blog.zaramis.se/2026/01/30/man…
After 30 years of development: GNU gettext 1.0 is ready
After 30 years of development: GNU gettext 1.0 is ready
GNU gettext version 1.0 is here. The internationalization framework now supports local LLMs for machine translations.Moritz Förster (heise online)
Systemd Creator Lennart Poettering Joins New Linux Integrity Startup
Systemd Creator Lennart Poettering Joins New Linux Integrity Startup
Lennart Poettering has been named Chief Engineer at Amutable, marking his first publicly announced role since leaving Microsoft.Bobby Borisov (Linuxiac)
I'm with you on that, it's massively over complex, intrudes into systems it has no place in, and has way too many bad design choices. The designers made the fundamental mistake of wanting it to do everything okish, rather than one thing well. The worst part is that pretty much everything people poibt to as benefits could have trivially been added to tools like sysvinit and rsyslogd.
It's probably a lost cause, and I don't think there are many of of us left who remember how to work with the tools that embody the "do one thing, well" philosophy, or how that led to stable, predictable, and easy to manage systems.
like this
Badabinski likes this.
It's amazing that this is now a downvoted opinion.
The overall concept seemed fine, but it's mired in some truly dogshit design decisions.
The language used speaks for itself. We already know what "integrity" means in this context.
the company wants Linux systems to be built so their correctness can be explicitly defined and continuously verified.
This does not seem vague to me. It explicitly states what they are creating.
The freedom to decide what software am I allowed to run on my PC is important for me though
I'm right with you there, and it's proprietary software that threatens that, nothing included in this announcement does though.
It's not about the google vibes, it's that this thing could be standardized and used by several programs and websites.
here's an example. with google's integrity system, most phones can not go through attestation. an exception is phones that can run GrapheneOS. but for apps that require attestation, the developers need to change their app so that it accepts valid attestations of systems that use the GrapheneOS key. such apps can decide to keep only accepting google approved systems.
so far it looks like this will work similarly enough that software you run will be able to be picky about what distribution you use.
It's not vague at all if you know Poettering and have watched his talks.
This is about securing the boot chain to ensure the integrity of the OS. Ie, someone hasn't replaced your GRUB with one that looks exactly the same but secretly records your disk password.
It does so in a decentralized way, so anything like Play Integrity would not make sense in the slightest. It's the TPM chip measuring values and ensuring they match previous recorded values (and the values to change, such as after updates, so after updates are run, the expected values are updated). It's not a Secureboot-like system that would make it more feasible to have a Play Integrity-like system.
The problem with entire concept is the assertion that "after updates are run, the expected values are updated". If the administrator can cause the expected values to be updated, you must assume that an attacker who can replace GRUB, in your example, can too, rendering the whole thing ineffective. If the administrator can not cause the expected values to be updated, we're into an Android like situation, where the vendor decides what you're allowed to run on your machine. Neither outcome is better than what we have now.
Lennart Pottering has an unfortunate habbit of deciding to fix problems that don't actually need fixing, then coming up with a vastly overcomplicated solution, takes years to implement, and doesn't actually provide much or any benefit over what existed before. Any benefit that does occur tends to be the sort of thing that could easily have been added to the previous system, but noone had because it wasn't actually a pressing concern. One need only look at his history with PulseAudio and systemd to see examples of this. He also tends to be quite rude and dismissive to anyone questioning him, or pointing out architectural issues.
The problem with entire concept is the assertion that “after updates are run, the expected values are updated”. If the administrator can cause the expected values to be updated, you must assume that an attacker who can replace GRUB, in your example, can too, rendering the whole thing ineffective
This TPM stuff is focused on verifying the integrity of the the boot chain. It's meant to protect against things like replacing GRUB or changing GRUB options in a malicious way. If that stuff is detected, the system won't boot.
It's goal is not to prevent malicious changes in userspace, after the system is booted. Protections against malicious userspace modifications must come elsewhere, like SELinux, AppArmor, sandboxed apps, Wayland, etc.
If the administrator can not cause the expected values to be updated, we’re into an Android like situation, where the vendor decides what you’re allowed to run on your machine. Neither outcome is better than what we have now
What do you mean by vendor here? Initially we were discussing applications doing some sort of system integrity check to decide whether or not the application would run. But now it seems like you are referring to the distro deciding whether or not you are allowed to do things.
But again, these checks are just for the OS and it would not make sense to try and turn this into a DRM-like system when Secure Boot is much better suited for that task.
And distros already control what you can and cannot do by how they choose to build the OS. Lets consider Aeon and Universal Blue.
Aeon is an OS that implements things that Poettering is discussing. Uses TPM to verify the integrity and unlock the disk if everything is fine. It also is immutable, which limits user customization in some ways as part of its philosophy. It discourage OS modifications and encourages use of Flathub and distrobox.
The Universal Blue family of distros does not implement Poettering's stuff (though there is an option to do so). But it has similar restrictions as Aeon, discourages OS modifications, encourages use of Flathub/Homebrew/Distrobox.
My point is that verifying the boot chain integrity largely does not matter when it comes to user choice. While the two I mention do have restrictions, they are only philosophical, you could build a system that has these boot chain integrity checks and it not immutable. Measured Boot is great for this task because it puts the user is control, you don't need to worry about the software being signed with some third party's key to boot.
Lennart Pottering has an unfortunate habbit of deciding to fix problems that don’t actually need fixing, then coming up with a vastly overcomplicated solution
I agree in some respects. I like immutable distros, flatpaks, and sandboxed/containerized stuff, but sometimes you just need to install software on the host, unsandboxed. The big thing is that immutable distros want the OS and software on top to be cleanly separated.
Some say to use Hombrew, which will take up quite a bit of space and will not always work (like SELinux permission issues) and I don't necessarily like it how puts all its dependencies on your PATH.
Notably, Systemd came up with system extensions. Seems complicated, have never gotten around to using them.
Then I look over at BSD land and their solution is stupidly simple. OS stuff goes into places like /usr/bin while user installed stuff goes into /usr/local/bin. I don't really see why immutable distros can't just have a normal package manager but have everything installed to a different place like /usr/local/bin and put that on the PATH.
It’s goal is not to prevent malicious changes in userspace, after the system is booted. Protections against malicious userspace modifications must come elsewhere, like SELinux, AppArmor, sandboxed apps, Wayland, etc.
Amutable's approach is a bit vague, but their homepage states: 'We are building cryptographically verifiable integrity into Linux systems. Every system starts in a verified state and stays trusted over time.' I read that as starting in a trusted state, presumably via a secureboot verified bootchain, then ensuring that the software running on the OS is in a 'trusted' state at all times. In particular, they also say "Build integrity, Boot integrity, Runtime integrity, That's Amutable" as a tag line, which reinforces the runtime nature of the validation.
