Google co-founder Sergey Brin calls U.N. ‘transparently antisemitic’ after report on tech firms and Gaza
His comments came in response to a U.N. report released last month that alleged technology firms including Google and its parent company Alphabet had profited from “the genocide carried out by Israel” in Gaza by providing cloud and AI technologies to the Israeli government and military.
“With all due respect, throwing around the term genocide in relation to Gaza is deeply offensive to many Jewish people who have suffered actual genocides. I would also be careful citing transparently antisemitic organizations like the UN in relation to these issues,” Brin wrote in a forum for staff at Google DeepMind, the company’s artificial intelligence division, where workers were debating the report, according to the screenshots.
like this
Maeve likes this.
Is the Trinity Desktop Environment Secure?
So, a while back I installed Xfce with Chicago95, but was disappointed. Xfce just doesn't vibe with me, and a strict emulation of Windows95 is not really what I wanted, I just wanted something that "felt" that classic.
So I was gonna give up and just use KDE, until I saw TDE. I think TDE is probably what I'm looking for but I'm concerned about using anything so minor because security.
It TDE secure (for personal use)?
Can a DE even be insecure, or are they all generally as secure as each-other as long as you follow the rules (trustworthy software, closed firewall, install patches fast, and disaster recovery plans)?
What vulnerabilities can a desktop environment even have (edit)?
It appears to be maintained, which is a point in its favour.
You could send them a message on their mailing list and ask the question.
It's good that it looks to be still maintained, but I imagine their resources are limited with so little market share and it doesn't look like they have the resources to switch to Wayland (which I assume is more secure).
I'm not sure my noob questions are worthy of asking the devs directly.
That might be true. They have a Mastodon too floss.social/@tde
There are no stupid questions and the attitude of any response would be a good way to judge if using the DE is worth your time.
Probably not significantly less secure than Xorg itself, I wouldn't mind using in your place. DE security is usually not a huge problem, if someone can exploit these vulnerabilities usually you are quite bonked.
Remember most of what happens on screen is xorg, the wm is a simply interacting with xorg and other parts of your DE are simple user level programs like the panel etc..
What kind of threats could affect Xorg? I can't imagine anything really exploiting the display manager without arbitrary code execution elsewhere (not that I know anything at all about software security).
I guess the biggest risk is whichever browser I use becoming a Wayland exclusive and not getting updates.
There are no open security bugs against TDE that I'm aware of—if there were, I'd expect them to be fixed in the next release. In my experience, the development team, while not huge, is active and competent.
I've been using TDE since a little while after Gentoo sunsetted KDE3, and I've had no issues. Just make sure your X server is secure—-nolisten and all that stuff—and don't try to use Konqueror as a web browser (it remains an excellent file manager), and you should be fine.
Wayland is "more secure" than X in that it makes less LAN contact by default and tries to sandbox programs from one another to an extent, just in case some future browser exploit that can copy random swathes of your screen tries to screenshot your password manager or something. There are no active exploits against a correctly-configured X server at this time that will magically vanish if you switch to Wayland, as far as I'm aware—it's more future-proofing stuff.
Thanks, that's a very clear response. I guess I basically can use it until X11 stops getting security updates. I wonder whether an X11 vulnerability can trigger a serious vulnerability even if it doesn't get security updates.
No idea what that -nolisten stuff is about. Is that to do with the firewall?
-nolisten is an actual option passed to the X server—your distro may do so by default—to work around a known security issue in some versions. I admit I'd have to look up the details, as it's been a couple of years since that issue was reported. Recent X versions almost certainly have a patch.
That might be a better fit for me. I know KDE has a polish and security I want, I imagine I could make it how I want.
Apparently TDE has lower resource usage, so I wonder if for that reason KDE might be a better fit. Clearly I should get both more experience with KDE and a better idea of what I'm actually looking for.
Before you give up on XFCE and/or Chicago95 - have you replaced the default menu with Whisker Menu? For me, Whisker Menu is a must-have for any sane XFCE user. When I used it with Chicago95, I found I could have a Windows 7 style interface with Windows 95 aesthetics.
Honestly, even if Chicago95 is aesthetically not what you want, I'd recommend trying an alternate theme on XFCE - I currently use modified DesktopPal '97 combined with a pack of Haiku-style icons.
Overall, I'd be interested to know more about your qualms with XFCE and see if customization can help you overcome them. A lot of distros have annoying defaults for XFCE, but I changed a few simple settings and have a desktop I rather enjoy using. It is totally fine if it still isn't the thing for you after any potential discussion, but I just want to make sure you really know what XFCE has to offer before you move on.
I don't really like how I keep accidentally rolling-up the windows in Xfce and how long the settings menu takes to load, I probably had more qualms but I don't remember what they are. It works fine (except for some aspects of Chicago95), but it feels outdated in a bad way rather than good way. Part of it is probably my crummy laptop with broken CTRL keys and incompatible bluetooth.
DesktopPal '97 seems really cool, but right now my top priority is switching to KDE Plasma 6 with custom themes and seeing how that goes.
What do you mean by "window roll-up"?
Also, the settings menu thing is weird - mine takes less than a second to load, and I'm on a machine with a 7 year old processor at this point. I almost worry that if that takes a long time KDE will be more miserable performance-wise, unless you've already tried it on here.
By the way, what distro and XFCE version are you running - just for good measure.
The outdated sentiment is probably based, honestly. I think it's gotten better, but there are rough edges. In the end, do what works for you.
Roll up is when you scroll-up while hovering over the title bar and everything except the title-bar disappears. In the image monovergent provided the title bar is highlighted in red.
I use Linux Mint with Xfce. Gonna change to OpenSUSE once I can be bothered distro-hopping.
EDIT: Specifically it's the Font Settings that take forever to load, not all of the settings menu.
Oh yeh. The font menu is crap. I can’t argue with that.
It’s one of those mysterious annoying things that’s up there with the GTK file picker in some apps taking 10 seconds to load.
But I also don’t change fonts that often. Still, that has much room for improvement.
Window roll-up can be disabled under Window Manager Tweaks > Accessibility > Use mouse wheel on title bar to roll up the window
Getting the bitmap font right goes a long way towards making the theme much more cohesive: github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95…
If you decide to return to any GTK-based desktop environments, I'd suggest trying out the GTK3 port of the Raleigh theme (github.com/thesquash/gtk-theme…). It's a much less involved install compared to Chicago 95 but gets you most of the look-and-feel.
The Whisker menu properties menu also has settings to make it fit the Windows 95 style a bit better. Here's how it could look:
Suggested fix for MS Sans Serif font issues
Since Pango / HarfBuzz have dropped support for many legacy bitmap fonts, the following Helvetica OTB font works as a replacement for MS Sans Serif, including bold and italic versions. Add the file...pkfbcedkrz (GitHub)
I made the changes, and it's slightly better but I think the main issue is my bad laptop and the negative association I have with Xfce as a result (since Xfce was what I was interacting with).
Raleigh isn't really my style. Too many lines. Plus I've decide I'll switch to themed KDE (and probably FreeBSD with TDE on one device).
The theme in the image you sent is really nice. Beige makes it feel more classic, and the red title-bar is far less jarring than a blue one is in 2025.
As far as the TDE devs know, there haven't been any issues resulting in a user getting hacked, they've modernized the underlying code, and actively patch any reported vulnerabilities: redlib.tiekoetter.com/r/linuxq…
That said, it is still a niche codebase with a small team, so they might not have the resources to be so proactive against theoretical vulnerabilities as a project like KDE or GNOME with Wayland. If you're being targeted, TDE would certainly be a shiny attack surface, but otherwise, I don't really see why a hacking group would go for something as niche as TDE. There's a tradeoff, like the one I take with X11 because I refuse to give up my XFCE+Chicago95 setup for an arguably more secure Wayland setup.
Most of the issues of a desktop environment just come down to there being more code and therefore a larger attack surface. Lots of widgets, obscure processes, and nooks and crannies to hide malicious stuff too. And legacy code with expansive privileges from the days before security was as much of a concern. While not Linux, it is analogous with security being a big part of why Microsoft released Server Core, which stripped out much of the GUI.
