Avid Amoeba @ avidamoeba @lemmy.ca

Posts

159

Comments

5,168

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes, it depends on how you're managing the service. If you're using one of the common patterns via systemd, you may be cleaning up everything, including old volumes, like I do.

E: Also if you have any sort of lazy prune op running on a timer, it could blow it up at some point.

Check your Syncthing settings. It's a very reliable piece of software. Other than that Immich, but that's a slightly different use case.

Yes

I switched to the same model. It's absolutely spectacular. The only extra thing I did was to increase the concurrent job count for Smart Search and to give the model access to my GPU which sped up the initial scan at least an order of magnitude.

Oh, and if you haven't changed from the default ML model, please do. The results are phenomenal. The default is nice but only really needed on really low power hardware. If you have a notebook/desktop class CPU and/or GPU with 6GB+ of RAM, you should try a larger model. I used the best model they have and it consumes around 4GB VRAM.

Yes. Of course what you said could happen. My point is that in the current status quo there's still plenty of non-authoritarian countries and billionaires are still operating on easy-to-jump-ship basis when they destroy one democracy or another for increased profit. So I think that's why this cost isn't factored in. Competition for increased profits dominates. If we're left with only a few democracies that tolerate billionaires, then that calculus could change. It's similar to capitalism's treatment of any finite resource - plunder that bitch till there's nothing left, then deal with the consequences. If we don't, the other guy would do it and we'd lose on the profit, and the other guy gains power over us given by the newly acquired capital.

Probably not unless you have lots or animals crossing it. Ticks require hosts to feed and transport over significant distance I think.

Yes, of course.

Right but how do you make most countries want to arrest them? We currently don't have a setup allowing for this if no international criminal offenses are involved. It only happens if the billionaire resides mostly in an "authoritarian" country where they could get "arbitrarily" arrested. The rest of the world isn't currently setup to do this. I'm not saying it can't be setup or shouldn't be setup like that.

Smaller scale millionaires perhaps. Once they go multinational, it becomes very difficult to significantly harm them even if one country decides to dispossess their business. This has already happened to large corporations that exist today through nationalization at various places and points in time. E.g. Shell after Venezuelan oil nationalization.

Not if you have a loyal, competent police apparatus to round up anyone who dares to step out of line.

100%

The silver lining to stuff like this is that it's now trivial to show examples of how the system works in favour of the 1%. In cases like this, the differential between profits and fines is so huge that anyone would understand how the fine is completely ineffective, and therefore regulation relying on such fines.

Would this work with a public dynamic DNS?

Yes I do mean the revolving door. Also the campaign finance laws still favor better funded campaigns and we know how much better funded the cons are for example than anyone else. And then there's the spending that goes to advertising from third parties which is very high. And then we have the third party ad spending outside of campaign periods. Your Canada Prouds and such pushing corporate propaganda all day, every day. And then in some provinces there are no limits for provincial elections or the limits are quite high. Don't get me wrong, we're in a much better position in this regard to the USA but we're very much not in a democratic environment that really favours the majority of working Canadians.

Political campaigns cost a lot of money and billionaires fund the ones that would bail them out directly or indirectly. So billionaires are in fact bailing themselves out. This is why we so often find ourselves in the situation where all candidates are shit and we try voting for the lesser turd. If it were merely a matter of voting, we wouldn't be in this position. Unless this is widely understood and we take the steps needed to counteract it, we'd forever be pointing at either the housing minister, or the voters and ask how could this still be happening. (Actually we won't because the system would collapse when workers eventually revolt, but you get what I'm saying.)

The theory that if we only let large firms fail when they fuck up, things would get better is a fantasy because that changes nothing of significance in who holds power in society. And that's before we think about corporate ownership and how profits are protected during failure. And before we consider that when firms fail, they rarely disappear. Instead they get absorbed, customers, employees and capital by their competitor, creating even bigger firms, now able to exercise higher market power, and their owners even richer. Competition does not lead to a competitive equilibrium outside of rare cases. Instead it leads to consolidation and eventually monopolies or oligipolies.

I think at best there's evidence for a correlation between productivity and wages and even that correlation has largely disappeared since the 80s. If you're looking for causation, I'm afraid that without union representation, wage increases come before productivity gains and it's not difficult to see why. If your labour cost increases, your profit margin decreases. If you can't decrease wages, you have to get more product out of the same labour. You can do that by investing in more or better tooling, equipment, training, automation. That is productivity increase.

In a union environment, the union can force higher wages when there's increase in profits as a result of productivity gains. Which then drives further productivity increases as the owner tries to get their margins higher again. Which drives the kind of feedback loop which creates the tight productivity-wage correlation we've observed in the post-depression period till the 80s. You probably know what happened after that.

Yeah, bombing Iran has nothing to do whatsoever with human rights. It's all about Israel's interest and whoever else shares it. If we cared about human rights and couped governments for that, we'd be all up in the Gulf's ass, Israel's (because of Gaza, West Bank), among others. Even if that was the goal, history informs us that the chances of a government that's better for human rights is less likely than a worse one. Some Zionist acquaintances took a week of glorifying Israel's "victory" in Iran, before turning around to shit on Gulf countries and China for their human rights abuses. I'm so done with this shit..

the salute focus on the 1991-95 ethnic war in Croatia, in which he fought using the American firearm, after the country declared independence from the former Yugoslavia.

Ah the old reliable anti-communist gotta fascist rule.

That's pretty horrific. The working population is important to maintaining Ukraine's ability to fight. It probably factors in Russia's intent to finish the war instead of agreeing to a ceasefire.