u_tamtam @ u_tamtam @programming.dev

Posts

6

Comments

454

Joined

2 yr. ago

Cool! Even they did prove anything there, I would prefer no longer to be considered them as "People" if that lets me keep using my perfectly ordered, labeled and sequentially ordered RSS. My brain just has no time and interest for an infinite stream of haphazardly cooked up stuff.

This isn't the 70's anymore, when the U.S. military last had an edge over the rest of the world on the subject. Now, every current device that support GPS also reads from GLONASS, Beidou and Galileo, which all offer better precision and accuracy thanks to their more recent design. GPS losing dominance is last-century news.

Honestly I’m kinda tired of this because you seem to be deliberately missing the point.

I mean, I hear you, but from my perspective, you are the one missing the point: I replied to you in a more general case…

There definitely were people all over the world waging massive wars to protect/expand their land and agricultural capacity instead.

…but you keep bringing back the discussion to modern specifics without explaining why they somehow contradict the broader thesis:

A thousand years in the past there weren’t people in Europe/North America waging massive wars to protect their sources of oil across the world.

Your argumentation is presentist and mine is anthropogenic/historic.

I don’t particularly care about any pre-factory man-made ecological catastrophe because what I (and others here) argue is that this specific one is being perpetuated by the undemocratic owning of the means of production.

Indeed, but my point is that you very much should. 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. 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?

This is the crux of the issue here: you propose change for what looks the sake of change, whereas I'm more interested in understanding why we are where we are now, despite all our knowledge, but still unable to move. That is, so we finally get a chance to break the circle and not just burn the world down in yet another desperate revolution.

The IPCC doesn’t make manifestos nor do they advocate for political action

Which is why they matter, they come before in the decision process, so that any serious manifesto or political action gets some amount of legitimacy and bearing in the physical world that we collectively live in.

, despite suffering from intense lobbying from both corporations and political parties. They work specifically under the framework of liberal capitalism and the directives of the USA government and bourgeois interest, even if the individual researchers are often honest and diligent.

I trust science and the (very much apolitical) scientific method, which the IPCC embodies, by being the largest venue for the best scientists of this world to convene on the subject, and I have no reason to believe that their methods have been corrupted. If you have any evidence of that, please offer it for the sake of our common good. If you don't, please go away with your FUD, or, better, put together a more qualified and adequate team.

Another easy argument to be said is that this same panel (corroborated by independent studies) came to the conclusion that stopping climate change would be more beneficial for the world economies (and the current world order that you despise as a result) than not doing anything. Which kind of makes sense in light of the ever worse food and water wars, wildfires and destructive weather. Nobody wins.

I could laugh but I guess some people out there really think that “political orientations” are unproductive for deciding what to do politically.

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.

The most efficient way to enact change (IMO) is to commit to actionable goals in light of desired outcomes (e.g. how many plants of which type we need to open and close, how many cars and trucks on the roads, …).

Do go on, what “actionable goals” have been committed to and are being enforced right now in capitalist countries? Which ones are even likely to stay in force after an election cycle? How have capitalist countries fought against climate change when it went against the profit of their ruling class? The gist of it all is that all of those “actionable goals” need to be enforced politically, which has shown to be impossible (or at least very unsuccessful) under liberal capitalism over the past 30 years we’ve been aware of this crisis.

Good points, really. Then the argument should be turned into "why were those actionable goals not implemented".
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. Like I said in another post, sects and religions. We are not geared-up as a species for reacting rationally in this scenario. We have never been confronted to such a threat, and required to exhibit such an amount of coordinated sacrifice. All we need is to prove that we are better at survival than lemmings. And sorry again for finding ludicrous the idea that taking out capitalism would do anything of substance.

Hi! I can find the option for posts, is the same thing considered for comments as well?

A thousand years in the past there weren’t people in Europe/North America waging massive wars to protect their sources of oil across the world.

There definitely were people all over the world waging massive wars to protect/expand their land and agricultural capacity instead. And they were largely affecting their environment in the process (if not at a climate level yet). I cited some ancient Chine dynasties, but the same could be said about every large ancient civilization, just to name few, the Incas, the Romans, the Mongols, the Indus, …: it is very much the same thing.

Trade was equally happening at a large-scale millennia ago (in the Eurasian continent, but in the Americas as well. As I said in my previous post, its impact on global warming was only milder because we only knew about "renewable" energies back then (horse riding and sailing is pretty close to carbon neutral, when there were mere millions individual on earth back then).

All we are observing now is, as I said, more of the same thing, but at a larger scale, because we since discovered the atmosphere-warming and polluting machines and energies that are of widespread-use today. For the rhetoric about capitalism to convince me, you would have to prove that the current situation would only be permitted under capitalism, and all I see is history pointing the other way. And if other systems can lead to the same outcome, then this whole thing isn't about the system itself, but something "deeper" that would be left unresolved, and all you would have accomplished would be akin to "shooting the messenger", leaving room for another unsatisfying alternative to emerge.