An extreme case, I also know of a someone who used Windows XP to do rather important work on the internet until around 2020. Only thing that stopped them were websites getting too bloated to load on their computer. But they did follow the basic rules as you mentioned and seemed to be just fine.
Is Q4OS/Trinity Desktop Environment inherently insecure to use on a 'main' computer? - r/linuxquestions
View on Redlib, an alternative private front-end to Reddit.redlib.tiekoetter.com
As far as the TDE devs know, there haven't been any issues resulting in a user getting hacked, they've modernized the underlying code, and actively patch any reported vulnerabilities: redlib.tiekoetter.com/r/linuxq…
That said, it is still a niche codebase with a small team, so they might not have the resources to be so proactive against theoretical vulnerabilities as a project like KDE or GNOME with Wayland. If you're being targeted, TDE would certainly be a shiny attack surface, but otherwise, I don't really see why a hacking group would go for something as niche as TDE. There's a tradeoff, like the one I take with X11 because I refuse to give up my XFCE+Chicago95 setup for an arguably more secure Wayland setup.
Most of the issues of a desktop environment just come down to there being more code and therefore a larger attack surface. Lots of widgets, obscure processes, and nooks and crannies to hide malicious stuff too. And legacy code with expansive privileges from the days before security was as much of a concern. While not Linux, it is analogous with security being a big part of why Microsoft released Server Core, which stripped out much of the GUI.
An extreme case, I also know of a someone who used Windows XP to do rather important work on the internet until around 2020. Only thing that stopped them were websites getting too bloated to load on their computer. But they did follow the basic rules as you mentioned and seemed to be just fine.
Is Q4OS/Trinity Desktop Environment inherently insecure to use on a 'main' computer? - r/linuxquestions
View on Redlib, an alternative private front-end to Reddit.redlib.tiekoetter.com
I guess it all comes down to the security of X11, and also whether X11 could even be exploited without arbitrary code execution though Anki or Firefox or Steam Chat or something. At which point no sane hacker would waste such an exploit on X11 that's rapidly becoming defunct.
An extreme case, I also know of a someone who used Windows XP to do rather important work on the internet until around 2020.. But they did follow the basic rules as you mentioned and seemed to be just fine.
I think they skipped the third rule, install patches fast.
USAID review raised ‘critical concerns’ over Gaza aid group days before $30 million US grant | CNN
An internal government assessment shows USAID officials raised “critical concerns” last month about a key aid group’s ability to protect Palestinians and to deliver them food – just days before the State Department announced $30 million in funding for the organization.
A scathing 14-page document obtained by CNN outlines a litany of problems with a funding application submitted by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a US-backed group established to provide aid following an 11-week Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. The United Nations human rights office says that hundreds of Palestinians have since been killed around private aid sites, including those operated by GHF.
The assessment flags a range of concerns, from an overall plan missing “even basic details” to a proposal to potentially distribute powdered baby formula in an area that lacks clean water to prepare it.
A USAID official came to a clear conclusion in the report: “I do not concur with moving forward with GHF given operational and reputational risks and lack of oversight.”
USAID review raised ‘critical concerns’ over Gaza aid group days before $30 million US grant
Key concerns were raised by USAID in vetting process days before $30 million grant was awarded to US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund, documents show.Yahya Abou-Ghazala (CNN)
På julafton sköts en 35-årig man ihjäl när han kom hem till en företagare i Hindås för att kräva tillbaks en skuld. Han hade med sig en vän som för sin del utsattes för ett mordförsök. 35-åringen kom inte längre än till dären.När han framfört sitt ärende sköt han ihjäl direkt. Kompisen sprang iväg och det sköts flera skott efter honom men de träffade inte.
Higrometr / czujnik wilgotności na Zigbee
Hej!
Szukam czujnika wilgotności pod Zigbee. Znalazłem taki model Sonoff SNZB-02D (allegro.pl/oferta/czujnik-temp…)
lub jakiś no-name IND-ZTHS1 (allegro.pl/oferta/czujnik-sens…)
czy ktoś miał okazję testować i może się wypowiedzieć, jak często aktualizują się wartości w HA?
Higrometr / czujnik wilgotności na Zigbee
Hej! Szukam czujnika wilgotności pod Zigbee. Znalazłem taki model Sonoff SNZB-02D (https://allegro.pl/oferta/czujnik-temperatury-wilgotnosci-sonoff-snzb-02d-inteligentny-lcd-zigbee-3-0-17378612088) lub jakiś no-name IND-ZTHS1 (https://allegro.Forum Internet. Czas działać!
Danish Ministry switching from Microsoft Office/365 to LibreOffice - The Document Foundation Blog
Danish Ministry switching from Microsoft Office/365 to LibreOffice - The Document Foundation Blog
Following the example of the German state of Schleswig-Holstein, which is moving 30,000 PCs from Microsoft Office/365 to LibreOffice, the Danish Ministry of Digitalisation is doing the same.Mike Saunders (The Document Foundation)
like this
PandaInSpace and Maeve like this.
Some articles even mention the whole country switching to it so there are some very optimistic headlines being fired at optimistic readers at the moment.
That said, Denmark pays huges amount to Microsoft for very little. I work in a nursing home where they use Microsoft Teams only as a file hosting system for word documents. Its a huge mess of people making files, to describe anything and then they tell you that you can find instructions in MS teams..
Right at the top:
FOKS is like Keybase, but fully open-source and federated, with SSO and YubiKey support.
I guess the reason I am asking is that I have never understood the use-case for Keybase either.
So your answer does not really answer my question. 😀
like this
TVA likes this.
like this
TVA likes this.
Is the data and public keys being replicated in the communication between instances? it's not made clear how the federation actually works, because "enabling users on different servers to share data with end-to-end encryption" (from foks.pub/) is something all services with TLS / HTTPS support already do...
Also.. one big plus for the OpenPGP HKP protocol is that technically you can self-host your own key in a static HTTPS server with predefined responses and be able to have it interact with other servers and clients without issue. I'm expecting the more complex nature of FOKS might make self-hosting in this way difficult. I'd rather minimize the dynamic services I expose to the outside publicly if I'm self hosting.
systemd has been a complete, utter, unmitigated success
systemd has been a complete, utter, unmitigated success
Eleven init systems enter, one init system leaves.Tyblog
journald. I'm supposed to wade through all the log files in /var/log myself??
tail -f /var/log/* could work too with multiple files, it'll "follow" all the files and display only new lines.
I’m supposed to wade through all the log files in /var/log myself??
You configured your logging. You could have made them all one file.
The Logfile Navigator
The Logfile Navigator, lnav for short, is an advanced log file viewer for the small-scale.The Logfile Navigator
journalctl is the one part of systemd I really do not like. For whatever reason, it's insanely slow, taking multiple seconds before it gets around to display anything. It also has all the wrong defaults, displaying error messages from a year ago first, while scrolling to the bottom again also takes forever and consumes 100% CPU while doing so.
There are flags to filter and display only the relevant parts, but not only are none of them intuitive, doing a mistake there just gives you "-- No entries --", not an error. So you can never quite tell if you typed it wrong or if were are no messages.
Maybe it all makes more sense when studying the man page in depths and learned all the quirks, but /var/log/ kind of just worked and was fast, without any extra learning.
I totally agree. I used to hate systemd for breaking the traditional Unix philosophy, but the reality is that a tight init and service-tracking integration tool really was required. I work with and appreciate systemd every day now. It certainly didn't make things simplier and easier to debug, but it goes a long way towards making a Linux system predictable and consistent.
Poettering can go fuck himself though - and for PulseAudio too. I suspect half of the hate systemd attracted over the years was really because of this idiot.
Is it really breaking it? As far as I'm aware, it's more like gnu. It has components and you can select what you use (here meaning distros and packagers).
People mistake this for a monolith because it's all named systemd-thing. Integration, like you said, was and is needed. But what if all those separate utilities and services are actually disconnected and speak some protocol different to pipe? Does it make it less unixy?
And poettering is an absolute good guy here. Pulseaudio wasn't perfect, but did it improve things compared to what was there before? Sure it did. Even now, pulesaudio protocol is used within pipewire and it works just fine.
