u_tamtam @ u_tamtam @programming.dev

Posts

6

Comments

454

Joined

2 yr. ago

Interesting! It's hard to continue without more details, and I'm not an expert anyway, but something definitely should be off with your configuration :)

This is the definition of complexity, isn't it? The fact here is that we can't scale up our understanding at a small level to make sense of the bigger picture. Having worked myself with (much simpler) artificial neural networks, I think it's very much correct and to the point to say that "we don't know how it works". I would even go further and claim that we will never know how it works fully: the weights in the network in essence form structures that do what they do, that we can recognize by analogy (e.g. logic gates, contour extractors, ...), but this is an anthropomorphic approximation which moreover only works in a certain range of values/set of conditions. Had we a formal definition of what the weights represent, we would then be dealing with a (much simpler and efficient) algorithm in the traditional sense (with cleanly delineated and rigorously defined specialized functions).

Nothing reported in the admin screen listing out config tips and missing indexes?

Almost every country in the world has territorial disputes.

Again a whataboutism, the existence of other countries doing shitty things is no excuse for China doing the same.

So what? Again, what aggression? (Third time asking)

I gave you the full list, I don't think you are arguing in good faith so I don't see the point. Though if you have time to waste I am willing to be entertained by your take on the construction of artificial islands and military outposts in the Paracel Islands, surely China isn't the agressor and definitely not in violation of international maritime law despite what those pesky tribunals say.

I am about 3 orders of magnitude beyond you in terms of content, and I host that on 2GB RAM and a CPU that scores 440 on CPU benchmark.net . You might want to check your configuration, perhaps starting from the database (I use PG), then server (php-fpm). I don't even use redis for caching, just the basic APC.

Where is China "aggressing" anyone?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

The most murderous and aggressive psycho country in the world?

I don't do whataboutism, two things can be evil at the same time, you know.

I think I have a very comparable workflow to yours, I have a master repository of RAW+JPEG on a NAS which I index and curate from Digikam, and I export smaller/de-exified photos into topical folders for sharing with members (generally over nextcloud).

With any serious number of photos Nextcloud starts loading for minutes

What is this serious number you have in mind? I'm the first one thinking that some of the design choices behind nextcloud are laughable, and that their attitude towards code quality and best practices is inadequate, but even then I don't think this threshold is easily reached.

Is it ok for China to agress its weaker neighbors then? And who should those countries turn towards for help? And how do you expect this help to materialize in practice?

Shaming isn't the answer for sure, but educating about why entertaining this monopoly further hurts people certainly is. And with gecko/Firefox being the last competing alternative to blink/WebKit, in practical terms, that's where we are at. Unless there is a drastic change, there's no hope for an open web to keep existing. And the arrival of a new player is practically impossible due to the complexity of modern web (even Microsoft gave up, Opera couldn't keep going, etc.)

Thanks for the recommendation, I don't think it would help with my workflow (I do the classifying and curating in Digikam and then export to timestamped folders), but I'm sure many will find it useful :)

I have 3 times that much for just a single user, so I think you should be fine.

On top of that, how can you look at the world history (which you are hasty to dismiss) and still believe that whatever new world order of yours would be immune to the same power struggles, in and out fightings, and ultimately the same destructive behaviours which are contrarian to our own common benefit as a species? What would prevent the same griefs you currently hold against “Europe/North America” to be resurrected there or elsewhere, as they were countless times and universally throughout history?

Now you’re moving the goalpost from fighting this specific climate crisis to preventing all ecological crises forever. I don’t care enough to argue that point, even if I have strong opinions about it, because it’s so beside the point that it would be a waste of my time. It seems almost intentional ngl.

The only way that you could hope to gain traction in your stated mission to abolish capitalism is by convincing others that whatever comes next will stand the test of time, and so I am legitimately curious. I don't think we can afford buying into pretty but empty promises.

Of course it is. I have a wonderful thing to teach you today: the material world doesn’t care about your (or mine) opinion, or this planet would have alternated between being flat, spherical, carried over the back of a giant turtle, concave, and all of those simultaneously. Similarly, we could unanimously decide that the branch we collectively sit on should be trimmed, and that wouldn’t make it a good decision either. Opinions alone are no reasonable basis to decide what to do next, the best thing we have is science, and the second best is history.

