I’m a math teacher. I use my video game making knowledge from Godot to make little video games to review skills. Each takes a few weeks to make with game design, making all the art, programming, and making the worksheet.
Here is my Disco Dj-Demo if you were curious what I mean.
I think it’s fun, it’s not something I can really chat with others about.
You are awesome. Thanks for being a good teacher and making math as interesting as it is for your students. And your hobby is fucking cool too.
I am a programmer (as in it’s my job) and I can’t really program anything in Godot. I’ve done the dodge the creeps tutorial and did some more tries, but I don’t really get game dev. It’s definitely a unique skill.
When you boot up your Linux, it will mount the root file system and start one program. That program is systemd. Everything else on your system will be started through systemd or processes that systemd started.
That’s why it is important, everything else on your system is build on top of it. That’s also why it is difficult to replace, if you use something other than systemd, you need a completely new set of config files for that other thing or your software might not work properly. Most distributions have given up on that, as it’s just more work for a niche audience, and they just require systemd instead.
As a regular user you don’t really have to care all that much, most stuff systemd does will happen automatically in the background and be setup by your distribution. It can still help to get familiar with systemd tools like journalctl as that’s where all your error messages go and systemctl is how you start, stop or disable services on your system. If you use something other than systemd those tools won’t exist and something else will take their place.
As for why people don’t like systemd, it follows the kitchen-sink approach to software and does a lot of things at once. It replaced a whole zoo of smaller utilities like inetd, syslog, cron, atd, … Some people dislike this loss of modularity, while most the rest are happy that they have one tool that does all of those things well, especially since systemd can do a lot of those tasks better and in a more unified way than previously.
wow thank you for taking the time and explaining that! I didn’t except to learn that today right before bed today or ever. It’s these kind of great comments that i come to lemmy for. Just know that i really appreciate it!
As for why people don’t like systemd, it follows the kitchen-sink approach to software and does a lot of things at once.
For people new to Linux I just want to point out - for better or for worse this goes against the Unix philosophy.
Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface.
So is systemd. It is definitely modular and I think it has multiple interfaces as well. I’m not sure if you have configure systemd modules like GRUB does.
One thing that people miss - either out of ignorance, or because it goes against the narrative - is that systemd is modular.
One part handles init and services (and related things like mounts and sockets, because it makes sense to do that), one handles user sessions (logind), one handles logging (journald), one handles networking (networkd) etc etc.
You don’t have to use networkd, or their efi bootloader, or their kernel install tool, or the other hostname/name resolution/userdb/tmpfiles etc etc tools.
Could be worse OP, could be a movie about the North Koreans successfully invading America, you know, North Korea, a country that barely has a navy and who’s Air Force is mostly old Migs from several decades ago, a country who starts threatening their neighbors whenever their food supply runs low because their chubby leader eats too much while the rest of the country is at famine levels of hunger.
At least the original version of the movie was against the Russians while they were a super power.
They are loud when they recharge, they are slow compared to nuclear subs and they carry much less armaments.
On the other hand, when they are on battery power modern diesels can be much quieter than nuclear subs, they are much cheaper and smaller so ideal for operations in coastal waters. Which is why many (also western countries) rely on them for coastal defense.
Economics wise: You can trade 3 diesel subs against a nuclear subs or a large warship and still come out ahead cost/effort wise.
How long do you think 1950’s era batteries last? Like in what world do you think “a 1950’s diesel on battery power surely outclasses a modem nuclear sub”? GTFO with that bullshit, lol.
A sub on battery power is essentially in free fall depending on their ballast situation, they’re not going anywhere because they would have to turn their loud ass engines on to go somewhere, which would then alert the entire modern navy they would be up against.
Which is why many (also western countries) rely on them for coastal defense.
No the countries that still use those just don’t have enough money to maintain a nuclear sub fleet for what’s essentially their coast guard, it’s cost efficiency not “better”.
All of your points are just deep stretches in vain attempts to be the “well ackschully!” Guy, or to be the contrarian throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
the countries that still use those just don’t have enough money to maintain a nuclear sub fleet
IRC the French have at least one diesel sub, the SMX-Ocean Range 30,000km.
They also have modern battery tech, the money and the tech to maintain/build nuclear subs. They have existing nuclear subs. The SMX-Ocean is actually quite modern. 2017 I think. Certainly more modern than most existing nuclear subs.
it’s cost efficiency not “better”.
Here's an article which explains why modern diesel subs can be quieter than nuclear subs:
IRC the French have at least one diesel sub, the SMX-Ocean Range 30,000km.
Wait so you honestly think they’re going 30,000 km on battery power?