What do you mean by vendor here? Initially we were discussing applications doing some sort of system integrity check to decide whether or not the application would run. But now it seems like you are referring to the distro deciding whether or not you are allowed to do things.
I could have been clearer there, I'm referring to OS vendor or distro maintainer. Someone has to be in control of what is "trusted", and it's either the administrator of the machine, or the OS vendor. If it's the administrator of the machine, a malicious actor has an attack route to update the list to include their own malware, and if it's not the administrator you end up in a Android type situation, where the OS vendor decides.
But again, these checks are just for the OS and it would not make sense to try and turn this into a DRM-like system when Secure Boot is much better suited for that task.
Secure Boot secures the boot chain, but after that has no part in maintaining the integrity of the system. I agree that it would not make sense to make this some sort of DRM like system, but that does not mean that they will not try. Pottering seems to have the ears of people who are influential enough that even his bad ideas get far more traction than they should.
And distros already control what you can and cannot do by how they choose to build the OS.
Not really, they might make some things naturally harder to do, but they all run the same kernel and can load ELF binaries. Even the most locked down, immutable, system can be made to do things the distro maintainers didn't expect.
My point is that verifying the boot chain integrity largely does not matter when it comes to user choice. While the two I mention do have restrictions, they are only philosophical, you could build a system that has these boot chain integrity checks and it not immutable. Measured Boot is great for this task because it puts the user is control, you don’t need to worry about the software being signed with some third party’s key to boot.
Indeed, verifying the boot chain does not, necessarily, limit what the admin if the machine can do. My concern is that Amutable seem to be seeking to go a lot further than that, and verify what is being executed at runtime. Depending on who controls the keys we may, very well, "need to worry about the software being signed with some third party’s key" if not to boot, then to run.
I don't think this is accurate. What Google is doing is making the whole ecosystem depend on Google's approval to be allowed to work.
In this case, they seem to be claiming they're just doing real-time checking of processes as they run (presumably stuff like checksuming loaded libraries, looking for memory overruns, etc.), and so detecting certain signs of malware or system corruption.
To be honest, based on the announcement it sounds completely unnecessary, but I don't think they're at all doing what Google is doing.
That is kinda what google does as well. It calculates checksums of certain system components and compares it to a checksum in database.
What you are describing is usually called antivirus. But they call their system "integrity". That word is used for other things in this context.
Then I have no idea what you're referring to by 'what google is doing to android and tried to do to web' because as far as I know, that isn't relevant.
What I'm describing is definitively not antivirus. Antiviruses use heuristics (and known checksums of bad things) to scan processes/files/network traffic/system calls for dangerous patterns. They're not doing real-time checksuming to detect system corruption or malfunction, they're not comparing known system files because that's complex and hard to do, and seems to be what the company is claiming here.
I have no idea what Google checksuming you're referring to but as far as I'm aware that's a not thing they're doing to android and trying to do web. Everything Linux (including Android) does some amount of checksums at certain points because they're useful, but not real-time process checksums. I assumed you were surely referring to them requiring that apps get signed by their certificates, making everything subject to their approval. Which is different from realtime checksumming for integrity.
That's not at all what this about. Poettering has given quite a few talks about this subject, that being Linux boot chain verification and integrity.
One of the core concepts is measured boot. The TPM on your CPU measures the values of various pieces of software in the boot chain. If a measurement does not match, then the system will not boot because it could be compromised.
And unlike secure boot, this is a decentralized system. It's not some corporation like Microsoft saying "this software is signed with this approved key, so it may boot". It's your own system checking the software and recording the expected value so that when you boot up, it checks again to make sure they match.
It's not about apps asking doing things like DRM checks or anything like that. In fact, it can't. GrapheneOS implements a system just like this to ensure the OS has not been tampered with.
The problem is that this value can be compared to a list of "allowed" values. Therefore it opens the gate to creating software that would require only certain "whitelisted" systems to run it. Such list can be easily updated automatically once those "whitelisted" systems update. Therefore an argument "updates would break it" do not actually work.
This is precisely how play integrity works on android. And Poettering intensions do not matter much. His system can be used like that and therefore it will be used like that.
The problem I see with that is that these values are far from regular. At the very least, the TPM will be checking the Linux kernel, bootloader, BIOS firmware. Any update to those will result in different measurements. And it's not just the version that matters, but also the configuration. And there's more things the TPM can measure, like connected hardware devices.
To reiterate, it's not the case that the distro provides a hash of what the measurement should be. When you install, the actual software gets installed gets measured and recorded. That first measurement is automatically trusted, assumed to be good. It's unique to your machine. Your machine will only boot so long as those measurements match. Those measurements only get updated when measurements are re-run, which is done after system upgrades.
Creating an allow list that works for most people would be next to impossible. The Secure Boot approach is much more suited for this task. I can only see this TPM allow-list approach working on corporate machines with controlled hardware and software updates. But at that point, using a custom secureboot key is easier and less liable to break.
ICE takes aim at data held by advertising and tech firms
ICE knocks on ad tech’s data door to see what it knows about you
: Agency looks to understand the extent of identifying information available to its masked agentsThomas Claburn (The Register)
UK police to use AI facial recognition tech linked to Israel’s war on Gaza
UK police to use AI facial recognition tech linked to Israel’s war on Gaza
Concerns rise as UK partners with controversial facial recognition company used by Israel in Gaza.Simon Speakman Cordall (Al Jazeera)
ICE’s surveillance technology goes beyond facial recognition
ICE isn’t just tracking your phone. The surveillance technology goes further than that.
Federal immigration agencies are using a vast surveillance network in Minnesota – from facial recognition technology to ‘stingrays’ that collect data by impersonating cell phone towers.Shubhanjana Das (Sahan Journal)
blog.zaramis.se/2026/01/30/kok…
Stop Killing Games Gets Over 1 Million Petition Signatures Verified By EU
Stop Killing Games Gets Over 1 Million Petition Signatures Verified By EU
I’ve been talking about the Stop Killing Games movement for some time now, so important is its mission to me. This collection of volunteers focused on video game and cultural preservation is …Techdirt
like this
dandi8 and deliriousdreams like this.
China isn't class collaborationist, they have a dictatorship of the proletariat. The fact that the bourgeoisie exist there does not mean they have leverage over the state, and the commanding heights of industy are out of their hands. There's no such thing as class collaborationism, this is a lie told by socdems to keep the bourgeoisie on top. In reality, the state can only be under the control of a single, definite class, and in the PRC that class is the proletariat. Building up the productive forces and having significant exports as a means for technological transfer and development is a good thing, actually.
