420stalin69 [he/him]

A study just came out that was posted in Hexbear showing at least 15% of Reddit content is corporate botting so we should just have some fun with LLMs and AstroTurf it instead like everyone else is doing

deleted by creator

1. Duck typing
2. Typescript

Don’t forget refinement where you describe your plan to add the “height: 80pt” rule (literally what the client wants), and then poker planning where you say it will be 1 point and the lead dev says 3 points and the other dev asks what is a point anyway leading to a time consuming discussion, and then the task gets scheduled for not next sprint but the sprint after, and then you do it and push your code, make a pull request, then during code review it is suggested you use tailwind instead but your project isn’t using tailwind because it’s some legacy PHP monster started by a junior who was just learning PHP, so now there’s a POC to consider using tailwind meanwhile the lead dev (who has a background in QA) designs a reusable “height engine” which uses rabbitmq to alert all worker nodes (there’s only one) about any changes to the height rules in mongodb. The height engine doesn’t include units so you have to hardcode if the client is expecting rem or pt. The product owner asks you in sprint review why this ended up taking a week when you said 1 point initially and the team agreed on 3. A team decision is made that all future CSS rule changes require a POC prior to implementation.

My ADHD interests: intensely researching a topic that has no prospect of financial reward and wanting to talk about it to people who don’t care

Make a GDPR complaint and hopefully Facebook get a huge fine

If the public are paying for it, then it becomes a subsidy.

And good luck getting the US government to require the code to be GPLed. That’s even less likely to happen than a public subsidy for OSS at all.

They typically do the opposite and require “commercialization” to ensure the benefit of the publicly-funded technology is captured by their donors.

This is how it basically works in biotech, for example. Government grants to study the medicine and then when the scientists actually find something important it becomes a “public-private partnership” often without even a royalty for the public let alone making it a public good.

That’s not how government funding works in a modern democracy, unfortunately. It would amount to a cash transfer to big tech to make the public pay their R&D costs.

So a public subsidy for big tech to get free code?

Isn’t assessing the issue on the issue tracker “listening to input” though?

Your options are

• do it yourself and create a pull request
• make a suggestion to the devs on the issue tracker, who have every right to reject it
• start a discussion here if you believe a feature is important enough to have public debate

That seems like a lot of options for listening to input to me.

What exactly is missing that you want to see? How could you add what you see is missing?

VPNs are much cheaper than Netflix, torrents don’t have ads, it’s always perfect quality, and the content catalog is excellent.

There was that hot Somali who was Tik Tokking himself while boarding a cargo ship.

But he was enforcing a blockade enacted by his government within Yemeni territorial waters so unfortunately it wasn’t piracy.

array.whomst(element => element === needle)

You do not gotta give it to them

I think the idea of “truth” and “reality” is being reified here, and by reifying the concept of reality you divorce it from reality. Like, you create this abstract notion of what reality is, you put it on another plane, a kind of Platonic concept of what reality is. And at that point it’s no longer reality that you’re actually talking about because you’ve separated the concept of reality from reality.

Reality is what it is and it exists outside the mind since the mind experiences reality, and knowing is an abstracted model of reality. The abstracted model is not reality itself but a model of reality, and that model of reality contains the concept of reality which is what you’re talking about here but that concept of reality is not reality.

I pretend I’m in a zoo observing people, which I guess is called disassociation.

Spend 42 hours making a professional quality message queue and entity component system then shelve the project because you got bored.

There is no Nordic model. The Nordics have substantially different economic histories and have developed in different ways at different times. Finland was poor until really very recently, Denmark was and still is a colonial exploiter, Norway got oil rich, Iceland was a haven for bankers and tax cheats, and Sweden only saw a recent blip of social progress from the 40s into the 70s and then destroyed the labor movement that built those gains over the previous 20 years with the impressive equality achieved in that period rapidly eroding back to the 1920s when you look at disparate investment in education and other ways of funneling public benefits to the already wealthy. And don’t forget that Sweden are colonial bastards towards the Sami as well, and still are looting their way through those spoils for resource wealth.

Anyone who tells you there even is a Nordic model is a fucking idiot.

It’s because in a capitalist or other market driven system, economic planning is decentralized.

Let’s say trucks become really popular. There’s a lot of demand for trucks, so you can charge a higher price and make more profit. People want to buy 1000 trucks a day but only 500 are being built per day. Demand exceed supply. You’re making bank.

Other people see that profit and want a piece so they decide to build a truck factory of their own. Let’s say 10 people decide to make a factory and each factory is capable of making 100 trucks a day.

You’ll note this increases the total supply of trucks to 1500, the original 500 plus additional capacity of 1000.

