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
-
So some people are wondering if whatever the MAGA/Linux crowed is up to is planned and on purpose.
Yes, it is. They accuse us of what they would be doing themselves. Wayland, systemd, etc.. it's all a conspiracy to them _because_ it's the way the approach things and accuse us of the same.
They always weaponize disagreements within the broader community for their political agendas. Every project of them is like this.
It's sad to see how many do not understand those dynamics.
-
So some people are wondering if whatever the MAGA/Linux crowed is up to is planned and on purpose.
Yes, it is. They accuse us of what they would be doing themselves. Wayland, systemd, etc.. it's all a conspiracy to them _because_ it's the way the approach things and accuse us of the same.
They always weaponize disagreements within the broader community for their political agendas. Every project of them is like this.
It's sad to see how many do not understand those dynamics.
Every accusation of them is a self-revelation. Period. Every. Single. One.
Also they weaponize political ideals to harm them. Things like "neutrality", or "everybody is welcomed" or "tolerance" you name it. They use those terms to undermine the ideals behind them and sow disagreement on purpose.
Every technical disagreement is weaponized to not let us focus on the important things. And yes, most of the anti-whatever sentiments are reinforced by them.
Don't fall for it.
-
Every accusation of them is a self-revelation. Period. Every. Single. One.
Also they weaponize political ideals to harm them. Things like "neutrality", or "everybody is welcomed" or "tolerance" you name it. They use those terms to undermine the ideals behind them and sow disagreement on purpose.
Every technical disagreement is weaponized to not let us focus on the important things. And yes, most of the anti-whatever sentiments are reinforced by them.
Don't fall for it.
You think it's a coincidence that 90% of the anti-systemd distros are lead by absolute shitheads? Think again...
-
You think it's a coincidence that 90% of the anti-systemd distros are lead by absolute shitheads? Think again...
Claiming that systemd is bad because of "being monolithic" or "not the UNIX way" or whatever random nonsense reason you come up with is all a political game whose purpose is to divide us.
All those have _zero_ relevance. You are just made to believe they matter, even though they absolutely don't.
Focus on the real technical problems, limitations, drawbacks. Not some artificial "tech ideals" that have no relevance.
-
Claiming that systemd is bad because of "being monolithic" or "not the UNIX way" or whatever random nonsense reason you come up with is all a political game whose purpose is to divide us.
All those have _zero_ relevance. You are just made to believe they matter, even though they absolutely don't.
Focus on the real technical problems, limitations, drawbacks. Not some artificial "tech ideals" that have no relevance.
@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)
-
Claiming that systemd is bad because of "being monolithic" or "not the UNIX way" or whatever random nonsense reason you come up with is all a political game whose purpose is to divide us.
All those have _zero_ relevance. You are just made to believe they matter, even though they absolutely don't.
Focus on the real technical problems, limitations, drawbacks. Not some artificial "tech ideals" that have no relevance.
@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.
-
@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)
Feed RSS
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@MikeTheGray gente che spende centinaia di euro per cucce sontuose e il gatto predilige la scatola di cartone!🤣
-
Va zapp. Che é meglio
-
@rapitadaglialieni la merenda è con i fiocchi ma la cucina è stupenda
-
esattamente! Uguale.
Solo che la serie di cui parlo io era del 1982!
-
Una merenda coi fiocchi!
#SilentSunday
-
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! 😜
-
Io mentre giro per il Black Friday. 😁 😁 🤗 😏 💻 🌐
-
@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!