It seems it wasn't a strawman at all, really. In insisting that every nation is "hitlerite," no matter if they are socialist, imperialized, or colonized, you take a stance of inaction. This is exactly what I was getting at when I said you're phrasemongering, social chauvanism to justify inaction against imperialism and siding with the imperialists and labor aristocracy.
You also ought to know that nobody really hopes for collapse over socialist revolution in the US Empire. That would be the best for everyone, but failing that the death of the world's imperial hegemon would be dramatically positive. Dissolution of the US Empire removes the largest obstacle holding global development back, and eliminates this genocidal settler-colony once and for all.
this is what republicans do every time they're in power, they're predatory disaster capitalists...create targeted disruption/general chaos to generate "volatility/liquidity" insiders can make a killing on.
then establishment dems come in and do the same thing, but they atleast want to keep up veneer of stability and (absolute minimal) progress.
this cycle has repeated itself many times now
If China's bourgeois were truly powerless with no leverage and there's no class collaborationism going on, they wouldn't keep them and instead nationalize everything - after all, why keep a parasitic middle man that just sucks up billions in surplus value? To build up productive forces the bourgeois aren't necessary - the state could handle it just fine.
Also, despite being a "DOTP", China goes against worker interests almost every step of the way. Commodity production fundamentally relies on exploitation of workers and is in the interest of capital, the supposed proletarian party is actively letting bourgeois to join as seen with Three Represents for instance, independent labor unions are crushed, international proletariat interests are also being betrayed by China (like supporting Ukraine, their recent affairs within Africa, the junta I mentioned), economic imperialism via initiatives such as BRI, etc.
Painting a bourgeois nation red is such an effective strategy to fool leftists I swear. Maybe once third imperialist war drops, every bourgeois state is gonna be calling themselves socialist! Who knows....
nothing, because people who hope for this also think when it happens they will be the action hero that saves everyone else.
they tend to lack the understanding of complex institutional systems that safeguard things like nuclear weapons, because they basically hate/blame them for their own unhappiness with their lives.
what people fail to get is that while the USA fucks up, it is pretty good at fixing shit when it does.
a lot of the biggest economic and reform booms in our history were the product of near collapses.
people generally resist change until it's forced upon them by circumstances like depressions, wars, and oil shocks, etc.
Why does China have to nationalize the small proprietorships, agricultural cooperatives, and mid-sized secondary industries for you to accept that the bourgeoisie is kept out of political power? Markets are fairly useful for developing industry, and if private ownership has no dominance over the commanding heights of industry then that don't have political power over the socialist state. If China was controlled by the bourgeoisie, then we wouldn't see executions of billionaires at a regular basis, nor would we see such dramatic investment in infrastructure meant for the working classes.
The state could nationalize everything, sure. Under the late Mao period and during the Gang of Four, they had higher rates of public ownership, but growth was uneven. Reform and Opening Up, along with the crucial aspect of technology transfer, stableized growth and slightly increased it:
This strategy of maintaining public ownership as the principle aspect and relying on markets to help facilitate gaps left by the socialist system in a controlled manner have had dramatically positive results. They of course aren't without new contradictions, but at the same time the presence of contradictions does not imply that the bourgeoisie are in control. This approach to socialism is elaborated on by Cheng Enfu:
Currently, the PRC is working towards the intermediate stage of socialist construction, per the chart.
As for the state being run by the working classes, this is also pretty straightforward. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, and we can see the class breakdown of the top of the government itself:
This is despite the Three Represents system. Overall, this system has resulted in over 90% of the population approving the government, which is shown to be consistent and accurate.
Independent labor unions aren't allowed, correct, nor do they need to be. Unions are required to be a part of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, and aren’t allowed to be independent from that federation. This isn’t a violation of worker rights, though, as the only purpose rogue unions would serve is undermining the socialist system, and would be vulnerable to foreign backing (such as from the US Empire).
BRI and the PRC's presence in Africa and the global south in general isn't imperialist either. The PRC is expanding trade, but not dominance, nor does its trade deals come at the barrel of a gun. They trade with pretty much everyone, and support their allies, but this is not imperialism. To the contrary, the PRC is acting against imperialism.
- The CPC punishing Chinese landlords for improper treatment of Africans, mass arresting the landlords, passing reforms, and apologizing to the African Union
- China has forgiven over 10 billion in foreign debt
- Belt-Road Initiative: An Anti-thesis of Colonialism
- Evo Morales speaks on claims of "Chinese imperialism
- Five Imperialist Myths About China's Role in Africa
- Is China a Better Partner for Africa than Europe and the West?
- Challenging US Imperialism with Chinese Multilateralism
- The Fallacy of Denouncing Both Sides of the US-China Conflict
And many, many more sources back this up. It's no secret that imperialists have been trying to smear China into being "no better" than the west, but the reality on the ground is that partnering with China results in mutual development and cooperation, while partnering with the west results in stripped autonomy, underdevelopment, and exploitation.
The idea that the PRC is a "bourgeois state painted red," and that that's why many Marxist-Leninists are "fooled" into supporting it, is ignoring my very clear arguments that public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, with the working classes in charge of the state. Your most compelling argument seems to be that they could sacrifice the economic growth that Reform and Opening up brought and stuck with a more totally planned economy similar to the DPRK, but the fact that they are taking a different path does not mean that they are taking the wrong path, one where the bourgeoisie control the state and private ownership is principle, ie capitalism.
Again, your greatest error is in confusing form for essence, and only seeing similarities while ignoring differences. This causes you to make frankly absurd statements like "every nation state is hitlerite," regardless of results and structure.
The Fallacy of Denouncing ‘Both Sides’ Of The U.S.-China Conflict
In order to challenge the United States’ New Cold War on China, the left must abandon the “neither Washington nor Beijing” and “denounce both the U.S. and China” false equivalencies that inherently endorse US imperialist violence on China.Qiao Collective
the issue is americans at large don't want that. they don't vote for it and they tend to hate any candidate that supports those things.
Americans very much love the struggle bus they create for themselves. it's part of our cultural mythology. so much so that even those at the tippy top will love to tell you about how their life is a struggle of heroic overcoming of the difficult upbringing of only having mere millionaire parents.
The collapse of US hegemony is good for everyone
Good with a world of Chinese hegemony.
It has always lived beyond their means with the help of the reserve currency which won't last for long but mostly with vulgar looting and thieving from the rest of the world.
Most of what you've pointed out just now isn't even in the interest of the working class, nor is it somehow exclusive to AES states - rather, these are just common interests held by bourgeois states.