But these factories take some time to build so for a while everyone is happy. Slowly and gradually supply catches up to demand but only slowly. At first we reach 600 trucks per day, then 700, then 800… demand still exceeds supply so the economy is growing and we are all making profit.

But then the rest of the factories get finished. Now we are making 1500 trucks per day which exceeds demand. Now we have a problem. Now supply exceeds demand and the price of trucks crash which means we can’t pay back the loan we took to fund our factory.

We overinvested in the capacity to build trucks because we all wanted a piece of that profit, and as a result of over investing we have now crashed the market for trucks because we are simply making too many trucks.

This creates a cascading effect in the economy since now the market needs to “correct” this imbalance, which is economics-speak for some of us need to go bankrupt and shut down our factories since the market only supports 1000 trucks per day but we are making 1500.

As some factories start losing money, we lay off staff, some of us start going bankrupt which means the banks (we got a loan from to build our factories) have to take a loss. The economy is now in recession because in our earlier exuberance to chase that amazing profit we built too much capacity and over invested creating a “bubble” in the market. Bubbles have to pop to restore equilibrium.

You don’t get this dynamic in a centrally planned economy because in a centrally planned economy we can make a more straightforward investment decision: there is demand for 1000 trucks but we are only making 500, so only create capacity for 500 more trucks. Since our centralized planning allows for a coordinated investment decision with access to full economic data, we don’t over-invest meaning we don’t create excess capacity meaning there is no need for a “correction”.

A market based system is decentralized. Every corporation is making their own investment decisions, each corporation is trying to make and sell as many trucks as they can. A corporation doesn’t care if the economy as a whole is making too many trucks, their sole interest is to sell as many of their trucks as possible which is why a market system results of cycles of over- and under- supply.

It’s a cycle. Capital chases profit and invests in production, leading to first a boom as production soars but then inevitably leading to a bust as capital keeps piling in chasing that profit result in over-investment and excess capacity.

Markets are decentralized. A socialist system is centralized meaning it can make decisions that take the entire economy into consideration instead of only the immediate interests of a single corporation.

Obviously this pretty idealized and all actually existing socialist systems have had at least some degree of internal markets and all have had exposure to markets in the form of international trade so you still see ups and downs in centrally planned economies since an economy is never fully centralized or fully decentralized.

Also in socialist systems there is still the risk of over-investment due to bad decision making or inaccurate economic data, or eg in the USSR the economic interests of the collective farms were over-protected which resulted in something analogous to overinvestment in agriculture so there is also political risk, etc.

So you still saw periods of economic stagnation in socialist systems but the swings are massively dampened. Also with centralized planning the state can more easily intervene to correct these issues when they arise (assuming the political will exists) which makes it easier to reboot the economy when things go awry - eg the socialist economies recovered more rapidly following WW2.

The main drawback is that a socialist economy can be less responsive to demand. Like, if blue jeans suddenly become very fashionable, in a socialist system the economic planners might be worried that denim is a passing fashion trend and averse to the risk of over investing in denim production, whereas in a market system the corporations will say fuck it let’s make money today and let the future worry about excess supply issues not my problem I’ll already be rich.

So the benefit of central planning is that growth is more stable and sustained at the cost of being potentially less responsive, whereas a market economy can be very responsive but at the cost of boom-bust cycles, and at the cost of concentrating enormous political and economic power into the hands of the individuals who own the factories.

China for example seeks to get the benefit of both in a partially mixed system where consumer products and growth industries that are more likely to see rapid shifts in demand are left to private industry while the backbone of the economy that is more stable (eg mining, energy generation, etc) are subject to planning directives.

It was a fringe position in the Polish far-right before the election and now that the libs have won it’s even less likely to happen.

The Polish far-right are a dominant political force.

And it’s under the relatively lib coalition that relations have reached their lowest point.

I think if Ukraine comes out of this with borders that roughly resemble the current front lines then they’ll keep Lviv but there’s a real possibility of political collapse in Ukraine, if things get worse and if the currently cooperating power centers turn on each other, and in that collapse scenario it becomes pretty plausible.

probably still less likely to happen than not but it’s definitely plausible and there are multiple plausible-to-likely pathways where you can see the political situation in Ukraine deteriorating to the point of collapse.

I don’t think I buy the current Russian narrative that the military camp are about to coup Zelenskyy but he’s definitely under enormous pressure right now, and even if a coup likely isn’t about to happen you can nonetheless see Zelenskyy and the military camp making political defense lines between each other, and the number of high level aides, spouses, and the like opening boxes that accidentally contained a grenade or suffered an unfortunate food poisoning incident is pretty eyebrow raising.

Comment sorting

Interactivity

Active communities