Perfect is the enemy of good. And while all these tools might not be perfect, they are the best in the Linux world.
poettering is an absolute good guy here
Agreed. But he's also an abrasive know-it-all. A modicum of social skills and respect goes a long way towards making others accept your pet projects.
pulesaudio protocol is used within pipewire and it works just fine.
I wasn't talking about the protocol, I was talking about the implementation: PulseAudio is a crashy, unstable POS. I can't count the number of hours this turd made me waste, until PipeWire came along.
Everybody who is hated and popular gets death threats. Hell, even the nicest actors get death threats.
They are easy to write and send, and there's 0.01% of the population that is mentally unstable enough to actually do so. You and I don't get death threats because we aren't popular enough.
I feel that generally, when the issue is that the person is an arse, then the complaints are often not about the software. You might see people campaigning to boicot the software out of spite, but they won't give you a technical reason, other than them not wanting the creator to get any credit for it.
When the complaints are about discrepancies in the way the software is designed (like it was with systemd), there's no reason to expect the person to be an arse. Though him not being an arse does not make the criticism about his software invalid... in the same way as him being an arse would not have made the software technically worthless. Don't fall for the ad-hominem.
Pulseaudio was introduced in 2004. How come it took almost 20y for it to be replaced if it was that bad?
Implementation, being what it is, improved the situation compared to alsa and other things before it. Again, while not perfect it made things better for everyone.
It's funny that this is a thing attributed to poettering as bad since things before were way worse... why not throw Sticks and stones at those people?
I really don't get it.
And all of these things are optional. The fact that distro people and companies select them is because they solve real world problems.
Pulseaudio was introduced in 2004. How come it took almost 20y for it to be replaced if it was that bad?
Did you learn nothing from X11 usage? May I remind you that X11 was invented by Xerox in the fucking 80s?!
Bad software attaches itself to OSs like a cancer.
Agreed. But he’s also an abrasive know-it-all. A modicum of social skills and respect goes a long way towards making others accept your pet projects.
This isn't what I get when reading bug reports he interacts in. Yeah, sometimes he asks if something can't be done another way – but he seems also very open to new ideas. I rather think that this opinion of him is very selective, there are cases where he comes off as smug, but I never got the impression this is the majority of cases.
I wasn’t talking about the protocol, I was talking about the implementation: PulseAudio is a crashy, unstable POS. I can’t count the number of hours this turd made me waste, until PipeWire came along.
PipeWire for audio couldn't exist nowadays without PulseAudio though, in fact it was originally created as "PulseAudio for Video"; Pulse exposed a lot of bugs in the lower levels of the Linux audio stack. And I do agree that PipeWire is better than PulseAudio. But it's important to see it in the context of the time it was created in, and Linux audio back then was certainly different. OSS was actually something a significant amount of people used…
And poettering is an absolute good guy here.
You obviously weren't actually around when he was granted mini-king status and acted like a jackass to literally anyone who objected to pulse or systemd. As a result, redhat, canonical, and Debian had to eat criticism over pushing these before they were ready... because of "superstar" poettering.
Poettering is a disrespectful clown.
“It’s more like gnu”
You are correct. GNU has the bad habit of only working with itself as well. Systemd only works with Glibc so it fits in well.
The reality is that GNU is just a subset of the Red Hat Linux platform these days. Systemd is another part. GNOME is the other big chunk. They are all designed to work with each other and do not care if they work with anything else.
predictable and consistent.
Or none of those.
Oh. My NIC didn't 'start' because systemd and network manager are fighting again? Neet.
I don't know why they are downvoting you, it's true. I'm dealing with this kind of problem currently.. sometimes the boot lasts forever to the point that I have to use AltGr+SysRq commands to force kill everything.. other times it simply boots as normal. It's not consistent at all.
At least before with the old init it was relatively simple to dig into the scripts and make changes to them.. I feel now with systemd it's a lot more opaque and harder to deal with. I wouldn't even know how to approach the problem, systemd-analyze blame does not help, since the times I actually get to boot look normal. But I do believe it must have to do with the mountpoints because often they are what takes the longest.
Any advice on what should I do would be welcome.
Also, I have a separate Bazzite install in my living room TV, and while that one does not get locked, sometimes NetworkManager simply is not running after boot... I got fed up to the point that I wrote a workaround by creating a rc.local script to have it run, so I can have it available reliably when the system starts (that fixed it.. though some cifs mountpoints often do not get mounted.. so I'm considering adding the mount command to the same rc.local script too....).
Any advice on what should I do would be welcome.
You can play around with the mount option nofail, if that's set, systemd will not wait for the mount point to be ready and continue booting normally. Can be useful with HDDs that take a while to spin up and aren't needed for the boot process (e.g. backup drives, etc.).
Another thing to look out for: SDCards or USB flash drives that might randomly fail to "spin up" and hang, unplugging those helps.
Thanks! I'll try with nofail and see if the lockups stop!
Another thing to look out for: SDCards or USB flash drives that might randomly fail to “spin up” and hang, unplugging those helps.
Honestly, that could be it now that you mention it.. I have had for a while an external hard drive plugged in that I've used for some backups.
I'd say the main bad part of systemd is how it's used and now expected everywhere.
If you search for some Linux guides or install something complicated or whatnot, they always expect you to have systemd. Otherwise, you're on your own figuring how things work on your system.
This shouldn't really happen. Otherwise, yes, it's great, it integrates neatly, and is least pain to use.
like this
HeerlijkeDrop likes this.
like this
TVA likes this.
In my opnion, systemd is like core-utils at this point.
It's so integrated into most things and the default so many places, that most guides assume you have it.
I like systemd overall. The ease of use, uniform interface and nice documentation is awesome.
Though each time I try to run it on outdated hardware (say, my Thinkpad X100e, which is, well, a life choice xD) — it makes whole system much slower. IMO, openrc is not as bad, and in some ways it gives some capabiilties of systemd these days.
Re: systemd has been a complete, utter, unmitigated success
I totally agree.
I hate to admit I didn't want anything to do with systemd because it took me forever to get somewhat familiar with some other mainstream init systems.
Then, I didn't care for a while until I developed software that had to keep running using some sort of init system. The obvious choice was whatever the default I had (systemd) and I fell in love with the convenience of systemd (templates, timers, ..). I started shipping sample systemd with the things I provide & yes, you are on your own if you use something else.
I've been using systemd on most of my systems since it was released; I was an early jumper to upstart as well.
The thing I don't like about systemd is how pervasive in the OS it is. It violates the "do one thing, do it well" Unix philosophy, and when systemd went from an init system to starting to take everything over, I started liking it less.
My issues with systemd is that it isn't an unmitigated success, for me. journald is horrible: it's slow and doesn't seem to catch everything (the latter is extremely rare, but that it happens occasionally makes me nervous). There are several gotchas in running user services, such as getting in-session services working correctly (so that user services can access the user session kernel keyring).
Recently I've been using dinit on a system, and I'm pretty happy with it. I may switch all of my systems over to it; I'm running Arch everywhere, and while migrating Arch to Artix was scary the first time, in the end it went fairly smoothly.
Fundamentally, systemd is a monolithic OS system. It make Linux into more of a Windows or MacOS, where a bunch of different systems are consolidated under a single piece of software. While it violates the Unix philosophy, it has been successful because monolithic systems tend to be easier to use: users really only have to learn two command-line tools, vs a dozen. Is it categorically better, just because the user interface is easier for new Linux users?
It is not modular. This is a lie Poettering keeps pushing to defend building a huge edifice of interdependent systems.
Look at the effort required to factor out logind. It can't just be used in it's own; it has a hard dependency on systemd and needs code changes to decouple.
I will repeat that journald is really bad at what it does, and further assert that you can not run systemd without journald, or vice versa. That you can not run systemd without getting timed job control. Even if you chose not to use it, it's in there. And you can not get time job control without the init part. In most unix systems, init and cron are utterly decoupled and can be individually swapped with other systems.
Systemd is not modular if you can't swap parts out for other software. Systemd's modularity is a bald-faced lie.
The one exceptions are homed and resolvd, which are relatively new and were addedlong after systemd came under fire for being monolithic. And, ironically, they're the components most distributions don't use by default.