GDP growth by itself indicates greater capital accumulation, which in turn indicates that a greater degree of worker exploitation has been achieved in a commodity producing society, directly going against worker interests. Same with maintaining the existence of bourgeois and their economic position under the guise of "helping GDP grow" for obvious reasons - it's just absurd.
Aside from that, national/public ownership also doesn't automatically mean "in workers interests". For instance, majority of capitalist countries early on had or still have their means of public transportation (railroad, buses) nationally owned. Does it mean these parts were "socialist"? Of course not - cheap public transportation allows workers to travel cheaply and faster to their workplaces, which in turns allows capital to expand and accumulate value more efficiently. In other words, their purpose was capital growth.
All in all, my main point is that despite China being labeled as a DOTP, it purely advances its national capitalist interests and does nothing to advance proletarian interests. There might be incidental benefits for the proletariat here and there (as is the norm under capitalism, economic growth sometimes bringing better standard of living and infrastructure improvements), but all the actual advancements of worker interests are promised way, way into the future.
And hey - maybe China will actually achieve communist mode of production purely on its own which would largely debunk orthodox marxism, only time will tell.
then you have misidentified them, those aren't leftists.
try the same tactics anyway. you don't have to be best friends with your neighbours & agree with them on everything in order to set up a mutually beneficial system, but that system will never get made if everyone just dismisses the possibility before ever making an attempt.
Bourgeois states don't seek grand infrastructure development, aren't dominated by public ownership, and don't develop mechanisms of democracy reaching approval rates over 90%. The PRC continuously puts the working class first. The idea that development of the productive forces is bad because it implies exploitation is inherently flawed, highly developed productive forces are the basis of socialized production to begin with, as it is with this development that we can best meet the needs of everyone with as little work as possible. What's absurd is using GDP growth in an economy where public ownership as principle as a bad thing.
Secondly, I agree, nationalized infrastructure in bourgeois states, where private ownership is principle, is indeed not socialist. The PRC has public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in charge of the state though, so any comparisons to, say, Bismark are entirely off-base. The PRC is qualitatively different from heavily state-driven capitalist economies like the Republic of Korea or Singapore, because in the state-driven capitalist economies private ownership governs the large firms and key industries.
I get that I'm beating a dead horse, but you keep making the same basic blunder, so I'll state it again: you confuse form for essence. You utterly ignore the principle aspect of the economy, and see presence of contradiction as evidence of subservient aspects as dominant. This error in thinking is derived from purely looking at similarities, and ignoring differences. Only seeing the general, while ignoring the particular. In other words, utterly maiming the dialectical half of dialectical materialism.
All of the actual benefits are being given to the working classes on a steady and constant basis. Their quality of life has steadily gone up dramatically year over year, in a fundamentally far greater degree than social democracies offer by ratio, without bribery from imperialism. And no, the PRC isn't saying they will achieve communism in one country, just that communism, when achieved, will fit that description. Obviously communism must be global.
Yah it will get you Tankiepoints™ out the wazoo to say you pray for the collapse of the USA but with every other country's economy tied to the US dollar, that outcome will be less than ideal when you want to go to your local market and buy food or medicine.
I get downvotes when I remind people of this fact like I'm making an argument for something. Talk to your local leaders about why they have invested so much in the US, not me.
Can’t do that without revolution.
Which is still about a century away.
The vast, vast majority of this country who are only marginally invested in politics combined the needs of capital to secure that stability will override whatever political ambitions any leadership has in the long-term. All of the current crisis is still just a flash in the pan, it will pass, the pendulum will swing the other way and the cycle will continue. I've been watching it a long ass time, I have seen nothing yet that makes me believe the country will experience wide-scale change.
It's going to get more authoritarian broadly, it's going to have more unrest and reduced rights, particularly as the climate changes and the immigration situation gets a lot more inflamed as refugees start piling up to get in, but right now, unless a LOT of people make a lot of huge changes to their media consumption habits, we're going to see a rougher, nastier status-quo for decades to come.
The USA is a HUGE boat that turns slowly, it's not one country, it's 50. And because of that, small changes have huge consequences but only decades down the line. Few people who haven't actually traveled the nation really get the scale involved and what has to change before we see lasting change.
With every crisis, with every bit of imperilism that dies, the Statesian public becomes more aware of their chains. Media is only useful for giving people narratives they want to agree with, not for convincing people outright. The Empire is dying, and with it comes dramatic radicalization. Even looking at younger generations over time, communism is rapidly rising in popularity:
Quantitative buildup is reaching qualitative leaps, like heating water until it boils. It looks like nothing's happening until suddenly everything is.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Nah, not really. A different (not necessarily better or worse, just different) world hegemony will just emerge
Aslo the transition gonna be painful (see: yugoslav war)
that's weird, they tell me that they are leftists and that if I disagree with them at all them I'm not a leftist.
Then they lecture me about how privileged I am and I should just shut up and listen to them because my any thoughts or opinions of my own are automatically wrong because they come from a position of privileged rather than oppression. And I point out I grew up working class from a low income family. Then they tell me to go fuck myself how dare I even talk to them since I'm clearly a MAGA supporter if I am working class, and I shouldn't have been allowed to go to college because clearly I'm so stupid for not being a 'real leftist' like them.
then i'm sorry that you've had that experience.
maybe try to organise a directory of local businesses/services/shared resources etc without discussing politics at all, if it's something that gets people in your locality upset.
if your area has to deal with some extreme weather & gets flooded, for example, ensuring that everyone can stay fed & have access to medical care will be a lot easier if the groundwork has already been done in advance.
Tankiepoints™
Can I redeem my Tankiepoints at a participating retailers whenever I want, or do they expire eventually?
Except that's bullshit. What China is actually doing is taking out land and resource leases for flat fees, and then moving their own people into the Africa country to extract the resources for pennies on the yuan.
USA wasn't doing any of that. They were mostly trying to tell African governments to stop being so corrupt and putting all sorts of limits and terms on aid service. But the leaders in the governments didn't like that. They liked getting big fat checks from China for resources they had no ability to extract themselves. China is more than happy to support corrupt and dictatorial governments, because well, that's what they are. They are also more than happy to sell them weapons systems and technology for lower costs and without the restrictions that come on the US/European ones.
It's colonialism. it's just the Chinese version of it. If you are support of authoritarian colonialism and exporting dictatorial governments over democratic ones, of course you'd see China as the preferred power.
The Saudis and other rising middle powers are also trying to get in on this game. Every nation to be a hegemonic power to the extent that they can.