Do you not get that submarine combustion engines are just like car combustion engines? You generate power through the engines and that power is stored on battery to power the electrical systems and serve as a backup, battery power is not going to power the whole entire sub and magically move the sub quietly through the water, that’s not how these things work, that’s how nuclear subs work.
My point is, you’re not going to be able to move your sub at all on battery power, at some point you will have to turn on those loud ass engines in order to move your sub, which will absolutely alert every modern sub to your location.
Wait so you honestly think they’re going 30,000 km on battery power
Obviously not, as the article I linked to mentions the range is limited in electric mode.
battery power is not going to power the whole entire sub and magically move the sub quietly through the water,
It will, but the range is limited. Electricity and batteries aren't magic. We also use them to move cars.
that’s how nuclear subs work.
You should read the article I linked to above. Current nuclear submarines often aren't perfectly silent. In fact, they can be louder than a modern diesel sub running in battery only mode.
Which is likely why the French, who do have nuclear subs, chose to build a diesel sub anyway while simultaneously also working on quieter nuclear subs.
Diesel Electric Submarines Diesel generator machinery can cause a great deal of noise. Diesel electrics are only quiet when operating in electric mode.
In fact, diesel boats must raise a snorkel to have intake fresh air for combustion when operating the diesel recharging the batteries and is then visible to the world.
u212a todaro class submarine pietro venuti U212A Todaro class submarine Pietro Venuti You cannot run silently with the diesels running and charging the electrics, you can only run silently in the electric-only mode, submerged. And because that’s off batteries, your submerged endurance is limited.
Diesel electric submarines only use diesel mode when travelling on surface, or snorkeling. However, there is the Stirling engine submarine, that can run its two propulsion systems totally submerged.
So you agree that diesel submarines can be quieter than nuclear subs when operating in electric mode, although their range is limited.
That's good.
I thought this was turning into one of those reddit level discussions, where people refuse to accept they were wrong, because they'd rather 'win' an argument by misrepresenting what the person they're debating actually said, than have a nuanced discussion
can only run silently in the electric-only mode, submerged. And because that’s off batteries, your submerged endurance is limited.
Also in the article:
So, unique to nukes, are a bunch of pumps, turbines, and reduction gears, which a diesel boat in battery mode doesn’t have at all.
Ie. a diesel sub is quiet in electric mode, potentially quieter than nuclear subs because in battery mode there aren't turbines or pumps whining away, even though that is for a limited time.
Another example:
Stirling engine is particularly well suited for a submarine because the engine is nearly silent and can use the surrounding sea water as a heat sink to increase efficiency. Submerged endurance is dependent on the amount of liquid oxygen stored on-board and is described as "weeks". The class is characterized by its low acoustic signatures, extreme shock resistance, and a competent combat system. .... The class has many features that enhance stealth, helping it to remain undetected. All shipboard machinery is isolated and mounted on rubber dampeners to reduce vibrations and noises; a hydrodynamic hull design reduces noise, infrared signature, and active sonar response. Its magnetic signature is counteracted by 27 independent electromagnets, short circuiting extremely low frequency (ELF) electrical fields. Various hull coatings reduce active sonar response, and the mast is coated with radar-absorbent material. Combined with the near-silent operation of the Stirling generator and slow-turning propeller to prevent cavitation, the boats are very difficult to detect under water, especially in their normal area of operations, the Baltic Sea
In 2005, HSwMS Gotland managed to snap several pictures of USS Ronald Reagan during a wargaming exercise in the Pacific Ocean, demonstrating that it was in a position to sink the aircraft carrier.[11] The exercise was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the US fleet against diesel-electric submarines, which some have noted as severely lacking.
TLDR: an advanced/modern diesel submarine is louder than a nuclear submarine in normal operation. Chugachugachugachuga. Then it goes into battery mode. It goes near silent, quieter than many nuclear submarines which still have turbines, pumps, etc. The diesel sub dissapears like a ghost. Torpedo away, too late.
And that's a relatively old sub. The French sub I mentioned is something like a decade newer, with newer and better batteries.
Dude, if someone here is “well akshually” that is surely you. When people talk about people on the internet that are annoying to meet - that’s you.
But apart from that. You are simply mistaken in a lot of things or are projecting so hard you may as well have an HDMI input.
Nobody said 50s era or even modern diesel subs or their other non nuclear equivalents are “better” than a nuclear sub in all ways but in some situations, e.g. coastal defense and operation sin shallow water, they may be better suited to the mission than a nuclear sub that is 4 times as large.
In addition there are economical considerations. If I can buy 4 diesels for the price of a nuke sub it may be better for me to have 4 diesels who can lie in wait at 4 places at once.
The question is mission fit of the asset. A ship will sink all the same whether it was sunk by a 2 billion USD Nuke sub or by a diesel on the way to the wrecker that had a really really lucky day.