Okay yeah you have no idea how organising society works. Good luck doing anything in your life while ignoring your own opinions, or worse, equating them to scientific facts. What is your opinion on the IPCC, I wonder.

I really don't understand what's causing your vivid reaction here and you said nothing to help me understand it. But okay.

I trust science and the (very much apolitical) scientific method, which the IPCC embodies

Oh yeah, there is nothing political about allocating which kinds of research gets done or doesn’t. Science is just a soup that we throw money at and stir around and funny theorems and statistics boil out.

So I take away that you are a science denialist. If so, I don't see the point of continuing further, because this could be all fake news as well. And if not, then I'll ask what you gain from removing the scientific step from the decision process. And I would re-iterate my offer to provide evidence that the IPCC is biased as you claim.

You seem to have it all sorted out to explain me how that solely rests on the shoulders of “the villain capitalist West”, and not on the many other easy culprits, like, I don’t know “people are afraid of change/the unknown”, “significant changes always take a long time to be enacted”, “people like to postpone or avoid at all cost tough changes, especially those that are detrimental to their quality of life”, “why would I let other people decide for myself how to live my life, especially when I’m old and won’t have to deal with any of this”, “why should I have it worse than that other person”, “why am I hostage of the bad behaviours of other humans long dead”, “it takes a lot of mutual trust and reciprocal guarantees for committing to sacrifices with the assurance that the other side of the fence/border/geopolitical spectrum will not use it for its own short-term benefit”, and this goes on and on.

Oh look, a lot of political and social questions. All of those are valid of consideration, but the overarching system in which those are embedded isn’t because it’s “opinionated.”

You missed the forest for the tree, didn't you? At the very least you deflected my question. In the present world order, how do those pertain to capitalism, and in the new world order that you propose, how are they addressed?

Please feel free to quantify scientifically how much influence dead people’s laws should have in society. The IPCC must have a couple of papers on it.

I know this is sarcasm and I have no idea where you are going with your dead people's law, but at least in the case of the social questions above, science, and the IPCC in particular could provide some partial answers (e.g. how long/how big the sacrifice, how to adjust to many aspects of every-day's life), which will absolutely help weather the incoming storm. I really don't see the need to denigrate.

your bourgeois overlords don’t really care much about your opinion of what should be done to society. So long as you keep consuming as they want, they’ll barely even think of you, and capitalist society will keep trudging on towards the 4ºC mark.

Who exactly are my bourgeois overlords? And how are they compelling me to over-consume exactly? Perhaps it's not obvious but you and I must be very close on the political spectrum, and I could be your best ally when it comes to proposing a more sustainable lifestyle for the future. My problem is that your discourse is not nearly as polished as you make it to be, and shooting the messenger without addressing the core of the issue will not give you legitimacy and support. I live in a mostly socialist highly-educated country where our political landscape is diverse and organized in coalitions who must compromise. Unlike some stereotypes, we were not "brainwashed" during the cold war into believing that the world must exist in an extreme form of either communism or capitalism. Capitalism isn't something that I see practically affect my life because without specifics (which this thread is lacking en masse), this is just an abstract construct. Market laws (offer vs supply) do, but this is trade, this doesn't equate capitalism, and I think I already made that point clear.

I’ve provided some evidence of communism being a better alternative

I don't think you did. All I (mis)read is that abolishing capitalism to be a condition for addressing climate change, and I've been begging to know more about how it will play out in practice.

Riddle me this: What is, in your factual scientific opinion, that which is preventing humanity to actually combat global warming and climate change as they overwhelmingly want to? The answer will say a lot.

