.
Maybe it was more like 500 years where it starts to matter... but it's certainly within reach.
-
@dotstdy @jonkoops we do grow an OOM of electricity demand each 80 or so years? Accelerated even because we have to replace fossil fuel burning for heating with electricity as well.
I'd have to check up on the real number again, but not sure I'm gonna find it because it's a massive pita to find anything nuclear power related giving how the field is also flooded with bad faith studies.
Maybe it was more like 500 years where it starts to matter... but it's certainly within reach.
@karolherbst @jonkoops the main point is that the temperature of the earth is an equilibrium between incoming and radiated heat. in such a system the sensitivity to the total incident heat isn't necessarily straightforward. greenhouse gasses change coefficients that affect that equilibrium (as do other things like albedo), and that is why humans can have dramatically outsized impacts on global warming, despite the amount of heat we produce being relatively inconsequential.
-
@karolherbst @jonkoops the main point is that the temperature of the earth is an equilibrium between incoming and radiated heat. in such a system the sensitivity to the total incident heat isn't necessarily straightforward. greenhouse gasses change coefficients that affect that equilibrium (as do other things like albedo), and that is why humans can have dramatically outsized impacts on global warming, despite the amount of heat we produce being relatively inconsequential.
@karolherbst @jonkoops btw as a bonus, the thermal efficiency of a nuclear power station is generally similar to the thermal efficiency of a coal fired power station. so you replace a coal power station with a nuclear one, and you're still rejecting roughly the same amount of heat into the environment. (it's steam turbines all the way down)
-
@ska there is a difference to say that systemd is bad due to irrelevant technical "ideaologies" and having substantial and fundamental criticism about the specific technical choices made.
And I haven't said the criticism is the issue, it's getting rallied into the "anti-systemd" (or whatever" crowd by _agreeing_ on irrelevant points and thinking you make a good point.
If you jump on the "systemd sucks because it's monolithic" hype, you are getting played.
@karolherbst "systemd sucks because it's monolithic" is an oversimplification, but there is some truth to it - it depends on what exactly is meant by "monolithic", a term vague enough that you can attribute a meaning to it and dismiss all the criticism as invalid, when there is a perfectly good argument if we try and define "monolithic" more accurately.
When you think "systemd is obviously not monolithic, these people don't know what they're talking about", you probably mean that systemd is made of several independent amovible parts and not everyone has to run everything. And indeed, under this acception it is silly to accuse systemd of being monolithic.
Here is my fundamental criticism, that I posit is what people mean when they say "monolithic", but that would be more accurately expressed as "hostile" or "closed":
The architecture of systemd, the interfaces it defines, the way it is split into modules, makes it so that it is generally difficult to write a replacement for one of these modules without buying into the systemd model and the way it manages a system. The interfaces are systemd-specific, using concepts that are not used anywhere else than systemd; the modules are designed to interact with systemd, and no effort is made to encourage external software to interact.
As a result, when a replacement module is written, it follows exactly the systemd model, because it's the only, or best, way to make it work. There is no value in writing replacement parts, because they would end up looking exactly like the initial module! The uselessd project was abandoned for this exact reason: it was impossible to make a lightweight clone of systemd.
So, systemd is "monolithic" in the sense that it's a unique piece of software that interacts with itself only; it's not "modular" because no individual module is replaceable, which is one of the points of a modular design.
This post is long enough so I'll stop here, but there are countless examples of hostile design in systemd (I have talked at length about NOTIFY_SOCKET already and am prepared to do more). Because most people are not technical nerds like you and I and are not expressing their criticisms accurately doesn't mean they're entirely wrong in their perception.
I think your callout was using a generic "you", but just in case: I do not jump on any hype, and I am getting played by nobody. I once left a project because it was full of people who were very vocal against systemd without any substance, they were mostly looking to spew hate, and this was not what I wanted from a community. Fortunately, not all alternative communities are like that, and pretending otherwise is doing a disservice to the free software ecosystem.
(Edit: typo)
-
@karolherbst "systemd sucks because it's monolithic" is an oversimplification, but there is some truth to it - it depends on what exactly is meant by "monolithic", a term vague enough that you can attribute a meaning to it and dismiss all the criticism as invalid, when there is a perfectly good argument if we try and define "monolithic" more accurately.
When you think "systemd is obviously not monolithic, these people don't know what they're talking about", you probably mean that systemd is made of several independent amovible parts and not everyone has to run everything. And indeed, under this acception it is silly to accuse systemd of being monolithic.
Here is my fundamental criticism, that I posit is what people mean when they say "monolithic", but that would be more accurately expressed as "hostile" or "closed":
The architecture of systemd, the interfaces it defines, the way it is split into modules, makes it so that it is generally difficult to write a replacement for one of these modules without buying into the systemd model and the way it manages a system. The interfaces are systemd-specific, using concepts that are not used anywhere else than systemd; the modules are designed to interact with systemd, and no effort is made to encourage external software to interact.
As a result, when a replacement module is written, it follows exactly the systemd model, because it's the only, or best, way to make it work. There is no value in writing replacement parts, because they would end up looking exactly like the initial module! The uselessd project was abandoned for this exact reason: it was impossible to make a lightweight clone of systemd.