What advantages? If memory serves correctly, they’d need a captain with a penis tattoo that says “welcome aboard” and a radar guy who can imitate whales. I’m not sure that’s so common.
At least as recently as 2005, diesel subs were the quieter option. There was that somewhat notorious story of the Swedish one that beat an American carrier group in a wargame because the Americans just couldn't find it. I'm sure there have been developments in the equipment and methods since then - it was 18 years ago, after all - but it's still notable enough that the Americans leased the sub from Sweden for a couple of years to practice against it.
That said, the Swedish sub in question was packed with cutting-edge (at the time) stealth features. I suspect North Korea's fleet is not.
Lol people hold on to that wargame so tightly as some Pinnacle of triumph over western armed forces, but the reality of the situation was that the sub commander in question went rogue and did something they weren’t supposed to do in order to win. Also at the end of the day it’s a fucking wargame, it’s practice, and nobody really cares how well you do in practice because it’s all about how you perform in the big game.
Also as you noted the Americans did what we always do when situations like this happen, we game planned for never letting it happen again, this was an embarrassment for the US Navy, and you can bet it’s something they’re constantly working on never letting happen again, these are serious professionals who’s lives revolve around continuously planning ways to win against any situation while losing as few of their people as possible.
Thanks for the serious answer even when I was making a stupid joke/reference.
As I replied to someone else, that is very interesting.
My thoughts: It does seem extremely limited for its advantage though. The electric mode is basically a stealth option, but once they fire or do anything else then should be findable and that electric mode probably won’t last THAT long if they were being hunted actively.
I think the old ones are loud, but newer ones can be really quiet. IRC Sweden had one that did well in war games. Gotland class. France also has really modern ones.
Basically they chugachugachugachuga, then go into battery mode and dissappear off sonar. Range is low obviously. Batteries don't last that long.
Don't think the Russians have those though. Their navy has been a joke for over a century.
Range is infinitesimal comparatively. A nuclear submarine can operate continuously under water for 6 months. An old diesel sub needs to resurface after something like 12-18 hours.
There’s a massive difference between an acoustically-optimized, AIP-capable Swedish submarine built thirty years ago, and what the North Koreans have which is basically none of those.
Also, while the Reagan itself was pretty new at the time, the Nimitz class was already a 30-year old design when that war game happened, and is now almost 60 years old as a class.
We’ve seen what the Russian military has been like in Ukraine, if you think most of those subs aren’t rusting piles of garbage then you’re probably drinking that tankie Kool aid. They’ve probably had to cannibalize the majority of them just to keep what few they have running, because it’s not like they just idly make parts for 1950’s era subs, especially not for a country that barely has enough money to feed themselves and spends most of that on their nuclear program.
Also they’re loud ass diesel subs, every modern navy will know exactly where they are and how many they have easily, and it’s not like 1950’s weaponry is going to make up the difference.
This being said, Russia also isn't as weak as we like to think. Given how the war has ground to a standstill, it's not unlikely it'll become yet another frozen conflict. And that's after arming the Ukrainians with large amounts of advanced weaponry.
We've become so used to the idea we'd have air supremacy in any potential war, we thought the Ukrainians would be able to push their way through the front, forgetting that the Ukrainians aren't able to take out artillery or mines beforehand.
The Russians have also adapted quite quickly. At the beginning of the war, the Ukrainians were having huge successes with drones. Now the Russians are downing 10,000 drones a month:
To be clear, Russia is an existential threat to Europe. If they turn this conflict into a stalemate, they will have won territory that doesn't belong to them and it's almost certain they'll rebuild, rearm and do it again. Just like happened with Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine in 2014.
But underestimating the Russians is not in NATO members' interests. No one ever won a war underestimating the enemy, better to give Ukraine more than they need, than just barely enough to make incremental advances under the assumption Russia won't do a second wave of conscription and/or doesn't have (or isn't building up) reserves for a (counter) counter-offensive.
And given how Ukraine has struggled, even with advanced weaponry, it's clearly high time for Europe to re-arm so that Russia doesn't mistakenly think we're weak.
The really advanced US tanks and jets haven’t entered the fight yet, and we’ve seen big gains in the last week with Russia losing 3 towns in the south, all the gains they made in the north over the last month taken back, and more groups crossing the Dnipro river. It’s been a slow acceleration wearing through Russian reserves, but there’s still a way to go before winter slows things down.
The real advanced weapons enter the fight next spring.
99% of what I see regarding this topic is either straight up war propaganda or people who are unabashedly unafraid to let others know that they are totally ignorant of post WW2 geo politics.
