Well, Pakistan isn’t exactly a leader in world peace either…
Which Country Is The Greatest Threat to World Peace?
The US was the overwhelming choice (24% of respondents) for the country that represents the greatest threat to peace in the world today. This was followed by Pakistan (8%), China (6%), North Korea, Israel and Iran (5%). Respondents in Russia (54%), China (49%) and Bosnia (49%) were the most fearful of the US as a threat.
I don’t think blahaj would object to the basic message.
There are the occasional man-hating users, sure. But for the most part, the instance seems to accept the idea that men suffer under patriarchy as well.
Now, when you bring it up in response to women, enbies, etc. suffering under patriarchy… that’s not so great.
So I guess it depends on what community it would be posted to, and how it would be posted.
Given how OP seems to be spamming this in multiple unrelated communities… I can’t imagine they would post it to blahaj tactfully. So… maybe you’re right, lol.
The process is supposed to be sustainable. That doesn’t mean you can take one activity and do it to the exclusion of all others and have that be sustainable.
Edit:
Also, regretably, I’m using the now-common framing where “agile” === Scrum.
If we wanna get pure about it, the manifesto doesn’t say anything about sprints. (And also, you don’t do agile… you do a process which is agile. It’s a set of criteria to measure a process against, not a process itself.)
And reasonable people can definitely assert that Scrum does not meet all the criteria in the agile manifesto — at least, as Scrum is usually practiced.
It’s funny (or depressing), because the original concept of agile is very well aligned with an open source/inner source philosophy.
The whole premise of a sprint is supposed to be that you move quickly and with purpose for a short period of time, and then you stop and refactor and work on your tools or whatever other “non value-add” stuff tends to be neglected by conventional deliverable-focused processes.
The term “sprint” is supposed to make it clear that it’s not a sustainable 100%-of-the-time every-single-day pace. It’s one mode of many.
Buuuut that’s not how it turned out, is it?
I’m not against AI as a technology in principle, I’m no luddite.
Perhaps not a luddite, but a Luddite.
The actual followers of Ned Ludd weren’t opposed to technology. They were, in many cases, experts in the machinery — sometimes having built the machines they would later destroy.
They opposed the new social order that seemed to inevitably arrive with the machinery. The capitalists would make more money than before, the workers less, and also endure more dangerous working conditions.
Btw, your note about absorbing and repackaging counter-culture reminded me of Rebel Sell by Andrew Potter. There’s a good episode of You Are Not So Smart about it: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2012/10/08/yanss-podcast-episode-five
The author seems to have fallen for two tricks at once: The MPAA/RIAA playbook of seeing all engagement with content through the lens of licensing, and the AI hype machine telling everyone that someday they will love AI slop.
He mentions people complaining that stock photo sites, book portals, and music streaming services are all degrading in quality because of AI slop, but his conclusion is that people will start seeking out AI content because it’s not copyrighted.
Regardless… The position of those in power has not changed. They never believed in copyright as a guiding concept, only as a means to an end. That end being: We, the powerful, will control culture, and we will use it to benefit ourselves.
Before generative AI, the approach was to keep the cultural landscape well-groomed – something you’d wanna pay to experience. Mindfully grown and pruned, with clear walking paths, toll booths at each entrance, and harsh penalties for littering or stepping on the grass. You were allowed to have your own toll-free parks outside of the secure perimeter, that continue the walking paths in ways that are mutually beneficial, as long as visitors don’t track mud in as a result.
But now? The landscape is no longer about creating a well-manicured amusement park worth the price of admission. There’s oil under the surface. And it’s time to frack the hell out of it. It’s too bad about the toxic slurry that will accumulate up top, making the walled and unwalled parks alike into an intolerable biohazard. There are resources to extract. Externalities are an end-user problem.
Yeah, turning culture into an expensive amusement park was a horrible mistake. But I wouldn’t get too eager to gloat over seeing the tide of sludge pour over their walls. We’ll still be on the outside, drowning in it.
The real question is all the stuff beyond just having the distro installed. The packages, the services, the configs, the application data.
If you leave all that stuff the way it was installed via the old package manager, it may have some bad assumptions baked in and may be incompatible with packages you install with the new package manager.
And if you clear all of it out and reinstall it, have you really gained anything vs. just doing a clean install?
There’s a reason you have a home dir. Just copy that forward along with whatever other config files you might’ve customized.
Btw, if the ability to make drastic changes while still maintaining continuity is an important feature for you, maybe check out NixOS.
Worth noting that Japan is the #1 foreign holder of US treasuries. More than anything, they want stability. Good sign for the US that they’re holding off on damage control mode.
It’s okay, Let’s Encrypt only provides SSL certs for… 63.7% of the market?
Okay okay, that is a lot. But what does a CA need funding for anyway? It doesn’t take much bandwidth to send out new certs.
The only thing that could be expensive is if they had to rapidly invalidate thousands of certs to protect the security of the entire internet.
But haha, that’s a pretty outlandish scenario that would never happen.
They’re “protecting” the women.
Behind the Bastards had a Christmas special non-bastard episode on the Tupamaros of Uruguay and Pepe Mujica. It does seem like they have some decent politics there.
I get the premise, it just seems silly. If a foreign company wants to give you steeply-discounted stuff, it seems like you ought to take the cheap stuff and enjoy it rather than worry about being unable to sell the same stuff as cheaply.
Why would you want to reduce imports anyway?
“China is sending us cheap cars! What are we gonna do?!”
Idk man, drive the cars and use the money you saved for something else? Seems like a good deal to me.
Guys, not cool! You don’t do this part publicly. You have each company petition privately.
If Trump likes them, they get an exemption and get to raise prices anyway while going “Hoo boy, those tariffs, huh? Real shame. But what can you do?”
Canada should back out of the USMCA and stop respecting US IP