It's refreshing to read to someone that actually says "I was so wrong"
I was wrong also with systemd, I hated it mainly because I already knew init.d, where files are, where configs where etc. Some years later hate is gone, I'm not a power user, but I just now know how to handle my things with systemd and all is good.
I've never used any other init system since I'm relatively new to Linux (8 years of use). So, systemd is all I know. I don't mind it, but I have this one major issue with it. That "stop job for UID 1000......" Or whatever it says. It's hands down the most annoying thing I have ever experienced in Linux. Making me wait for 3 minutes sometimes is just insane. I know I can go in and make it wait for 5 seconds /etc/systemd/system.conf or whatever, but why? Also, another one usually pops up.
Other than that, I really like how I can make timers. I like how I can make scripts run on boot, logout or login. And I like how I can make an app a background service that can auto start if they ever crashed. Maybe all of this can be done with other init systems? I wouldn't know, but I like these in systemd
I use it because I'm frankly too dumb to use something else, but if that wasnt the case, i dont think id be speaking fondly of it.
I'm a ram usage fetishist, I absolutely disagree with the "unused ram is wasted ram" phrase that has caught on with people.
I see some of these distros running a graphical environment with only 90mb ram usage and i cream myself. All of them run something other than systemd, usually avoid GNU stuff, and...require you basically to be a developer to use them.
I already run a half broken, hacked together system due to my stubborness, I can't imagine how fucked I'd be if I tried one of these cool kid minimalist distros.
Even a system that uses 90mb of ram on a cold boot will accumulate gigs of stuff in cache if you're using it. (assuming it has the memory for it) That isn't what people have a problem with though.
Maybe this is an incorrect use of language on my part, but I feel like I'm not the only person who means "memory actively being used by a process" when referring to memory usage. I understand the whole linux ate my ram thing. That just isn't what I or what I assume a lot of people mean when talking about this.
When I boot up my system, pull up my terminal, run htop, and see 800-1200mb being used just by processes (not in buffer, not in cache), that doesn't raise any flags or anything, but I also know that some people have gotten their systems so streamlined they use 10x less than that. That's all memory that could be used by other things. That could be the difference between a low memory system running a web browser or not. Could be the difference maker in a game someone wants to play on their system. There are endless possibilities.
Though I see Systemd as an improvement, I still do not like it.
The Chimera Linux FAQ captures my thoughts quite well:
People handling 50 times those numbers encounter issues where it starts to matter, and those people tend to claim that, while it ain't perfect, it is a lot better than any alternative
All words from any it admin have weight, that is not what I meant.
Its just that init scripts and weird boot requirements are really crap to manage at scale and my job, like many others became a lot easier with systemd, that is why almost everyone uses it now. In my experience those that complain either never encountered these issues because they never scaled enough and like to use what they were used to, or prefer to write a script over a config file and make this a religious issue for some reason.
Unrelated but how do people feel about the ai images when used for something like this.
The font is very telling for being DallE
People would be less mad if you straight up used a stock image with a watermark so I don't understand why people go out of their way to use AI when they know people will comment on it and it will detract from the point of the article.
Also, using AI in the thumbnail makes people automatically assume you're using AI in the text as well. And if you're not doing that, why would you lessen the perceived value of your writing by making it seem like you are?
It just seems pointless and actively harms your actual goals because people will get hung up on the fact that you used AI and ignore your actual valid points. Especially when you're writing about open source projects when most people interested in open source are vehemently anti-AI, it really just shows you don't know your target audience.
Personally I think it's fallen out of fashion. For my blog I'd either use a meme or other dump picture for each post. When generated images first came out I used a few for blog posts, it was new and interesting and said "I'm interested in technology and like playing around with new things".
Nowadays I'm back on the meme pics. I feel now it's so much easier to generate images, it more says "I want to look professional but also spend no money and have no standards".
Love to see a Canadian mining company CEOs crying about their gold getting appropriated.
Mali plans to sell gold from Barrick Mining complex to fund operations, sources say
Canadian mining company temporarily halted operations in January after the Malian government seized gold stocks from its complexDivya Rajagopal, Portia Crowe and Tiemoko Diallo (The Globe and Mail)
Firefox is fine. The people running it are not
Firefox is fine. The people running it are not
Opinion: Mozilla's management is a bug, not a featureLiam Proven (The Register)
Dessalines likes this.
Openwrite — a minimalist, FOSS-first blogging platform with Gemini support
Hey fellow FOSS folks!
For past few weeks I’ve been working on a passion project called Openwrite — a minimalist, open-source blogging platform focused on privacy, simplicity, and full user control.
It’s built with Flask and released under the AGPL license. Inspired by platforms like WriteFreely, but with a few twists.
What it offers right now:
Multiple blogs per user (or single-blog mode, ideal for self-hosting)
- SQLite & MySQL support
- Image uploads (local or BunnyCDN)
- Markdown editor with live preview
- Custom blog themes (like a 6 now but I upload new regularly)
- Custom CSS per blog
- Gemini support – yes, gemini://openwrite.io works!
- No tracking, hashed IPs only for basic stats
- Dashboard with view statistics (OS, browser, timelines – all for free)
- ActivityPub federation (Follow, Like)
- RSS feeds, optional search engine indexing, and "Discover" section
Oh — and it supports importing posts from XML(wordpress) or CSV.
What makes it different?
I’m trying to build something:
- FOSS-first (no paid plans, no analytics spyware, no nonsense)
- Purely optional in hosting: you can run your own instance or use mine
- Built for people like us — nerds, tinkerers, writers, privacy lovers
Current status
Still in 0.x versions (currently at 0.10.4), but stable and usable.
I’d love early feedback, contributors, ideas, testers — anything really.
First pull request will make me cry tears of joy.
GitHub: github.com/openwriteio/openwri…
Site: openwrite.io/
Gemini mirror: gemini://openwrite.io
Thanks for reading — feel free to ask questions, roast my CSS, or suggest features.
Let’s keep the open web alive 💜
GitHub - openwriteio/openwrite: openwrite is a minimalist blogging platform built for writing freely, hosting independently, and publishing without noise.
openwrite is a minimalist blogging platform built for writing freely, hosting independently, and publishing without noise. - openwriteio/openwriteGitHub
like this
PandaInSpace likes this.
like this
PandaInSpace likes this.
President Maduro Highlights Strengthened Venezuela-China Alliance at Great China-Venezuela Expo 2025
President Maduro Highlights Strengthened Venezuela-China Alliance at Great China-Venezuela Expo 2025 - teleSUR English
At the Great China-Venezuela Expo 2025, President Nicolas Maduro celebrates the deepening strategic partnership with China, emphasizing sovereignty, economicteleSURenglish
like this
Maeve likes this.
like this
Maeve likes this.
Nobody expects Russia to march to Berlin. They will selectively annex or invade wherever suits them if they don’t face resistance. This article seems to say we should abandon Ukraine so German industry can have cheaper power from fossil fuels. Merkel also treated Russia like a normal trading partner when it was clear they were not trustworthy.
No, Germany decommissioned its nuclear plants as an act of foolishness. Ukraine should not pay the consequences. If Germany wants less war, it would be easy to stop supporting genocide in Palestine, while continuing to support Ukraine.
Germanys economy is suffering, but it has turned the corner. Likely trade with America will affect it more than Russia.
So, why did they Annex Crimea and invade Ukraine?
I don't think Europe should be spending 5% of GDP on defence. That doesn't mean Russia is not a threat. You're saying that Russia is a threat, but from a intelligence and misinformation point of view. What makes you think much of the new spending won't be on that?
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
These questions have been answered in detail many time by plenty of people such as , Jeffrey Sachs, and many others. Russia's annexation of Crimea was a direct response to the overthrow of the legitimate and democratically elected government by the west. The invasion of Ukraine was a response to NATO provocation. The fact that this was a provocation wasn't even hidden. It was openly discussed in mainstream US media and by US think tanks. A couple of examples for you here
In fact, entire books have been written on the subject detailing the history of the provocations that led to the conflict.
You’re saying that Russia is a threat, but from a intelligence and misinformation point of view. What makes you think much of the new spending won’t be on that?