The US Empire (and Europe as well) is the one installing compradors. No, the US Empire isn't trying to tell people to "not be corrupt," they want that so the comoradors sell out their countries and force austerity, privatization of nationalized industries, etc. This is how imperialism works, and is why the US Empire has hundreds of overseas millitary bases while the PRC has ~3. If you nationalize your resources, the US Empire tries to destroy you, because the US Empire depends entirely on this system of super-exploiting for super-profits.
BRI and the PRC's presence in Africa and the global south in general isn't imperialist. The PRC is expanding trade, but not dominance, nor does its trade deals come at the barrel of a gun. They trade with pretty much everyone, and support their allies, but this is not imperialism. To the contrary, the PRC is acting against imperialism.
- The CPC punishing Chinese landlords for improper treatment of Africans, mass arresting the landlords, passing reforms, and apologizing to the African Union
- China has forgiven over 10 billion in foreign debt
- Belt-Road Initiative: An Anti-thesis of Colonialism
- Evo Morales speaks on claims of "Chinese imperialism
- Five Imperialist Myths About China's Role in Africa
- Is China a Better Partner for Africa than Europe and the West?
- Challenging US Imperialism with Chinese Multilateralism
- The Fallacy of Denouncing Both Sides of the US-China Conflict
And many, many more sources back this up. It's no secret that imperialists have been trying to smear China into being "no better" than the west, but the reality on the ground is that partnering with China results in mutual development and cooperation, while partnering with the west results in stripped autonomy, underdevelopment, and exploitation.
As for China's democracy, it's actually better than the US Empire by a wide margin. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, and we can see the strong perceptions around this democracy:
This is despite the Three Represents system. Overall, this system has resulted in over 90% of the population approving the government, which is shown to be consistent and accurate.
Overall, you have a deeply confused notion of what's going on in the global south. The US is the world's largest empire and is colonizing the world, China is focusing on win-win economic development.
Support for government in China: is the data accurate?
Some have questioned the survey results. Are the skeptics right?Jason Hickel
Of the half billion or so actual joined-an-org-and-doing-work communists, the number who are fans of such a niche videogame category is basically a rounding error, and being a furry is even less common.
But I think I know every one of them.
Me too, but I also believe that collapse is a fundamental part of the natural cycles that govern everything in the universe. It’s hubris to think humans can exempt themselves from this natural system, and the belief that we can is a large driver of why we find ourselves here.
We can’t just skip collapse, nor can avoid it. Embrace its coming and celebrate what will grow from it.
Thats my fear. Imagine of the ppl that got trump in power got some nukes or like corpos?
Walmart or Amazon now a nuclear power is a terrible thought.
Yeah, bourgeois states would never ever develop infrastructure for market expansion and capital accumulation purposes (e.g. building up infrastructure in colonial states to facilitate exports + extract resources or undertaking massive projects such as the Suez and Panama canals), they would never ever nationalize nor have dominant national ownership of their industry for national bourgeois benefit or capital stability (like in Saudi Arabia, fascist Italy, various national oil companies), nor they would have high approval rates like seen in fascist regimes and economic boom periods (entrenched superstructures also make workers "approve" things that go against their interests). Maybe there's more DOTP's out there than I thought....
The idea that development of the productive forces is bad because it implies exploitation is inherently flawed, highly developed productive forces are the basis of socialized production to begin with
Productive forces by themselves are neutral, what matters is the underlying social relations of production. Capitalist mode of production presupposes exploitation via extraction of surplus value and market constrains, which is not only exploitative but also conflicts with the long-term worker interest that is production-for-use. Expansion of exploitation goes against working class interests, that much is hopefully obvious - you're not gonna find anyone but bourgeois or workers deep in nationalist superstructure being happy about their nation state having GDP growth.
On the other hand, a society that produces for use rather than for profit that doesn't have the exploitative surplus extraction mechanism - now that and it's growth is inherently in the interests of the working class.
China hasn't made even the most gradual of shifts towards this, it's a full on market economy that maintains the exploitative relation and sometimes merely transfers ownership around, but this doesn't materially affect the relationship between the worker and means of production.
Mere promises for the "future plans" do not alter the bourgeois essence of the economy as it stands now in China, and I highly doubt that a state maintaining this essence that is in it's national material interests will one day just do a 180, completely go against those interests and abolish the current state of things.
All of the actual benefits are being given to the working classes on a steady and constant basis. Their quality of life has steadily gone up dramatically year over year, in a fundamentally far greater degree than social democracies offer by ratio, without bribery from imperialism.
This is true for literally most capitalist countries during its active development, or after WW2. It is also a blatantly anti-marxist socdem narrative, as the marxist goal is abolishment of current state of things rather than merely making things temporarily better until capitalist contradictions inevitably catch up and result in crisis.
Yeah, bourgeois states would never ever develop infrastructure for market expansion and capital accumulation purposes (e.g. building up infrastructure in colonial states to facilitate exports + extract resources or undertaking massive projects such as the Suez and Panama canals),
Except in the PRC, infrastructure projects are explicitly made to service both the overall socialist economy, and the lives of the working classes, at the expense of the domestic bourgeoisie. Your argument is essentially "the PRC has infrastructure projects, therefore it's capitalist," and considering I already demonstrated that public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the state run by the working classes, we need to re-examine these infrastructure projects. You are, again, confusing form for essence, and focusing on similarities while turning a blind eye towards stark differences. Again, making a mockery of dialectical materialism.
they would never ever nationalize nor have dominant national ownership of their industry for national bourgeois benefit or capital stability (like in Saudi Arabia, fascist Italy, various national oil companies),
Except in those economies, private ownership still remained principle. This is why I brought up Bismark earlier, and that I agree that nationalized industry isn't inherently a sign of socialism. That's why, as Marxists, we need to take the dialectical materialist approach and analyze not just individual elements, but the nature of the economy as a whole. Nationalization in the context of an economy where private ownership is principle ultimately is in service of the bourgeoisie. The Republic of Korea is dominated by giant megacorps like Samsung, LG, Hyundai, etc, despite having a strong bourgeois state, while the PRC is dominated by public ownership and SOEs with a proletarian state, despite having bourgeois ownership over small and medium secondary industries.
Again, since you seem to ignore your critical lack of dialectical analysis, I'll keep pointing it out every time it comes up. You are, again, confusing form for essence, and focusing on similarities while turning a blind eye towards stark differences.
nor they would have high approval rates like seen in fascist regimes and economic boom periods (entrenched superstructures also make workers “approve” things that go against their interests). Maybe there’s more DOTP’s out there than I thought…
Except the PRC's "boom period" seems to persist even in times of instability, and for many decades at a time, while fascist regimes have been flashes in the pan and boom/bust cycles in capitalist economies are regular. The highest approval rates in capitalist economies come in times of war, yet the PRC has been at peace for many decades and still retains this approval rate.