So, systemd is "monolithic" in the sense that it's a unique piece of software that interacts with itself only; it's not "modular" because no individual module is replaceable, which is one of the points of a modular design.
This post is long enough so I'll stop here, but there are countless examples of hostile design in systemd (I have talked at length about NOTIFY_SOCKET already and am prepared to do more). Because most people are not technical nerds like you and I and are not expressing their criticisms accurately doesn't mean they're entirely wrong in their perception.
I think your callout was using a generic "you", but just in case: I do not jump on any hype, and I am getting played by nobody. I once left a project because it was full of people who were very vocal against systemd without any substance, they were mostly looking to spew hate, and this was not what I wanted from a community. Fortunately, not all alternative communities are like that, and pretending otherwise is doing a disservice to the free software ecosystem.
(Edit: typo)
@ska the general issue here is, that those concepts always have a place. But like you also assume that systemd being more modular would be an advantage by saying that module is better just because.
At which point it's not a great argument to have anymore and ceases to mean anything. Why do we need a more modular design at this point? Systemd can be this tightly integrated project and that's totally fine, even if it's not modular.
It's great we have other init systems tho.
-
@ska the general issue here is, that those concepts always have a place. But like you also assume that systemd being more modular would be an advantage by saying that module is better just because.
At which point it's not a great argument to have anymore and ceases to mean anything. Why do we need a more modular design at this point? Systemd can be this tightly integrated project and that's totally fine, even if it's not modular.
It's great we have other init systems tho.
@ska Like software isn't automatically better just because you can easily replace parts of it with something new following different design principles.
But the point is, those kind of blanket statements do act to pretend having technical knowledge and does give grifters more power than they should have.
I'd ask for more concrete and specific technical criticism, not "this project is bad because it violates the ideas I like personally, but which are academic in nature"
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
io vedevo una serie che si chiamava "Mai dire sì", l'ho ritrovata di recente e la sto rivedendo perchè è di una modernità sorprendente.
Lei una detective che non viene presa sul serio perchè donna, allora si inventa un capo maschio e allora piovono ingaggi. Finchè un ladro (bonissimo Pierce Brosnan) finge di essere questa persona inventata e parte la collaborazione.
Apertura mentale, sociale e moooooolto moderna! 😜
-
@DagwoodIII In my opinion, the point is even more serious:
1) Company value increases to the extent that financiers (stockholders, investment funds, crowdsourcing) believe the sector can multiply their investment.
2) All companies (not just AI companies) know that their value increases with the number of layoffs (lower fixed costs, higher margins).
3) Particularly in the AI sector, company value increases with the purchase of new Nvidia hardware and the opening of new data centers.
Therefore, the combination of 2) and 3) leads to a physiological depression in AI engineering hiring: it's better to hire fewer systems engineers and pay the companies that supply software and build data centers.
But these are logics that conflict with the real development of that sector!
In Italiano:
Il punto secondo me è ancora più grave:
1) il valore delle aziende aumenta nella misura in cui i finanziatori (azionisti di borsa, fondi di investimento, crowdsourcing) credono che il settore possa moltiplicare il loro investimento
2) tutte le aziende (non solo qulle di intelligenza artificiale) sanno che il proprio valore aumenta con il numero di licenziamenti (meno costi fissi, più margini)
3) in particolare nel settore dell'Intelligenza Artificiale, il valore delle aziende aumenta a fronte dell'acquisto di nuovo hardware Nvidia e nell'apertura di nuovi datacenterpertanto, il combinato di 2) e 3) comporta una fisiologica depressione delle assunzioni di ingegneri AI: meglio assumere pochi sistemisti e pagare le ditte che riforniscono software e costruiscono datacenter.
Ma queste sono logiche che vanno in conflitto con uno sviluppo reale d quel settore!
-
Stessa lista, ma io pure Mork&Mindi con un giovanissimo Robin Williams. Mimica spettacolare!
-
Oddio che ricordonche mi avete sbloccato!!!
-
io ci ho speso una tombola per avere tutte le videocassette pruma e poi i dvd dopo... di tutte e due le serie!
-
Apperò.
Primi altoparlanti elettrostatici: l’auto diventa una cattedrale - Futuro Prossimo
> Gli altoparlanti elettrostatici di Warwick pesano il 90% in meno, non usano terre rare e creano un soundstage 10 volte più grande dell'abitacolo.
-
@bensar si 9900 con incentivi, senza ben diverso. Ma non ê questo il discorso che voglio affrontare. Quindi non c'è differenza (tecnologia) tra batterie Twingo e Audi da 70000€?
-
@ilarioq il discorso è un po' piu complesso
le batterie per VE sono una piattaforma, sistema complesso di stati stoccaggio, gestione ed erogazione di energia che interagisce a sua volta con altri sistemi elettronici dell'auto
Il gruppo Renault è forse l'unico ad aver rivoluzionato la propria piattaforma (vedi crisi stelantis), dismettendo le Zoe perché obsoleta
Un esempio è la nuova Twingo progettata in Cina e prodotta in Europa a €11k
https://www.renault.it/veicoli-elettrici-ibridi/twingo-e-tech-elec.html