What I'm actually saying is that Europe is creating internal political instability and popular revolt against the neoliberal regime through its austerity policies. Meanwhile, Europe's own actions are the reason for the adversarial relationship with Russia. Russia will obviously continue to see Europe as a threat given Europe's openly hostile stance towards Russia, and therefore has every incentive to destabilize Europe in every way possible. Thus, European strategy becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where the actions Europe is taking ensure an adversarial relationship with Russia while destroying the foundation of economic stability that allows current political system to function.
The War in Ukraine Was Provoked—and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace
By recognizing that the question of NATO enlargement is at the center of this war, we understand why U.S. weaponry will not end this war. Only diplomatic efforts can do that. JEFFREY D.Jeffrey D. Sachs
Lol, so NATO provoking Russia is saying that Ukraine could enter at some point. Russia invaded them as in the future, they may not be able to invade them?!
At no point has there ever been any indication that NATO countries would impact on Russian sovereignty without provocation. Russia doesn't want more NATO members as it wants to invade and control their neighbours when it wishes.
Democratically elected? Do you forget that Victor yanukovich had his competition jailed. Yulia Tymoshenko was democratically elected and was pro eu. She then lost a run off to him and he had her jailed.
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
NATO provoking Russia with constant expansion to Russian borders since the 90s. Don't take my word for it though, here it is from the former head of NATO:
He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinion…
I guess he must be spreading Ruzzian propaganda. 🤣
At no point has there ever been any indication that NATO countries would impact on Russian sovereignty without provocation. Russia doesn’t want more NATO members as it wants to invade and control their neighbours when it wishes.
I literally linked you an article and a policy paper above showing the exact opposite. I love how you ignore the reference I provide you with and just keep spewing propaganda talking points.
Democratically elected? Do you forget that Victor yanukovich had his competition jailed. Yulia Tymoshenko was democratically elected and was pro eu. She then lost a run off to him and he had her jailed.
Zelensky also jails his competition, and even cancelled elections. Yet, according to eurotrolls Ukraine is the pinnacle of democracy. I guess it's not just Ukraine nowadays, Romania cancelled elections when the wrong candidate won and jailed him. So, let's not pretend cancelling elections is something that doesn't happen in European "democracies".
I don't think Russia wants to "invade and control their neighbors when it wishes", but I also don't think the expansion of NATO justifies in any way the war Russia started.
And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further.
Russia is playing into USA hands by behaving this way, imho. Just as much as Europe is.
Talking about justifications is just moralizing, and it's not constructive in nature. The question should be how different countries should behave to avoid conflict.
Meanwhile, the whole talk of NATO expanding is pure nonsense. NATO has been shown to be impotent in Ukraine, and the US is now actively pulling out of Europe. Without the US there is no NATO because Europe lacks industrial capacity to pick up the slack. Even with the US in NATO, Russian military industry is outproducing it by a large factor according to a no lesser person than Rutte:
In terms of ammunition, Russia produces in three months what the whole of NATO produces in a year.
All the NATO wunderwuffe failed to turn the tide of war in Ukraine, and now NATO stocks are running dry with no clear way to replace them because NATO is not capable of pumping weapons out at the rate they're consumed in Ukraine.
Russia is playing into USA hands by behaving this way, imho. Just as much as Europe is.
Not really, the most likely scenario here is that Russia and the US will make a deal over the heads of the Europeans. They've already reestablished diplomatic relations, and when it becomes clear that Russia won the war, the US will make the best of it by throwing Europe under the bus.
Talking about justifications is just moralizing, and it’s not constructive in nature.
Then why do you moralize Europe's reaction? Or are you saying that you don't think wasting money in military is bad?
"Moralizing" just means "making judgments on whether it's good or bad".
Are you saying that we should not judge whether the decision to start a war was good / bad?
Meanwhile, the whole talk of NATO expanding is pure nonsense. NATO has been shown to be impotent in Ukraine, and the US is now actively pulling out of Europe.
Can you explain what you mean by "this whole talk"? which talk? is this something I said?
I don't see how this challengues anything I said (if this was your intent).
"NATO provoking Russia with constant expansion to Russian borders" is something you said, not me. I was just making echo of that.. I didn't say anything about the power of NATO in Ukraine.. you are making up your own straw man....
Not really, the most likely scenario here is that Russia and the US will make a deal over the heads of the Europeans.
And you think this will not benefit the USA?
Europe also does deals with USA over the heads of the Russians.. this is not benefiting Russia either.
Then why do you moralize Europe’s reaction? Or are you saying that you don’t think Europe’s reaction is morally bad?
Point out where I make any moral arguments regarding Europe. What I'm actually saying that Europe is acting in an irrational and and self harmful way that's at odds with its own interests. The key is that strength is multifaceted, and it’s important to understand what type of strength is called for in any particular situation.
Are you saying that we should not judge whether the decision to start a war was good / bad?
I'm saying that we need to consider the context that led to the decision to start the war, and talk about what could've been done differently to avoid the war.
Can you explain what you mean by “this whole talk”? which talk? is this something I said?
I'm referring to you saying: "And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further."
And you think this will not benefit the USA?
I didn't say it wouldn't, but something benefiting the USA isn't contrary to it also benefiting Russia. It's not a zero sum game.
Europe also does deals with USA over the heads of the Russians… this is not benefiting Russia either.
If by does deals you mean gets brutally exploited then sure. The US is now selling Europe energy at 5-10x times that Russia was charging, it's actively poaching European industry that can't survive on high energy prices, and it's insisting on Europe spending an astounding 5% of GDP to pay US military industrial complex.
What I’m actually saying that Europe is acting in an irrational and and self harmful way that’s at odds with its own interests
Ah, and don't you think that's bad? ...or you just don't think that acting in a way that harms the population should be "moralized"?
Do you think Russia is in a better position now than after the war?
I don't think Russia's attack on Ukraine was a rational response to NATO's expansion or beneficial to the Russians. If you don't like the word "justified" then we can talk about it using your terms.
I’m saying that we need to consider the context that led to the decision to start the war, and talk about what could’ve been done differently to avoid the war.
Ok, what should Russia have done differently to avoid the war? or is this exclusively Europe's responsibility?
Is Russia like a wild animal that simply reacts mechanically, taking only reactionary action, even when the decision can hurt them more than it can benefit them?
Do you really think that NATO's expansion was such an existential threat for Russia that waging war was "rational"? Because a moment ago you were saying that "NATO expanding is pure nonsense", that it can't really keep up, etc. So was NATO a threat or not?
I’m referring to you saying: “And ironically, this Russian reaction is helping NATO expand further.”
Yes I said that. Is it wrong? you mean the war has not triggered several countries to start having interest in joining NATO?
And this article is even about European members of NATO wanting to spend more in military... I think this is the opposite of what Russia wanted, which is why I find it ironic.
I didn’t say it wouldn’t, but something benefiting the USA isn’t contrary to it also benefiting Russia. It’s not a zero sum game.
I didn't say it's a zero sum game. The fact that this whole thing is forcing everyone to make deals with the US is quite telling, imho.
Same for Europe, the deal was brutal, but the pressure was high due to the breaks with Russia. Losing European business was a hard blow for Russia too, and they are overall in a much worse position now, imho.
I'm not surprised at Europe's stupidity, but Russia is not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, to put it mildly. Both Russia and Europe are best when they work together... and they will destroy themselves if they continue this way.
Ah, and don’t you think that’s bad? …or you just don’t think that acting in a way that harms the population should be “moralized”?
I've explicitly and repeatedly explained what I think. If you have trouble understanding what I wrote then please let me know what part of it you need explained to you further.
Do you think Russia is in a better position now than after the war?
Absolutely, the World Bank just reclassified Russia as a high income country, and the IMF forecasts that Russian economy is set to grow faster than all the western economies. Russia has also demonstrated that it is able to take on NATO militarily, and given that it is winning the war, it will dictate the terms in Ukraine.
Furthermore, NATO is now in a state of complete chaos. There is infighting between Europeans internally, as well as growing ideological fractures across the Atlantic. It is not at all clear that NATO will survive the next few years. Don't take my word for it though, here's The Times describing the last NATO summit as Potemkin in nature.