Again, since you seem to ignore your critical lack of dialectical analysis, I'll keep pointing it out every time it comes up. You are, again, confusing form for essence, and focusing on similarities while turning a blind eye towards stark differences.
Productive forces by themselves are neutral, what matters is the underlying social relations of production. Capitalist mode of production presupposes exploitation via extraction of surplus value and market constrains, which is not only exploitative but also conflicts with the long-term worker interest that is production-for-use. Expansion of exploitation goes against working class interests, that much is hopefully obvious - you’re not gonna find anyone but bourgeois or workers deep in nationalist superstructure being happy about their nation state having GDP growth.
This is a deeply confused analysis. The PRC has public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy, not private. Growth in production is essential for actually being capable of production-for-use, and this very problem was what caused instability under the Gang of Four. The idea that the small proprietors, the secondary, small industries, and the agricultural cooperatives need to be nationalized overnight is anti-Marxist analysis. You're using phrasemongering to try to paint increased industrial capacity as something contrary to worker interests.
On the other hand, a society that produces for use rather than for profit that doesn’t have the exploitative surplus extraction mechanism - now that and it’s growth is inherently in the interests of the working class.
The backbone of China's economy is production for use, though. Exploitation is a contradiction, correct, but trying to nationalize industry before it actually socializes is unnecessary from Marxist analysis, and delays productivity. You're making the argument of the Gang of Four, that being that it's better to be working in a fully nationalized economy as a poor worker than working in partially privatized yet ultimately socialist economy with more productive capacity and access to goods and services. Marxism doesn't posit that dogmatically nationalizing is inherently better because it gets rid of exploitation, but instead takes a scientific approach to analyzing production and distribution.
China hasn’t made even the most gradual of shifts towards this, it’s a full on market economy that maintains the exploitative relation and sometimes merely transfers ownership around, but this doesn’t materially affect the relationship between the worker and means of production
Utterly baseless claims, when the economy is dominated by the public sector and Five Year Plans guide the development of the economy. I've given you multiple examples backing this up, while you return with unbacked claims counter to reality.
Mere promises for the “future plans” do not alter the bourgeois essence of the economy as it stands now in China, and I highly doubt that a state maintaining this essence that is in it’s national material interests will one day just do a 180, completely go against those interests and abolish the current state of things.
China doesn't need to pull a 180, it's already a socialist economy gradually nationalizing the small and medium secondary industries as they develop and socialize. This isn't about "future plans," they are already socialist and already in the long and protracted process of transition between capitalism and communism, ie socialism. Nowhere in my comments thus far have I stated that they need to pull a 180, they need to continue their process of folding socialized production into the public sector and maintain the DotP.
This is true for literally most capitalist countries during its active development, or after WW2. It is also a blatantly anti-marxist socdem narrative, as the marxist goal is abolishment of current state of things rather than merely making things temporarily better until capitalist contradictions inevitably catch up and result in crisis.
Except this is entirely false. The capitalist countries during active devevelopment have not directed their gains towards the benefits of the working classes, and post-WWII the capitalist countries entered an era of even greater imperialism. This, in the context of a post about the US Empire (which you batted hard to defend under the guise of worry about the labor aristocracy there), is clear social chauvanism. Further, the idea that the PRC is only making things temporarily better until "capitalist contradictions inevitably catch up and result in crisis" is entirely unfounded, as I explained earlier the PRC has been in a period of stable growth without a boom/bust cycle for decades, far longer than the capitalist world.
Repeating it because you ignored this, and accused me of being anti-Marxist and a "socdem:" you confuse form for essence. You utterly ignore the principle aspect of the economy, and see presence of contradiction as evidence of subservient aspects as dominant. This error in thinking is derived from purely looking at similarities, and ignoring differences. Only seeing the general, while ignoring the particular. In other words, utterly maiming the dialectical half of dialectical materialism.
Yes! Noe that its collapsing, surely someone will sell me their house for $300! So they can buy someone else's house for $300?
How's that gonna work?
It cannot. The housing market needs houses that are affordable without ripping people off. I propose that corporations be given "tokens" in exchange for forcibly removing their ownership from all the houses they own.
By collapsing the housing market, the price for housing would also collapse.
Walmart or Amazon now a nuclear power is a terrible thought.
Given that the US government exists to make megacorps like that as powerful as possible, they already effectively are, they're just saved the inconvenience/expense of directly maintaining their own military and nuclear stockpile.
My bigger concern tbh is a post-balkanization Texas or Utah. Evangelicals and Mormons are a whole lot more likely to let the nukes fly to bring about the end times imo.
Support for government in China: is the data accurate?
Some have questioned the survey results. Are the skeptics right?Jason Hickel
your source is an opinion column.
opinions aren't facts. polls aren't truth.
fair enough, it's just a suggestion or jumping off point, what works in one area won't necessarily work everywhere.
best of luck organising some way to make sure people in your community stay fed etc in emergencies, however you do so!
I think the point is that OP (rightfully in my opinion) realizes that that is not possible without a collapse that results in a revolution.
Our entire government and wealthy are wrapped up in defending their pedophilia. Invading US cities and kidnapping people (and foreign leaders). I think if you're not praying for a collapse at this point you are still comfortable enough to believe the lie that this system just needs "fixing" instead of a complete replacement. There is comfort in believing that. I held onto that belief for a long long time. Even knowing history was against that belief in every similar case. But it would only be for my own comfort to believe that at this point.
Careful what you wish for.
There be crooks wishing the same.
Ready with their next, worse, rigged game.
"Any other option will be just like me or worse" is the line that abusers use to keep others subjected to them.
I'm terrified of no longer being able to travel across the country without being hunted down, but I also know that the integral existence of the country is actively accelerating the polycrisis and making the world a worse place.
I would be willing to shift the burdens of risk from the whole world to just my country.
Putin also won the last election with 88% of the vote. That is a fact.
If you think that fact is truth, however, you're an idiot. Facts and statistics are often lies. I'm glad you believe in lies and the 'superiority' of the Xi's dictatorship. Go move to China then. See how that goes for you.
Putin did recieve 88% of the vote, the nationalists are popular in Russia. This is largely due to the nationalists kicking out western imperialists plundering Russia in the 90s, after the dissolution of the USSR. The CPRF is rising in popularity, though, especially as capitalism proves to be failing Russians.
You don't have any evidence backing up why you think the CPC is secretly unpopular. I've spoken to Chinese people, both currently living there and ex-pats, and they all have backed up that the Chinese government enjoys legitimate support. It's due to dramatically improving the lives of the working classes. You only have insults and vibes.