Anything other than “DAE just love Ukraine and that charismatic Zelensky! 😍😍” gets down voted to oblivion. Its classic Red Scare 1980’s bullshit lol. Even now I’m sure most who read this are scrambling for the down vote button because they think I’m some sort of Russian shill/supporter simply based off the fact that I’m not fellating the West’s efforts.
I’m not sure what led you to believe that I think I’m a victim of anything other than western propaganda, something I have in common with 99.9% of Americans.
Russia is in a standstill, after losing major ground constantly for a year, against a country 1/3 Ruzzia’s population, Ukraine also had next to no standing army prior to the invasion, meaning they had next to no professional soldiers prior to their being invaded by Ruzzia, and Ruzzia is invading them in conjunction with two of their allied powers, Belarus and Chechnya, all while the west slow rolls the supply and training of Ukraine, think about that for a sec.
Also this enemy that they’re in a standstill with has been so effective that one of Ruzzia’s key armies, Wagner, chose to rebel over continuing to get fed to the meat grinder. Ruzzia is literally down to recruiting 16 and 60 yr olds right now.
All of the propaganda by both Ruzzia and the West all made it seem like Ruzzia should have easily rolled over Ukraine prior to the realities of this war. However this war exposed Ruzzia as a broken down, corrupt paper tiger with a delusional dictator at the helm.
they had next to no professional soldiers prior to their being invaded by Ruzzia
Incorrect.
After Russia invaded in 2014, Ukraine heavily invested in its military. NATO has also been helping them train for years now. Wall Street Journal
This is also why Russia faced far stiffer resistance in 2022 than they did in 2014.
two of their allied powers, Belarus and Chechnya
Belarus's involvement is very limited. They're mainly allowing the Russians to fire missiles from their territory. Wikipedia
Chechnya isn't a country or 'power'. It's the Russian equivalent of Alabama.
Wagner, chose to rebel over continuing to get fed to the meat grinder
It would be a mistake to think people like Prigozhin want to end the war. Russian ultra-nationalists want to intensify and escalate the war, not stop it.
Ruzzia is literally down to recruiting 16 and 60 yr olds right now.
An actual world super power would have rolled over Ukraine in a week. The fact that they’ve beat the Russians back for an entire year is not only totally bad-ass and heroic, but it also exposed the Russian Army for the weakling it is. The only reason Russia is still considered a world super power is because of their stockpile of Soviet era nukes. If Russia can’t take Ukraine, they have zero chance against countries like China or the US, and especially not the combined forces of the United Nations?
The remake was originally going to feature a Chinese invasion, but they wanted it to still release and sell in China, so they made North Korea the bad guy instead.
Same sort of reasoning for NK being the baddie in the game Homefront. North Korea just isn’t a credible threat when it comes to invasion. Helped if you imagined it was the Chinese
I get your point, I really do, but Homefront was also about the economic collapse of the American system caused by its own corruption.
I always got the idea that Korea wasn’t incredibly overpowered united, but America was already broken and a step away from being conquered already and the first army to invade happened to be Korea. The rest of the world just wanted to see what would happen.
Kind of like having Russia invade Ukraine only to have it’s nose beaten in and globally embarrassed. Doesn’t mean Ukraine is going to invade and conquer, just that a global super power can be defeated by a smaller united nation after decades of corruption.
At least that’s the idea that got me through the game. It was honestly just a COD reskin of a game and wasn’t actually that good in retrospect
You didn’t miss anything that most other triple A games covered. If they focused more on story instead of shoehorning a terrible multiplayer pvp it could have been decent
Wasn’t russia also a part of the remake? I vaguely remember that movie and can’t recall much other than a mustang with a m134 or some goofy shit like that.
For the uninitiated, as someone who’s looking to move from Windows to Linux and Ubuntu is probably my first choice, can you share what’s not to like about this?
Snaps are technically foss but the server thst hosts them are proprietary to Ubuntu, when flatpak is perfectly reasonable. It’s a bit of a pattern of things they do, finding solutions to things they weren’t really problems (cough netplan cough)
That’s fair and Microsoft fired their entire update testing team and then pushed multiple updates that bricked Windows installs. And that was just Windows 10.
I’m not defending canonical decisions, but definably when they started working on this there was no other alternative available for them to collaborate at the time
Also a great option. I like their tiling window manager and the other gnome extensions they’ve done. I’m also generally excited about the work they’re doing with Cosmic as a new DE.
We know. I’ve just grown accustomed how Ubuntu is set up. Its defaults for many packages seem a little more configured “out of the box” compared to the same offerings like from Debian. I seem to recall installing LAMP stuff from both Debian and CentOS having a similar base config (basically just using the defaults from php, apache, mysql, etc), while the Ubuntu versions had some things already pre-configured that made it easier to get a multi-domain site up and running quicker.