I can only offer my biased and limited opinion, sorry. Part of which you already got in my paragraph about the "easy culprits" (people being scared of change, etc) which still stands. I believe there are many large issues, the fact that most people are in denial about it is a significant one: no matter what we do now, we will collectively take a huge cut in our quality and comfort of life for the centuries to come; pensions, property titles, diplomas, insurances, … will become meaningless and that's a tough one to swallow. Most people are just incapable to imagine such a world, and won't react until too late. Then comes the fact that most countries have experienced the late stage of their demographic shift: you get a large population of elderly and politicians representing them who won't get to live through the hardship of climate change, and who have little to no incentive to do anything about it. Then comes the fact that this is a global phenomenon that affects all countries unequally but requires all of them to agree, commit, and execute toward a common goal. We have no global instance with the legitimacy to oversee and arbitrate in this context, and I doubt there will ever be one. This post is long-enough but I think you got the gist.

(edit: had to split the post because of reaching max limit)

cute words for saying that I’m focusing on how to solve this specific crisis while you’re philosophising over the tragedy of human nature and pretending you don’t like capitalism while defending it till kingdom come.

I challenge that very much: how can you hope to solve a problem that you chose deliberately to look at from a narrow angle and not in its entirety?

Let’s suppose that we have it your way, and overnight we suppress everything undemocratic and capitalistic about this world. Would that solve climate change? Your conviction is “Yes, because such and such things that (you believe) caused it (but no evidence was given) are no longer there”. This is not only extremely naive (and unproven), this is also illogical: in essence you would have replaced something we know by something else we don’t (and that moreover could be worse), and be expecting a better outcome, out of pure faith, with no evidence.

A lot of people here have presented the evidence, you just chose to disregard it because it’s “too political.”

Where is this evidence again? If we are still talking about climate change here, and not diverting into a political crusade, we can just look at the emissions causing the warming, their main cause, and find that they map to an exponential increase of human activities since the industrial revolution. Exponentially more people live, consume resources (food, shelter, heating, goods), and reproduce. This is life in its most quintessential aspect, the very same you would observe in a Petri dish. Are bacteria consuming nutrients till they cause their own extinction forming a capitalist structure, too?

You have yet to explain how the capitalist ruling class are doing anything to combat climate change (as we can see from the article they are just doubling down), while a majority of people support actually doing something about it.

No, YOU have to back the exceptional claim that this has anything to do with capitalism. The fact that the ruling class opposes change is pretty much what defines it: elites wants to preserve their status. You and I have a problem with conservatism, not capitalism, unless you consider that every member of the current elite defends capitalist ideals, which is fairly easy to disprove by just looking at the religious elite or nobility around the world.

Like I said, look at all the AES/anti-imperialist countries and their track records on fighting climate change. […] China is leading the world in production of green energy

First, I will laugh at the association of "China" with "anti-imperialist country". Then, as it happens, almost all developed economies have been drastically reducing their carbon footprint for the better part of the last century, with the EU leading the way and having a carbon footprint per capita now significantly lower than that of China (which keeps increasing). I'm not sure what China is leading actually (other than in your information bubble, apparently) by having installed more new fossil energy production in the recent years than renewable. In terms of ratio of clean vs fossil energy in its energy mix, China is not even in the upper median of the world, and in this decade we can expect China to surpass the EU in terms of cumulative emissions which is inexcusable in this day and age. This was not even the point of this discussion, but I'm happy to have rectified this at least.

For me it's ejabberd, I gave up on Matrix, it was too stressful and expe/ansive to sysadmin.

as an hegemony seeking super power

Citation needed.

Have you ever listen to the CCP's rhetoric? Especially Xi's neo-traditionnalism and "restoring China's just place at the center of the world".

Also you didn’t really respond to anything said.

And neither did you, you were off-topic from the get go.

Nextcloud. It's definitely overkill for photos alone, but since you are likely to want it for other stuff anyway, why not use its gallery (which is decent) as well?

I personally use it for backup and sharing, and do the bulk of my photos/collections management in digikam (reading from a fast network storage).

Realistically, China, as an hegemony seeking super power, would do the same thing no matter what century and flavor of autocratic regime is at the helm at that particular time. No need to make it more than what it is, really.

Yeah but we are today, and I fail to see what's actually "left wing" about the present situation. Is Russia (a fascist kleptocracy) being helped by China (state capitalist and only communist in name) somehow contributing to spreading socialism ideals? In retrospect that was maybe a rhetorical question.

That's not my hill to die on, but what exactly about authoritarian ethno states scratching each other's back makes it "left wing"?