Ok, what should Russia have done differently to avoid the war? or is this exclusively Europe’s responsibility? Is Russia like a wild animal that simply reacts mechanically, taking only reactionary action, even when the decision can hurt them more than it can benefit them?
Russia did try to avoid the war for 8 whole years. That's what the Minsk agreements were about. The ones top European leaders have now admitted were never intended to be implemented faithfully and were used to buy time to arm Ukraine.
Perhaps what Russia should have done differently was to not wait as long as they did to intervene in the ethnic cleansing that Ukraine was conducting in Donbas with western help.
Do you really think that NATO’s expansion was such an existential threat for Russia that waging war was “rational”? Because a moment ago you were saying that “NATO expanding is pure nonsense”.
I do think that, and plenty of western experts think that as well and have been warning about this since the 90s. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
truthout.org/articles/us-appro…
truthout.org/articles/noam-cho…
::: spoiler 50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
:::
::: spoiler George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
:::
::: spoiler Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
:::
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Yes I said that. Is it wrong? you mean the war has not triggered several countries to start having interest in joining NATO?
Yes it is wrong, and I've explained in detail why it's wrong already.
And this article is even about European members of NATO wanting to spend more in military… I think this is the opposite of what Russia wanted, which is why I find it ironic.
You seem to have this infantile notion that simply adding NATO members makes it stronger.
I didn’t say it’s a zero sum game. The fact that this whole thing is forcing everyone to make deals with the US is quite telling, imho.
Russia isn't forced to make any deals with the US last I checked. It's the US that's trying to make deals with Russia right now, not the other way around.
European business was a hard blow for Russia too, and they are overall in a much worse position now, imho.
It's not because it opened up domestic niches that are being filled by local businesses, and China was able to redirect its trade towards BRICS. For example, trade with China stands at over 200 bln now. And of course, Russian oil and gas revenues soared 41% in first half of the year, as the data shows
I’m not surprised at Europe’s stupidity, but Russia is not the smartest tool in the shed either.
Russia is now largely insulated from the economic chaos in the west because it's mostly cut out of western economy. This alone is a huge benefit because it will insulate Russia from the economic crash that's unfolding in the west. Russia is still able to sell its commodities to the world, and it's no longer reliant on the western financial system to do that. It managed to strengthen relations with friendly countries. China in particular has become a strong ally for China, and its economy already surpasses the US in terms of PPP. It's also where pretty much all technology is produced.
Both Russia and Europe are best when they work together… and they will destroy themselves if they continue this way.
Russia has other options and it has proven over past three years that it does not need Europe. Meanwhile, Europe cannot function without Russian energy.
Russian-Chinese trade will exceed $200 billion in 2024 - Prensa Latina
Moscow, Oct 1 (Prensa Latina) Trade exchange between Russia and China will exceed in 2024 the goal of 200 billion dollars proposed by the leaders of the two countries, declared the Russian ambassador in Beijing, Igor Morgulov.Luis Linares Petrov (Prensa Latina)
Sorry, but if you truly don't think that decisions that lead to suffering should be "moralized", and you really think that it's "rational" and in the "own interests" of a country to wage war in order to grow the economy, then I think we simply disagree on what should be the goals of a society and where its interests should lie.
From the article you linked:
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine took much of the world by surprise. It is an unprovoked and unjustified attack that will go down in history as one of the major war crimes of the 21st century, argues Noam Chomsky
Chomsky even uses the word "unjustified". He's saying pretty much the same thing I said.
Note how what I was asking is whether NATO's expansion was a threat for Russia, not whether the expansion of NATO was a good decision. (or if you don't like the word "good" then... "rational and under our own self-interest").
I can perfectly agree with NATO's expansion being a "bad" (sorry... irrational / self-harming) decision by the West, but that wasn't what I asked.
You seem to have this infantile notion that simply adding NATO members makes it stronger.
hahaha... infantile? Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ the adult.
You seem to have the delusion that I was talking about "strength" when I said "expansion".
Is it true or is it false that the war has motivated NATO's expansion (ie.. adding members)? because that's all I said, ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆.
Sorry, but if you truly don’t think that decisions that lead to suffering should be “moralized”, and you really think that it’s “rational” and in the “own interests” of a country to wage war in order to grow the economy, then I think we simply disagree on what should be the goals of a society.
You're just putting words in my mouth at this point. What I said is that it's rational for a country to respond militarily to an aggressive military alliance surrounding it. Given that NATO would be able to place nukes in Ukraine that could hit Moscow under 5 minutes, it would be insane for Russia not to respond to that.
Nowhere did I suggest that Russia started the war to grow its economy. What I said, is that Russia managed to restructure its economy away from the west, and it is not harmed by the war the way Europe is.
Chomsky even uses the word “unjustified”. He’s saying pretty much the same thing I said.
Chomsky can use whatever words he likes, but the provocations are well documented. Again, as I've already explained to you repeatedly, talking about justifications is not constructive. You're back to doing moralizing here.
The question is how to avoid conflicts like this going forward. The argument about whether it's moral for Russia to start the war does the opposite of that because it implicitly ignores the role the west played in starting the conflict.
Since people in the west have little influence over Russian actions, it is the most productive to focus on what their own governments are doing. That should be obvious, yet here we are.
Is it true or is it false that the war has motivated NATO’s expansion (ie… adding members)? because that’s all I said
I love how you're trying to be clever here, but let's reason through this using your adult brain Ferk. Explain why would NATO expansion be a problem for Russia if the alliance isn't becoming stronger?
What I said is that it’s rational for a country to respond militarily to an aggressive military alliance surrounding it.
So you are saying that if there was a bordering country (let's say... Belarus.. for example) that decided to strike a military alliance with Russia (let's say they decide to call it "Union State Treaty"... or maybe for example "ODKB"), then do you really think this should be seen as a "provocation" and that it'd be a "rational" reaction for Europe to wage war?
I don't think war is the answer to a defense treaty. NATO was a defense treaty.. a weak one (by your own admission) without a lot of military investment, specially by Europe. I disagree that it was really a threat.. the same way that I would not have seen it as a threat if Russia started making some NATO-equivalent treaties with countries in the Europe-Russia border. If the roles were reversed and Ukraine joined a treaty with Russia, China and other big powers, I would be against Europe waging war. Would you not?
Nowhere did I suggest that Russia started the war to grow its economy. What I said, is that Russia managed to restructure its economy away from the west, and it is not harmed by the war the way Europe is.
Ah, so the economic boom has nothing to do with the war? Because what I wanted to ask is whether the war caused self-harm or benefit.
In your last bit there it seems you are hinting that Russia was harmed by the war, even if it wasn't harmed "the way Europe is".
So.. which one is it? was the war a rational benefitial thing for Russia that resulted in them being better off? or was it an irrational self-harming thing (even if not "the way" it was for Europe)?
You’re back to doing moralizing here
Chomsky is too. I believe that if you don't have morals in regards to which decisions are beneficial for a society then is when discussing these topics does become "not constructive".
it implicitly ignores the role the west played in starting the conflict.
I have no problem accepting the role of the West. I agree that NATO's expansion was a "morally bad" (irrational / self-harm) decision because it should have been the better person and realize earlier that Russia would end up behaving the way they did (irrationally).
My point is that Russia feeling entitled to wage a war was also "morally bad" (irrational / self-harm). I'm saying this because I feel that your comments imply that Russia was completely rational in waging war.
reason through this using your adult brain Ferk.
hahahaha thank you! I'll try to explain it clearly Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆! :D
Explain why would NATO expansion be a problem for Russia if the alliance isn’t becoming stronger?
Huh? That's not what I said.
My point is that NATO expansion was NOT a real threat/problem for Russia. That's why I think the attack was (to use Chomky's words): "unprovoked and unjustified".
So you are saying that if there was a bordering country (let’s say… Belarus… for example) that decided to strike a military alliance with Russia (let’s say they decide to call it “Union State Treaty”), then this should be seen as a “provocation” and you’d think it to be a “rational” reaction for Europe to wage war?
I'm saying that when USSR put nuclear weapons in Cuba we know what the reaction from the US was. This is not a hypothetical debate.