A fresh Ubuntu install, followed by a snapd purge and rolling back of its networking is usually easier for me than going with something like CentOS or Debian and manually configuring each and ever package with it.
Then again, I’ve been using Ansible for a while, so my setups for CentOS and Debian have been getting easier and easier, so it’s possible that I may eventually drop Ubuntu if they end up changing their OS so much that I can no longer purge their junk.
I hadn’t considered the proprietary nature of snaps when I decided I didn’t like them. I just figured out their startup activity was adding 5 seconds to a 10 second boot despite not having installed any snaps
Snaps are a way to build applications so that they can run on any platform with one build method. It makes it easier for developers to publish their apps across multiple different Linux distro without having to worry about dependency issues.
Snaps have been very poorly received by the community, one of the largest complaints is that a snap program with take 5-10 seconds to start, where as the same program without snap will start instantly.
Ubuntu devs have been working for years to optimize them, but it’s a complex problem and while they’ve made some improvements, it’s slow going. While this has been going on, Ubuntu is slowly doubling down more and more on snaps, such as replacing default apps with their snap counterparts.
On the other hand, other methods like flatpak exist, and are generally more liked by the community.
This has led to a lot of Ubuntu users feeling unheard as their feedback is ignored.
When I click the Firefox icon, I expect Firefox to open. Like, right away.
When Ubuntu switched it to a snap, there was a noticeable load time. I’d click the icon and wait. In the background the OS was mounting a snap as a virtual volume or something, and loading the sandboxed app from that. It turned my modern computer with SSD into an old computer with a HDD. Firefox gets frequent updates, so the snap would be updated frequently, requiring a remount/reload every update.
Ubuntu tried this with many stock apps (like Calculator), but eventually rolled things back since so many people complained about the obvious performance issues.
I’m talking about literally waiting 10X the time for something to load as a snap than it did compared to a “regular” app.
The more apps you have as snaps, the more things have to be mounted/attached and slowly loaded. This also use to clutter up the output when listing mounted devices.
The Micropolis (GPL SimCity) snap loads with read-only permissions. i.e., you cannot save. There are no permission controls for write access (its snap permissions are only for audio). Basically, the snap was configured wrong and you can never save your game.
I had purged snapd from my system and added repos to get “normal” versions of software, but eventually some other package change would happen and snapd would get included with routine updates.
I understand the benefits of something like Snaps and Flatpaks - but you cannot deny that there are negatives. I thought Linux was about choice. I’ve been administering a bunch of Ubuntu systems at work for well over a decade, and I don’t like what the platform has been becoming.
Also, instead of going with an established solution (flatpak), Ubuntu decided to create a whole new problem (snap) and basically contributes to a splitting of the community. Which do you support? Which gets more developer focus to fix and improve things?
You don’t have to take my word for any of this. A quick Google search will yield many similar complaints.
You can’t really control when the updates of snaps are rolled out.
For “regular” software, I have an “apt update” type of script that I can run when I choose to update everything on my system. On some systems, I have this in a weekly crontab. On other systems, there is no scheduled run. On those systems, it’s important to keep many apps as-is - so several packages are also locked, as well (“apt-mark hold”).
With snap, you basically have no control. It updates as many times as it wants, when it wants. You can try to adjust some timers to change the window when forced updates are rolled out, but can never tell it to NOT update something. Broken package updated? Well, you can manually roll back that one. Broken update pushed again during the next forced update window? Just roll it back again! (and repeat, every day)
Yes, I understand that, but I also know it’s really important to not update some stuff, and I know that broken snaps sometimes get pushed.
Basically, the snap developers have talked down to the users. THEY know better of what WE actually want and need, not us dumb users that actually administer things for a living.
You basically have no control. It updates as many times as it wants, when it wants. You can try to adjust some timers to change the window when forced updates are rolled out, but can never tell it to NOT update something.
This is incorrect:
snap refresh --hold=forever
In general, I’d advise you to do a bit of research beforehand when giving advice…
The –hold feature was introduced with snapd v2.58 which was released as recently as Dec 1, so less than 9 months ago. So I would consider this a relatively new feature.
Furthermore, as best as I can tell from the documentation, there isn’t even a way to configurably hold updates in general or for a specific package like can be done with apt-preferences; refresh.hold only allows 90 days out.
I think it is a perfectly valid criticism that the snap developers didn’t implement this feature at all until well into the life of the product and then, even then, done begrudgingly at best evidenced by the minimal implementation.
Now, I feel like I did my research, but feel free to let me know if there’s something I can do better or if you have any other general life advice for me.