If I beat the shit out of you until you claim you love me, is that legit love?
According to you, it is.
You're right, but the other groups are usually actually actively working towards and succeeding at saboating the US's entire social discourse and putting oligarchs in power.
Tankies on the other hand don't really want to work that hard, or get it all out of their system posting AI-written manifestos on lemmy.
Within the empire itself, younger generations are increasingly in favor of communism.
As long as MLs don't hijack the revolution and betray the working class again, this is good news but the sharks are circling.
nor do they “betray the working classes.”
Are you suggesting they never expressed solidarity to the working class to begin with?
Oh it is, when we ask with bigger guns. The EU is ramping up, all those delusions about to fall appart.
Just need to get rid of the Quislings.
Ah, gotcha. When I hear "argument," I hear "debate culture," the kind of liberal bloodsports that focus mostly on rhetorical wins than finding a fundamental truth. I'm not quite using dialectics the way they were first formalized in ancient society, but instead more as a dialectical materialist. We can't come to a better understanding purely through the realm of ideas, such is the strategy of dialectical idealists, but instead we can be more cooperative in education.
As for my style, I do try to emulate the dialectical method of Marx, but I absolutely do not compare to him in skill. Practicing dialectical materialism as a method of analysis is a skill like any other, it takes repitition and intention to become more accurate. Regarding disposition, I mostly take from Liu Shaoqi's How to be a Good Communist, which helps me maintain revolutionary optimism!
Read How to Be a Good Communist(Liu Shaoqi) on ProleWiki
July 1939 , Comrades, The question I shall discuss is how members of the Communist Party should cultivate and temper themselves. It may not be unprofitable to the...ProleWiki
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
While east civilization is kept under oligarchs and imperialistic assholes pretending to be "socjalist", exploited people in the east are pretending to be happy, that working class in the west will be in the same shit very soon?
Not nice :\
We should work together against imperialism, oligarchs, and exploitation.
You won't ever get it from schumer or Jeffries, but that doesn't mean the D is not still better than the R.
And if you can see that difference and didn't vote that way then I'm sorry for your learning disability.
It is thr joh of the democratic party to resist this. If they cant even get their own people to resist, it is either incompetence or it is willful and purposeful.
In either case, they are failures and should not be voted for until they actually fight for the people
I can also remember Joe Lieberman the villian and Al Gore the pre-eminent inventor of the internet and hanging chads and all that fun. I also developed a cool skill called appreciation for nuance which let's me see that having a break away group is still better than wholesale support of roving gestapo in major cities. Luckily, that's a thing we now have thanks in part to the "both sides are the same" heroic lefty crowd. I would even consider myself a lefty person except I can get my old ass up of the couch to vote once year and protest even a few more times.
The couch troglodytes of this com who post memes like this are lucky to have nothing to lose. You can rotate villains in a party, but that's still way better than a whole party of villains.
Maybe you can check your old ass perspective.
Sir, this is dbzero.
Were a bunch of "lefties" that constantly parrot right-wing talking points. Your extremely obvious harm reduction has no say here.
There's such a thing as progressing
Which we don’t fucking get with democrats. At best, we get the status quo. At worst, we get Nazi collaboration, which is what the current democrat party is. Nazi collaborators.
Shut the fuck up with this lesser of two evils bullshit. The democrats are fascists as well, they just aren’t honest about it like the republicans are.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
This is the system you have. If you don’t vote you’re part of the problem
Only voting you can ask to elected people to change things. Maybe ranked elections would allow more parties and candidates
Only [by] voting you can ask to elected people to change things.
How about we replace that system with one where we don't have to ask nicely to change things for the better?
So, add a recall election mechanism and let everything else play out the same?
Because most parts of the US would probably reelect the same candidate if an election was held tomorrow (literally the standard polling question).
Renaming things doesn't make them work better.
So, add a recall election mechanism and let everything else play out the same?
No, that's not what I said. I want to abolish rulers completely.
Council democracy isn't based on electoral parliament, but on general assemblies.
Council democracy isn’t based on electoral parliament, but on general assemblies.
Oh yes, so different.
I'm all about a federated commune of communes, seriously, but at scale how is that really much different? You can't have billions of people living on the planet, or hundreds of millions in a country, without some kind of coordination. It's not practical for millions of people to vote on every little detail, you've still got to have focused representatives to, at minimum, collect information into policy that can be voted on in the first place.
Really the only two options, barring authoritarianism, are direct democracy or some kind of elected representatives. Direct democracy doesn't really work for most considerable topics (agricultural production, electric grid installation, hospital equipment, etc.). Even if people knew enough about the subject to make informed decisions, most people won't bother engaging. So we're inevitably left with some kind of representative democracy, councils don't really eliminate the fact of electing representatives, or the consequences when certain demographics over or underperform at the polls.
Maybe you have gone last chance on midterms, maybe it’s too late and the system will only make the controlling party to win. Not sure. But if people refuse to vote, I don’t think they ever have the chance.
You don’t get it. Lefties didn’t vote and helped to speed up and increase the genocide. They helped the plan a lot by not voting and their hands has blood too, they can lie to themselves when they “washed their hands” but they had a choice and they prefer to let MAGA choose for them.
MAGA is voting, like it or not, and not voting only help them
Trying to Get Through the Day
Not every struggle announces itself loudly.
Some arrive quietly, asking only for a chance to get through the day with dignity.
We’re a family in Gaza, navigating life with very limited means.
Any support—no matter how small—can make a real difference.
Even reading or sharing this means more than you know.
Trying to Get Through the Day
نُشر تبادليًا من: hexbear.net/post/7496504
Not every struggle announces itself loudly.
Some arrive quietly, asking only for a chance to get through the day with dignity.We’re a family in Gaza, navigating life with very limited means.
Any support—no matter how small—can make a real difference.Even reading or sharing this means more than you know.
Trying to Get Through the Day
Not every struggle announces itself loudly.
Some arrive quietly, asking only for a chance to get through the day with dignity.We’re a family in Gaza, navigating life with very limited means.
Any support—no matter how small—can make a real difference.Even reading or sharing this means more than you know.
Archive.is/today down?
like this
Cătă 🇷🇴🇺🇦🇲🇩🇪🇺, Fitik and deliriousdreams like this.
Works for me. Is the domain blocked where you are? Or is your browser/vpn/etc making the page fail to load?
I don't know of anything that comes close to archive. today. Web.archive.org if you're lucky will work for your site.
like this
Cătă 🇷🇴🇺🇦🇲🇩🇪🇺 and deliriousdreams like this.
Are you using a VPN?
It's always been sketchy for me but it almost never works when I use VPN.