I don’t think war is the answer to a defense treaty
NATO is not a defense treaty. It's an aggressive organization that has been invading and destroying countries for decades now. Go read up on Yugoslavia and Libya as two examples. Meanwhile, the key member of NATO has been at a state of continues war all around the world.
I disagree that it was really a threat… the same way that I would not have seen it as a threat if Russia started making some NATO-equivalent treaties with countries in the Europe-Russia border.
It's entirely irrelevant what you think. What matters is how Russia perceives NATO. The fact of the matter is that NATO should have been disbanded when USSR dissolved. Yet, for some reason it was not. Then Russia offered to join NATO and create a joint security alliance on equal terms, but was rebuffed by NATO.
You keep trying to paint this as a neutral situation, but the facts are against you. NATO is the organization that has been expanding towards Russia despite giving guarantees to the contrary in the 90s.
Ah, so the economic boom has nothing to do with the war? Because what I wanted to ask is whether the war caused self-harm or benefit.
Russia did not invade Ukraine for economic reasons. The economic boom is the result of Russian being much better at restructuring its economy than Europe.
In your last bit there it seems you are hinting that Russia was harmed by the war, even if it wasn’t harmed “the way Europe is”.
Where was I hinting that?
Chomsky is too. I believe that if you don’t have morals in regards to which decisions are beneficial for a society then is when discussing these topics does become “not constructive”.
The elephant in the room is that the west is not able to impose its morals on Russia. We can control what we do in the west, and the question becomes whether we should take actions that lead to war or to peace.
Avoiding a war requires empathy. The west has to honestly acknowledge that Russia has legitimate interests of its own, and security concerns that the west has been trampling over. Then the rational thing to do is to find a compromise that both sides can see as being preferable to open war. That's how diplomacy works.
Instead, the west tried to impost its will on Russia while disregarding Russian concerns, and that led to a conflict that the west is now losing.
My point is that Russia feeling entitled to wage a war was also “morally bad” (irrational / self-harm). I’m saying this because I feel that your comments imply that Russia was completely rational in waging war.
Can you demonstrate in what way this was irrational self harm on the part of Russia? I gave you concrete examples in this thread showing that standard of living in Russia has improved during the time of the war, Russian economy has grown, Russian military has become far stronger, and Russia has become a much more important geopolitical player in the world. In what way has Russia irrationally self harmed itself?
My point is that NATO expansion was NOT a threat for Russia. That’s why I think the attack was (to use Chomky’s words): “unprovoked and unjustified”.
I literally provide you with many quotes and references from top western academics, diplomats, and politicians who disagree with your bold statement mr Ferk. I love how you cherry picked a single line from Chomsky while ignoring all the rest to make another straw man. Very mature of you.
I’m saying that when USSR put nuclear weapons in Cuba we know what the reaction from the US was. This is not a hypothetical debate.
Do you think the US reaction was "rational"?
That said, putting nuclear weapons is not the same as having a treaty. I don't want the US to set up their nuclear weapons in Europe.. I'm against that too.
NATO is not a defense treaty. It’s an aggressive organization that has been invading and destroying countries for decades now. Go read up on Yugoslavia and Libya as two examples. Meanwhile, the key member of NATO has been at a state of continues war all around the world.
Whenever a "defense treaty" takes any action it's always gonna be controversial because each side is always gonna argue that they are the ones that are actually defending themselves, each is gonna have a version of what they consider "pacekeeping", "humanitarian protection", etc.
But why would you think that the Russians would be any different? Do you really think this is one sided and Russia would not try to argue that they did not start any attacks even when they might have actually attacked? (even if it were to be by accident! ...or because of orders to pull off not arriving in time...)
Also.. you said "this is not a hypothetical debate" but at the same time you say that the level of "aggression" isn't the same... so tell me: if Russia DID set up an organization in the same level of "aggression" as NATO (whichever high you may believe that is), do you really think that Europe should be "rational" in reacting by automatically waging war against the country that the treaty is written with?
Where was I hinting that?
Here: "it is not harmed by the war the way Europe is"
You qualify it by saying "the way Europe is", implying that there might be some "way" harm was inflicted, just not in the same "way" (or level?) as Europe.
Do you really think Russia received ZERO harm? the war caused no suffering at all to any Russian?
the west is not able to impose its morals on Russia.
Sorry, but I'm not "the west" ... Chomsky is not "the west", you are not "the west" (or are you?)
Me, Chomsky, and any person with a set of moral standards should be allowed to judge whether they think that an action made by any third party is morally "good" or "bad"... if someone came and tried to kill someone else I would have no problem in accusing the killer of doing something wrong, regardless of whether they would listen to me or not.
We can of course try and take measures to try to prevent that person from committing acts that cause harm (and sure, that might imply making concessions.. like agreeing for us to drop the knives, if that works at preventing them from using theirs), but that does not mean that this person is immune from being judged in moral grounds when they actually go and kill someone.
If you truly believed that what the Russians did was not causing harm... if it truly was a just and well deserved war that is actually good and rational, then maybe Europe should not try to prevent it. But the reality is that the attack was a bad thing. Morally, rationally, and in terms of causing harm, for both Ukrainians and Russians. Even if you think that one side might have been more hurt than the other, that does not make it right for the "winner". There are no real winners here.
Can you demonstrate in what way this was irrational self harm on the part of Russia? I gave you concrete examples in this thread showing that standard of living in Russia has improved during the time of the war, Russian economy has grown, Russian military has become far stronger, and Russia has become a much more important geopolitical player in the world
Before, you told me that these things (the economic growth, etc) had nothing to do with the war... now you are using those things as a reason why the war was ok to wage?
In wars like these, you are either profiting from the suffering of others or (and often, in addition to) causing suffering for sections of your population. It does not matter whether it's Russia, US, Europe or whoever it is that wages the war.
I literally provide you with many quotes and references from top western academics, diplomats, and politicians who disagree with your bold statement mr Ferk.
I literally said, I think this is the third time.. but I'll repeat that I think the west was wrong in what they did, that NATO should not have expanded. I agree with those western academics.
Do you understand that? Do you disagree with that? I hope not!
The one statement that you seem to disagree with is the other one, the one I made before and that Chomsky agrees with, the one concerning Russian actions in response to NATO expansion. The one that states that the action was not "rational" because NATO wasn't really a threat FOR RUSSIA. It might be still be a threat FOR WORLD PEACE to expand NATO because of the reaction many, including those experts, were predicting Russia would have). This is not the same statement, Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆.
Do you think the US reaction was “rational”?
I do, it's rational for them not to want to have nukes on their doorstep just as it's rational for Russia to want the same.
That said, putting nuclear weapons is not the same as having a treaty. I would not want the US to set up nuclear weapons in Europe… I would be completely against that too.
Yet, the US does precisely that in Europe right now making it a target for Russian nuclear weapons.
Whenever a “defense treaty” takes any action it’s always gonna be controversial because each side is always gonna gonna argue that they are the ones that are actually defending themselves, each is gonna have a version of what they consider “pacekeeping”, “humanitarian protection”, etc.
NATO has been invading countries contrary to all international laws and norms. Only valid peacekeeping is done through the UN.
But why would you think that the Russians would be any different?
Russians literally wanted to join NATO and create a joint security framework that would be acceptable to everyone. Why did NATO reject that?
if Russia DID set up an organization in the same level of NATO (so the same level of “aggression” whichever you believe that level is), do you really think that Europe should be “rational” in waging war against the country that the treaty is written with?
If Europe thought it could win against Russia and it had credible evidence that Russia was setting up an organization to invade Europe then it would be rational for Europe to take military action. However, none of that is actually happening last I checked.
You qualify he level of harm by saying “the way Europe is”, implying that there’s a level of harm inflicted to Russia, just that you don’t think it’s in the same level as Europe.
No, it doesn't imply a level of harm. I'm literally saying Russia is not harmed while Europe is harmed. I've also provided you with concrete sources detailing the state of things in Russia. I think I've been quite clear regarding what I actually meant.
Do you really think Russia received ZERO harm? the war caused no suffering at all to any Russian?