You get a lot of recommendations for Mint here, but I’d like to toss in a recommendation for Pop!_OS. Also based on Ubuntu without all the crap. I would say the biggest difference between pop and mint is the UI, as Mint comes standard with cinnamon and pop with Gnome (soon cosmic) as their DE’s.
Just take a look at those two and choose one of them, they are both great distros, and absolutely the two I would recommend to just about anyone. Easy to use and very straightforward for new people trying out Linux.
Firefox is one of the worst snaps. It pops up an annoying notification everyday reminding you to restarted it. Then came the crashing. It got to a point where I couldn’t keep my browser running more than a few minutes at a time.
I wanted to like snaps, and I’m not overall negative on Ubuntu, but keeping the web browser functional is minimum requirement. The Firefox PPA is much more reliable.
Follow-up: The icing on the cake was a release or so ago when apt started queueing the snap package’s installation instead. Very clever, but also a confusing user experience. It took a few iterations before I understood the snap was getting installed instead of the deb.
Doesn’t matter. Cali and NYC are the epitome of librul chaos and if those places aren’t made out to be smoldering shitholes with 2.7 homeless people to every citizen the gullible nitwit voluntarily angry dopes in the party (most of them) might actually vote in their best interests
Stomach isn’t enough. If you’re not actively campaigning and donating for her–or whomever the candidate is–then you may as well have been a Republican.
EDIT: Nevermind. Clearly the hivemind wants to stay in our armchairs. Who can blame us, right? We’ll continue this conversation in November. I hope it’s not I-told-you-so.
Squid, I appreciate your contributions to putting content on the platform, honestly, but I couldn’t be any less interested in that take. My history speaks for itself, and anybody can read it who cares to. Everybody must vote. I don’t think I could be any clearer about that. I was a staunch advocate for Biden, and I’ll be a staunch advocate for Harris, Newsom, Whitmer, or anyone else who carries the Democratic party forward.
But every single one of them polls down from Biden. To the extent any of the whining on social media since the debate hasn’t been astroturfed, advocacy for Biden to drop out resulted in this news, and it means that the party has now voluntarily given up the single biggest proven advantage a candidate historically has in a presidential election: being the sitting president.
I’m encouraging people to vote, but you know as well as I do that people who were going to vote anything-blue were going to vote for Biden no matter what anybody said on almost-reddit. Harris has to move the needle further than that, and that means that all the armchair it’ll-be-better-if-he-drops-out analysts now need to step the fuck up if they want this news to mean anything other than “The DNC just handed Trump 2024.”
Everybody knows that the kids screaming “oh if the candidate were just younger, the Dems would have it in a landslide” were full of shit, and now we’re about to see just how big a deficit we’re actually running. I’d love to be wrong! I’d be delighted, ecstatic, beside myself to discover that next weeks polls put all these convention front-runners up 10 points on Trump. But I’ve studied this stuff, and it doesn’t take a veteran pollster to realize it doesn’t work that way. Actual campaigning has to happen.
If you cared enough to want Biden out, but not quite enough to want Harris to win, then you were going to hold your nose in the ballot box either way and it doesn’t fucking matter: Trump would still win. That’s not discouraging. That’s statistics.
Telling people that if they don’t go out and campaign, they might as well be a Republican is just counterproductive. Insulting people is just never a way to get them to do what you think they should do.
I don’t know why so many people think that’s the right tack. Have you ever been insulted into doing something?
You know, Squid. You’re right. This whole time I’ve been venting because I feel like we’ve been completely outplayed by astroturfing foreign propagandists and bots, and it feels like I’m the only one who realizes it. This stuff has real, serious consequences for real people–but why would I expect a bunch of NEETs and children to get that?
Everybody who swallowed it still genuinely thinks they won something, so I guess it’s not fair to lash out. I don’t really want to get anyone on my side because my side doesn’t exist here anymore.
I have to thank you for finally getting me off the platform. It’s just not worth it.
It’s all a huge conspiracy by foreign propagandists to… replace Joe Biden? Why? And this conspiracy either fooled or forced DNC wonks to pressure Biden to drop his campaign, and this propaganda… originating from foreign sources that you but not they can see, caused Biden to concede.
Look dawg i know someone saying take a breath on the Internet has the opposite effect but for real, maybe you need to take a step back right now and take another look
Any moment now, the ‘don’t vote for Biden’ group will be in here telling us not to vote for Harris. And if it isn’t Harris, they’ll tell us not to vote for whoever it is.
Anything but stop the dictator and his plan to commit genocide against Latinos and queer people.
Then why are you insulting people here by making up a strawman argument and insinuating that the people who don’t support unpopular candidates are somehow rooting for Trump? This is like the DNC’s 2016 arrogance all over again and look how that turned out for the country.