It would be pretentious to predict the economic effects in a manifesto from those who are not (and will likely never be) in power.

It is certainly not. That's what organisms like the IPCC have been doing for decades: working on models to predict the future climate with as much certainty and accuracy as our understanding of physics possibly allows. It has this pretty neat thing about itself that it doesn't care about your, or mine, opinions and political orientations, skipping entire avenues for unproductive debate and distractions. The most efficient way to enact change (IMO) is to commit to actionable goals in light of desired outcomes (e.g. how many plants of which type we need to open and close, how many cars and trucks on the roads, …). The rest is semantics and games.

When one says that “capitalism is the root of the problem” it means that the climate crisis we are living now is a clear consequence of our society’s organisation over production.

good that you and OP are convinced that "our society's organization over production" links climate change to "capitalism", but my point is that it is probably not as simple as you make it to be, and I still don't see any evidence of causation for this exceptional claim.

My "hot take" is that we are not doing anything new or different now than we did thousand of years ago (so, before the advent of capitalism and globalization) when it comes to destroying our environment. The main difference is the scale at which we do it now, which is leveraged by our progress in science which permits the usage of large amounts of readily available energy.

The good thing about this discussion is that I only need a single counter-example to disprove your thesis (but you can find many throughout history). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf02664569 : here you see how ancient Chinese dynasties caused environmental collapses forcing large populations relocations. You may not want to call this human nature, but humans have since forever poked at things without understanding consequences, and with ever larger populations and techniques, the bigger the blowbacks. Capitalism had nothing to do with that: it didn't provide the means, it didn't provide the motive, it didn't provide the opportunity.
And yes, I understand how tempting it is to look at the problem under the lens of current ideas and ideologies, but this is just cheap presentism.

To close on the subject, I am not a climate change denialist, and I am certainly not a capitalism apologist. I am a strong believer that people in future generations will keep poking at things without understanding the consequences. All I hope is that those future generations will be wise enough (i.e. have enough understanding of the world/advances in science, and enough safeguards against demagogic and other unsound ideals) to mitigate the negative impacts.

If you yourself don’t have any solution and yet feel your opinion is relevant you are the one engaging in contrarianism.

Fair. I cannot pretend that I have a single "cookie-cutter" solution for a complex global issue that's been going on for centuries and whose effects and remedial actions will affect every single individual on earth. I still think I stand higher than those that claim to have such a solution while having their nose and mouth delved into local political matters of no global relevance. I have listened to the whole podcast you linked and the Red Deal offers nothing of substance, just more opinions, as it has no predictive value (it doesn't try to show quantitatively how much of the problem is remediated under which circumstance).

Yep, I get the sentiment, but it's up to us to make amoral things illegal by means of democratic representation (assuming you live in a democratic country). It's just slower, but that's kind of the whole point of this :)

Ultimately, i want something that is able to work outside of its own walls. I dont want 10 messenger apps, and i dont want to limit the messenging app that i host to just us (ie, it would be good if my account can talk to others, by my sons can only talk with us).

The funny thing about XMPP is that this is exactly where it started at, when AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo and co. were all the rage in the late 90's, the geeks became annoyed of needing as many clients as there were protocols, and XMPP was meant to bridge over to all of them. Fast forward, we since learned that bridging to other protocols generally sucks (or isn't to be recommended to the average folks), and just to make sure, Matrix tried again 15 years later with the same outcome. But if you need it, the capability is still very much there and some still pursue the effort to this day.

Do you have any links for the french dropping matrix?

I only have a (private) IRC chatlog which I'm not sure it is ethical to post in the open, so I sent it to you by private message instead. I don't think it is a secret at this point so there might be other sources out there to corroborate this.

Oh, our good friend yogthos at it again. So, the UN is the tool of the hegemonic evil west meant to persecute and trap developing nations, but once in a while, when the Chinese propaganda says so, it's good again?

For the curious, the WFP delivers food to about 150 million people, China is the 44th largest donor, for reference, Germany donates about 150 times more than China. Just to name few, Somalia, Ethiopia, Haiti, Bangladesh, Honduras, Chad, Burkina Faso and Pakistan donate more to the world food program than China : https://www.wfp.org/funding/2022

I'm not there to shit on the much needed help and the work of those who contribute towards it (knowing myself a few personally), but this is not world news, this is blatant propaganda, and it's clear from OP's messages history that he's not there to provide informative and unbiased content.