I think there was initial harm to Russia at the start of the war, but on the whole it seems pretty clear that the overall situation in Russia has improved compared to prewar period now. Amusingly, a lot of it has to do with the economic decoupling from the west. This forced Russia to actually start investing in domestic industry and revival of what became the rust belt after the fall of USSR. You keep talking about harm to Russia, but you still haven't provided any examples of what you mean by it. I've given you plenty of sources supporting what I say. Feel free to explain in concrete terms what you believe the harm to Russia is.
We can of course try and take measures to try to prevent that person from committing acts that cause harm, but that does not mean that this person is immune from being judged in moral grounds.
Do you think Russians are losing sleep over you judging them?
But the reality is that the attack was a bad thing.
The reality is that you can't just arbitrarily pick a point and decide that history starts now. The attack you lament was a response to decades of actions by the west that have been well documented, and with many people having warned that continuation of such actions would lead to a military response from Russia. Now that it happened you evidently want to ignore the actions that led up to this response and frame it was Russia being wrong morally.
There are no real winners here.
I think the side that's actually growing stronger both militarily and economically is objectively the winner.
Before, you told me that these things (the economic growth, etc) had nothing to do with the war… now you are using those things as a reason why the war was ok to wage?
Do you have reading comprehension problems? What I said was that growing the economy was NOT THE REASON why Russia went to war. However, in the course of the war Russian economy did improve because Russia managed to do good planning. Let me know if you're still struggling to comprehend this and I have to use smaller words. I've explained this three times now.
In wars like these, you are either profiting from the suffering of others or (and often, in addition to) causing suffering for sections of your population. It does not matter whether it’s Russia, US, Europe or whoever it is that wages the war.
The cause of the war was NATO expanding to Russian borders and Russia responding to that. This is now acknowledged by everyone including the former chief of NATO. This is what the conflict is about. The fact that Russia managed its economy well during this time does not imply that Russia is profiting from the war. It's absolutely incredible that you have so much trouble understanding these basic concepts.
I literally said it 3… maybe 4 times… but I’ll repeat that I think the west was wrong in what they did, that NATO should not have expanded. I agree with those western academics.
And yet, you also continue to insist that the war was unjustified and unprovoked, citing Chomsky over and over here. Pick a lane bud.
The one that states that the action was not “rational” because NATO wasn’t really a threat FOR RUSSIA (it might be a threat to expand it BECAUSE of the “unjustified” reaction many were predicting Russia would have). This is not the same statement, Mr. ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆.
Yet, the sources I provided you very clearly state that NATO was a credible threat to Russia. In fact, this article in National Interest that was published in 2021 EXPLICITLY states that the goal the US had was to break Russia:
nationalinterest.org/feature/s…
It is absolutely surreal that you continue that NATO was not a threat to Russia when the key NATO member openly discusses policy of dismembering Russia in preparation for war on China. This is absolute clown shit.
A Strategy for Avoiding Two-Front War - The National Interest
THE GREATEST risk facing the twenty-first-century United States, short of an outright nuclear attack, is a two-front war involving its strongest military rivals, China and Russia.A. Wess Mitchell (The National Interest)
Melting Glaciers Could Trigger More Explosive Volcanic Eruptions Globally
Melting glaciers may be silently setting the stage for more explosive and frequent volcanic eruptions in the future, according to research on six volcanoes in the Chilean Andes.
Presented today [Tuesday 8 July] at the Goldschmidt Conference in Prague, the study suggests that hundreds of dormant subglacial volcanoes worldwide – particularly in Antarctica – could become more active as climate change accelerates glacier retreat.
like this
T͏i͏d͏b͏i͏T͏, соисüѕѕэd, 𝕽𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖑 𝕽𝖊𝖇𝖊𝖑, entropicdrift, faede, anotherspinelessdem, matterantimatter, jodawznev, getoffthedrugsdude, notsosure, mateofeo, besbin and BuckShot like this.
By precisely dating previous eruptions and analysing crystals in erupted rocks, the team tracked how the weight and pressure of glacial ice alter the characteristics of magma underground.
They found that during the peak of the last ice age (around 26,000–18,000 years ago), thick ice cover suppressed the volume of eruptions and allowed a large reservoir of silica-rich magma to accumulate 10-15 km below the surface.
like this
§ɦṛɛɗɗịɛ ßịⱺ𝔩ⱺɠịᵴŧ and SineIraEtStudio like this.
"non-empire"
Crimea and Ukraine might contest that
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
Researchers Jailbreak AI by Flooding It With Bullshit Jargon
Researchers Jailbreak AI by Flooding It With Bullshit Jargon
LLMs don’t read the danger in requests if you use enough big words.Matthew Gault (404 Media)
like this
Maeve likes this.
HappySkullsplitter
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Yes, solid reasoning. New genocides can't exist because there were old ones
Pretty sure there have been many genocides since WW2
Wikimedia list article
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)like this
Maeve, TVA and Dessalines like this.
cabbage
in reply to HappySkullsplitter • • •Really works as a counterargument against anything!
like this
TVA likes this.
4am
in reply to cabbage • • •Why do you think Israel positions itself as an ethnostate so? “Everything we do is Jewish because we’re an ethnostste with strict apartheid for non-Jews so if you criticize us it’s antisemitism!!”
But the actions of Israel and its government are not the actions of Jews, they are the actions of Israel.
TimLovesTech
in reply to HappySkullsplitter • • •Ferk
in reply to HappySkullsplitter • • •Yeah, I think the confusion is assuming that it's only a genocide when it targets specific subgroups inside a population. It also applies in terms of national groups (whole or in part). This means any attack that intents to kill civilians of a country (or that at least intents to not make any distinction between civilian or not) is a genocide.
For example, that list also includes genocide of Ukrainians by Russia.
allegations that genocide has been committed against Ukrainians since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)HappySkullsplitter
in reply to Ferk • • •Russia's attack on Ukraine is not just to change political boundaries
It is to wipe out the Ukraine culture and its people
Russia has taken over 300,000 Ukrainian children and is forcing them to be stripped of any trace of their Ukrainian identity including being forced to learn Russian
It doesn't get more genocide than that
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
Ferk
in reply to HappySkullsplitter • • •rumimevlevi
in reply to HappySkullsplitter • • •It share the same goal as israel. Israel is still worse. Russians claim that ukranians are just russians . Israel want to wipe palestinians because they believe that they are the only who has the right to live in palestine
HappySkullsplitter
in reply to HappySkullsplitter • • •Yay me. Got my first comment removed on Lemmy.
What an honor, especially considering it broke none of listed rules here
Mediocre_chad
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
katy ✨
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •like this
Maeve and TVA like this.
BillDaCatt
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Genocide is not exclusive to Jewish victims. It is not anti-Semitic to say that.
Genocide can be committed by anyone. It is not anti-Semitic to say that.
Genocide is being committed by Israel's military against the people in Gaza. It is not anti-Semitic to say that... but it is sad.
It is even sadder that my government, instead of stopping them, continues to help Israel commit genocide.
like this
Maeve, TVA and Dessalines like this.
JoeKrogan
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •like this
TVA and Dessalines like this.
cabbage
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •I thought this tool was retired. But no,
At least it seems they are on course to make their AI competitive with Grok.
'Round Them Up': Grok Praises Hitler as Elon Musk's AI Tool Goes Full Nazi
Matt Novak (Gizmodo)like this
TVA likes this.
the_riviera_kid
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •rumimevlevi
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •kreskin
in reply to rumimevlevi • • •rumimevlevi
in reply to kreskin • • •lemmyseizethemeans
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •minoscopede
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Dear Sergey,
if you object to the specific word "genocide", then perhaps we should start calling it the "mass murder and starvation that has killed 5-10% of all Palestinian civilians". That doesn't sound much better, though, does it?
One of the key things that some in the "UN is anti-semitic" camp likes to claim is that the UNHRC has many nations that are non-democratic and have known human rights abuses.
But that's somewhat cherrypicked. Yes, the nations proposing measures against Isreal do seem like a biased set. But most of the Western democracies ultimately vote for those measure, with only the US rejecting it.
The United Nations — From Ally to Antisemitic Platform
Newsweeknothingcorporate
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Dequei
in reply to nothingcorporate • • •botwarden to KeePassXC
cabbage
in reply to Dequei • • •Home |
pulsar-edit.devgurnu
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to gurnu • • •