It’s still not a strawman argument that people who were posting all over Lemmy that no one should vote for Biden are now posting in this very thread that people shouldn’t vote for Harris either.
Also, I’m not trying to get people who aren’t planning on voting for Harris to campaign for Harris. That would be silly. So I have no problem with anything that I said.
In the countless posts leading up to Biden dropping out, people were saying the same thing about Harris then too. Trading one bad candidate for another isn’t what anybody asked for, so you’ll have to explain how these people you speak of should now be satisfied and stop sounding the alarm.
It seems there are too many people who would rather kowtow to the DNC leadership’s desires than actually prevent Trump from getting elected again after the DNC failed us in the exact same way in 2016 and nearly again in 2020. What will it take for them to wake up? People demand unity within the party, but for some inexplicable reason, they always demand that we unite around their unlikable right-wing candidate.
It seems to me that the way to actually prevent Trump from getting elected again is to vote for his opponent and not to keep telling people not to do that for whatever reason.
With people like you it shows why Trump won culturally even if he doesn’t win the election. He turned a substantial part of the vocal Democrats into Blue-MAGA-hats. It is the same attitude that attacked people who pointed out the mere fact, that Biden is not mentally fit for office anymore. If the Blue-MAGA wasn’t so big, Biden could have left the field to a younger and better candidate half a year ago.
So you think calling everyone that does not campaign and donate to the Democrats a secret Republican is somehow normal?
To me it is the same cultish bullshit like the blatant denial of Bidens old age and mental decline. It is the same “follow your leader no matter what” insanity that is apologetic for Trump on the other side. So yes, this kind of behaviour is MAGA behaviour and if it is done for the Dems instead of the Reps it is blue MAGA
The “hive mind” probably just can’t figure out what the fuck you’re even trying to say. So, what, everybody who doesn’t actively campaign for their preferred candidate just supports fascism by default? I’m guessing your stance isn’t anywhere near that stupid, because that is an extraordinarily stupid stance. So maybe you’d have a better reception if you clarified your point.
Absolutely not. I will spend my time and energy and money supporting my local Democrats. The national level isn’t as important to me because Republicans in my state have veto-proof majorities in both houses and they hold the governorship. Regardless of what happens at the national level, implementation of Project 2025 began in my state about 3 years ago.
You couldn’t browbeat us into voting for Biden and you’ve started it right up with Harris? And now it’s not just voting it’s working the phones and door to door campaign? Am I expected to get airfare to PA too? What do I tell them when they ask where I live?
People should support her campaign to the utmost they can, and for some people that’s right here, with their internet connection.
I was vocally saying biden would never drop out and we just had to swallow the poison pill. I was dead wrong. I will be voting for [insert DNC candidate] and will be excited to do it!
While I don’t think Kamala is the best the Democratic party has to offer (I would have much preferred Biden endorsing Hakeem Jeffries, for example), I’m over the moon that he’s finally decided to step aside. And you know what? Harris is better than Biden in pretty much every metric that matters. I was going to vote for the Dem nominee either way, but him stepping aside in favor of a better candidate has me feeling all kinds of relieved.
Agreed. It’s going to further inflame chaos and tensions in the country, it’s going to further radicalize Trump himself into an even nastier man, and it’s going to motivate his base. Even if Trump were to pass away, that base still remains, and we have the risk of a much more intelligent and gifted speaker taking up its leadership.
If it were anyone else, almost getting shot should be a wake-up call. “What have I become that this happens? Maybe I need to change how I act, and what I do.” But , no.
There have been many failed and successful assassinations of political leaders or other public people. You think if John Lennon had survived his assassination he should have taken it as a wake-up call and revisit his values and public stances?
There is many good reasons why Trump should start introspecting. And if he would develop some sort of empathy and decency probably the pain of seeing who he was and is would kill him better than any bullet could.
But this is because he is Trump. This is not because someone wanted to kill him. All sorts of people want to kill all sorts of people for all sorts of reason.
True, it was always never going to lead to good things. But this will keep it on track to not changing.
I just hope Trump pusses out when he realizes he and a bunch of supreme court justices are foing to get this for nearly every public appearance for four years if he manages to eek out a win lol. It was said above already.
Violence demands self defense. Today was an act to try and save everyone.
Christianity and capitalism. If it doesn’t make you feel guilty the Christians don’t like it and if you can provide it to yourself for free the capitalists don’t like it.
You can jerk off without porn. Think of all the advertising and subscriptions on porn sites. Those have nothing to do with masturbation and everything to do with capitalism.
It’s one of the things that I like the most about lemmy over reddit. The reddit linux community was toxic, insular and gatekeepy, even as a moderately experienced linux user I had difficulty getting help.