Agree about "legal being not the same as moral or ethical", but calling for mob justice just isn't something I would root for. The system isn't perfect, of course, but one has to trust that people sitting in court have had access to more evidence than the randos of the internet, that, and the fact that everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

I found that quite easy, for once: I have a bare NC instance and I installed 2 add-ons (the integration bits and the CODE server that IIRC drops an appimage of the actual collabora server). Unless you have hundreds of users, that's about as much admin as you need :)

Do you need/like matrix so much that you want to self-host it in place of more admin-friendly alternatives? The client/user side of matrix is okayish, but everything else is terrible. The protocol is inefficient by design and that's not something faster languages will solve so expect your available resources to sink, all implementations suck in different ways, are highly incompatible, constantly changing and have you in a permanent stressful state of chasing the latest/breaking/testing stuff. The team in charge is in denial about a great many things, and lacks the deeply needed amount of focus and reality check to get things done (which I imagine has been a large contributor to more and more "institutional actors" dropping them recently, like France several months ago).

I could go on and on, but in short, I was at your place some time ago and the mess, disappointment and overall stress I found with matrix only compelled me to give XMPP a close look. Now I (and my users) are super happy with ejabberd and modern clients like Conversation/dino/movim make the while thing a very pleasant experience. Not all features of matrix are there, but I take reliability/predictability and simplicity over them any single day.

Works quite well through nextcloud IME :)

Those guys didn't disagree with you, they offered you relevant and unbiased sources so you wouldn't sound like an angry ignorant spitting hatred. But, again, you turned down the offer to learn anything. We will indeed see what happens after the elections, since this is all that matters to you. That's just sports, isn't it? Yelling with the crowd, supporting the team no matter what, for this sweet sweet feeling of belonging, no matter if in the wrong. Whatever the outcome, I can only expect a lot of bad faith and deception, and your short focus to span onto the next controversial topic.

I'm feeling really worried for you. You seem to be going deeper and deeper into this antisocial and hateful rabbit hole. Try to seek help. You are not a white king, you are not the defender of a moral high-ground. You are not serving justice. You are not helping anybody. You are just the relay and mouthpiece of powerful and hateful people, and if you have any self-respect and self-consciousness, you should refuse to be their puppet. My 2c.

A bunch of taiwanese debunked that for you in another thread, lecturing you with context, history, and recent surveys providing you wrong every step in the way. And yet you keep spreading your nonsense. If you are not using this website as a unique chance to learn about the real world and fact check your information bubble, and are unwilling to listen and learn from others, what the heck are you even doing here?

Is it weird that I have the feeling that I'm arguing with a bot? I don't see what's hard to understand: the whole premise of this thread is that the cause and solution to climate change is inherently bound to capitalism, and my point is that taking this approach to explain and remedy it is very limiting because capitalism itself is no basis to describe how societies impact their environment (it only describes who owns what in an economy).

When I talk about human nature, it's because I'm convinced that (and there's anthropological evidence for) any larger society to inevitably contain selfish individuals with exploitative and sociopathic tendencies, and individuals who can't get enough when someone else has more than they have (same reason there are cold blood and serial killers all around the world). My opinion is that any rule of law society has the means to limit the power and negative impacts of those individuals, and this extends to corporations who are ultimately led by humans who we should collectively make accountable for their actions on behalf of the organization they lead. There is absolutely no need to bring capitalism into this, and colonialism even less so.

When I talk about sects and religions, it is to emphasize the fact that humanity has never been a uniform species and probably never will be. Tackling climate change in this context in a relevant time-frame will require to exert the current power structures no matter what.

And I don't pretend to have a solution for climate change, all I'm sure about is that the actual solution is more elaborate than blind antagonism.

I think the only way to make this constructive is if you could describe what you mean by "boilerplate". My experience of writing and reading mill build files is that they are extremely succinct and convey their intent clearly.

And judging by your "false equivalence" statement, I'm not sure you actually read the thread I linked. Cargo is factually a very basic tool, comparatively.

Although interesting, I don't think your link is the gotcha counterexample you think it is. Previous civilizations caused environmental collapses without having capitalism to blame for it. We could switch overnight to soviet style communism and that would not solve anything if our expectation is to provide everyone on earth with their today's living standards. We could blame greed, selfishness and that would take us closer to the truth, but even that would be very shortsighted. We would need all humans on earth to be united around a same goal and same path forward, and share the same willingness to sacrifice. No sect or religion has ever achieved that and never will (we are just so many, and spread that wide).

Looking at the world from the lens of an economic ideology alone only gets you so far. Wrong tool for the job.

You can have industrialized production and consumerism without capitalism. Not that I'm defending capitalism, I just think our problem is deeper than what you make it, and human nature combined with unchecked technological ability to remodel out planet would yield the same outcome, no matter the dominant flavor of our economical structure.

That was my point above about being multi-paradigm/having a powerful type system, what's interesting about the language may depend whether you approach it from a "OOP done right", "python with types" or "Haskell on steroids" perspective. Akka/pekko and Play projects may be in the first category, projects built with the Scala toolkit may be representative of the second, and typelevel/zio communities like heavy abstractions and pure functional programming a lot.

This approach may induce drastically different looking code, but on the upside, the Scala community seems to be converging towards those 2/3 styles nowadays, vs. the wild west of before where each project was full of its own idiosyncrasies.