Just a heads up: according to this post, Archive[.]is/.today/.ph is currently serving up malware to visitors, essentially using your traffic to DDoS another target.
From the linked thread:
The DDoS attack runs as JavaScript code in the browser of visitors of archive[.]today websites. Effectively this abuses the devices and abuses the devices of visitors for the attack. Effectively this abuses the devices of visitors for the cyberattack, which makes it a lot more challenging to block on the recipient’s side. Someone knowingly participating in a botnet may also be guilty of Computer sabotage" according to § 303b StGB in Germany or similar laws.This is currently still ongoing, as visiting the CAPTCHA sites still delivers JavaScript code for the DDoS, to access the targeted site many times. Most commonly used content and ad blockers like uBlock Origin should already be filtering this by default, but we can’t expect everyone to use them, especially on mobile devices.
like this
PandaInSpace likes this.
I guess forking is an easy way to benefit from others' work.
I'm wondering if there is any game developer that chooses this fork knowing that it will likely not keep up with upstream features and fixes.
I am a godot user and it seems to me that Godot it pretty much under heavy development and so...
Just some Foss drama, I stay away from that.
I've never heard of this before. Nice to have other variations. redotengine.org/ I wonder why they forked Godot. Also they don't like to mention it at all it seems: docs.redotengine.org/en/stable… only at the bottom as
© Copyright 2024-present by the Redot community, modified from an original work by Juan Linietsky, Ariel Manzur and the Godot community (CC BY 3.0).
If I were a game developer, I would probably stick to Godot unless there is a really good reason for relying on this fork. One has to trust them fully.
Redot Engine – Home
Redot Engine is an open-source game engine that enables developers to create stunning games with ease, offering powerful features, an active community, and a seamless development experience.www.redotengine.org
Some nob on twitter was having a whinge about all these "woke games" that use game engines because they're too lazy/unable to code them themselves.
Godot vague-posted a response saying, "apparently game engines are woke now?" And asked people to share their "wokot games." Ensue further whingefest, complaining about discord mods, yadda yadda. Long story short, a project created out of anti-woke spite isn't one I'd rely on.
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.www.youtube.com
Godot Engine User Blocking Controversy / #Wokot
Godot Engine Blocking Controversy refers to a controversy surrounding the community manager for the game engine Godot blocking users on X / Twitter and, reportedly, GitHub over negative reactions to a social media post in support of indie games with …Philipp (Know Your Meme)
Should I grap the 1000th star?
GitHub - lumen-oss/rocks.nvim: 🌒 Neovim plugin management inspired by Cargo, powered by luarocks
🌒 Neovim plugin management inspired by Cargo, powered by luarocks - lumen-oss/rocks.nvimGitHub
I'm being hyperbolic but I do genuinely dislike Luarocks.
Everywhere I've used them I'm met with issues. May they be incorrect versions being downloaded, Luarocks just not doing anything but giving no error, or the worse problem none of the packages working correctly. Client using luarocks for windows and it not working or the correct Luarocks just having a fit on windows too. Glad for wsl2 when a client needs me to use windows
Lua can be quite hyper specific to each usecase too. It's supposed to be. This leads to a disconnect between the generic packages and the Lua code used for neovim, the love engine, Warcraft and Roblox Moding, or whatever.
Lua does have inherit issues that make package management difficult. Each version of Lua is intended to be its own segregated ecosystem. This is a major strongsuut for Lua as it can change wildly while devs can know their version will be supported, and stay stagnant (on purpose). However, this hurts the package ecosystem as it can be difficult to support each Lua leading to an even smaller number of packages.
I've never had a good experience when using luarocks or anything that requires Luarocks.
There are few things more infuriating to me than when a package manager doesn’t work well.
Like, that’s the job. That’s why you’re here. I get why dependencies are hard to calculate but that doesn’t make it less annoying when the software is bad at it.
I haven’t used Luarocks but I feel like Ruby had some serious package management issues before RubyGems became more stable (a long time ago), and it was so annoying.
Guitar technology
like this
T͏i͏d͏b͏i͏T͏, Assian_Candor [comrade/them], BitWeaver, modulus, pancake, Honse, PolandIsAStateOfMind, airikr, VoxAliorum, TheMetaleek, ghost_laptop, hitmyspot, ExotiqueMatter, Sims and vegyk0z6 like this.
solrize
in reply to petsoi • • •OMG. I'm shocked RMS let THAT happen.
einkorn
in reply to solrize • • •armandoenlachamba
in reply to einkorn • • •StinkySocialist
in reply to armandoenlachamba • • •I may be slipping up on jargon.😅
I think the versions of deepseek you can get from olama are FOSS. I have that running on my homelab and can access it with open webui. Are you looking for something like that? I could link some stuff.
armandoenlachamba
in reply to StinkySocialist • • •Thanks! I will do some searching on my own, and your comment is a good starting point. I will probably ask you for links if I'm unable to find anything.
May I ask what kind of hardware you use to run your LLMs? Like, do you have a rack full or GPUs?
StinkySocialist
in reply to armandoenlachamba • • •I got an old machine off eBay(see pic) I only run models that are 8b parameters or less.
I got Ubuntu server on it. Then docker running in that. In docker I have olama, open web UI, jellyfin and a game sever. No issues running any of that.
Edit: if you want something that can run better LLMs I recommend more RAM and a better GPU
armandoenlachamba
in reply to StinkySocialist • • •StinkySocialist
in reply to armandoenlachamba • • •I use them mostly for helping me write emails or meal prepping tbh lol. I've used deep seek to help me with python before but if you're not just dicking around like me you'd definitely want something more powerful.
For image generation it sounds like this tool called comfy UI is the way to go. I have it running in docker but haven't set anything up inside it yet.
It's pretty neat, I really set this up to help keep my data out of the hands of the corps and the feds lol.
acargitz
in reply to armandoenlachamba • • •common-pile (Common Pile)
huggingface.coarmandoenlachamba
in reply to acargitz • • •einkorn
in reply to armandoenlachamba • • •HubertManne
in reply to solrize • • •solrize
in reply to HubertManne • • •HubertManne
in reply to solrize • • •solrize
in reply to HubertManne • • •HubertManne
in reply to solrize • • •yeah im seeing what was my estimation of what his opinion would be. Take this for example:
" I agree that bullshit summaries (as they are now) are a bad thing, partly because they are made by programs which are not intelligent, so they are often confused and misrepresent what the site really says."
as they stand now would suggest they have some sort of promise. Mostly what I see is him railing against treating their output as intelligent when summarizing and that they lack understanding of their output because. well. they are not intelligent. I fully agree with him here.