“Learn how to Google noob!”
Fuck sakes, I just spent several hours deep diving forums and Web search results looking for an answer to my question, and the only thing I could find that was exactly my problem was concluded by OP editing their post to say “Ah, never mind, figured it out.” And not including the solution…
probably because lemmy’s pretty small compared to places like reddit and because everyone sees the same content with the same sorting, places like reddit make a few “help” requests visible and make them feel unimportant
I’m in the building sciences. The biggest unanswered question we come up against almost daily is “what the fuck was the last guy thinking?”. And we avoid, daily, admitting we were the last guy somewhere else.
Disclaimer: I wondered the same, since 2014, and this is what I puzzled together for myself, read it with that in mind!
I believe a lot of it can be traced back to the wealthy and to conservative think tanks / media control by right wing moguls.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, conservatives were perceived as well-off business people trying to protect their own wealth (I’ve read that people used to say things like “I’m not rich enough to vote Republican” or children shouting “last one in the house is a dirty Republican”). You can even see old movies dunk on conservatives (i.e. take Stanley Kubrick’s “2010: The Year we Make Contact” (1984), at the beginning, with the satellite dish tower, the protagonist noses off about reactionaries being in control of congress, thus leading the country towards war).
This is the rather extreme election result from 1964:
Because liberals mostly were Democratic Party voters, Republicans and their wealthy donors tried to alter public perception of liberals (i.e. make it undesirable for their Republican indoctrinatees to be liberal). This included taking over the media (and Reagan conveniently cancelling the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which gave political bias in the media some guard rails), then painting liberals as all things undesirable: arrogant, weak, clueless, leeches, etc.
Having a “hate object” worked so well that they kept capitalizing on it. Much of it was/is just slinging sh*t against the wall and looking what sticks, but think tanks are indeed looking at what sticks, so successful patterns get repeated. Some of these successful patterns I can see are: installing a victim complex in conservatives (feeling their back against the wall, they lash out easier, ensuring anyone talking about conservatives is conditioned to use very soft gloves) and the two-year bogeyman, often trying to capture, redefine and vilify some prior existing concept (thus, when the campaign hits, indoctrinatees can find lots of “proof” online of this thing existing).
For example, social justice used to be universally agreed on as a good thing, woke used to mean remaining aware of systemic inequalities, now they make conservatives pop an artery. This has been going for a while (the “hate object” over time has been rock music, hippies, metal music, supposed satan worshippers, pen and paper games, paganism+atheism, video games, social justice activists, cancel culture, black lives matter, critical race theory, wokeness, …)
And I think, yes, your perception is spot on. This is, for example, what I get when I search for “anti-conservative t-shirts” (if it’s too tiny, try it yourself - they’re all anti-liberal):
TL;DR: conservatives are intentionally made and kept angry. It keeps them unified against a bigger enemy (see Genghis Gambit), drives them to go vote and prevents voters from switching sides even if they do not like some things the conservatives are doing. Add to that Russia amplifying this division like there’s no tomorrow. They’re installing this hate for liberals both in tankies and in far-right bigots (and, as far as I can tell, anti-liberal sentiment is pushed into Russian society, too).
This is, for example, what I get when I search for “anti-conservative t-shirts” (if it’s too tiny, try it yourself - they’re all anti-liberal):
You make your point well. I just wanted to point out I believe at least one of them is anti-conservative (The devolution of humans into the GOP)
And one is possibly unintentionally anti-conservative: If Liberal Perspective is actually a liberal’s perspective the subject is a conservative with their head up their own ass. I don’t believe that’s the shirt’s actual intention though. It would be hard to depict the interior of the rectum on a T-shirt
It’s worth noting that you’re looking at conservatives from a USA perspective, which is valid and very informative, it’s just that OP didn’t specify a country, so it might also be worth discussing conservative vs liberal culture in places like Europe too, or perhaps prefacing your wonderfully detailed response with something to clarify that when you’re talking about conservatives, you mean a very specific subset of them (as opposed to, say, the conservatives of the UK, where their political party is itself called the Conservative Party).
The latest death was due to disease (flu and MSRA, leading to pneumonia and apparently a stroke), though, and his family confirmed as such. Many of these whistle-blowers are older experienced engineers who will be biased towards a higher death rate.
Still, fuck Boeing though. The first suicide remains suspect. Corporate scumbags.
A viral infection causing a secondary bacterial infection is incredibly common. The phlegm and various secretions caused by the virus act as a breeding ground for the bacteria.
the first suicide is not suspect, as far as I’ve heard the guy specifically said he is not suicidal JUST IN CASD something like this would happen, but that’s either not true or that fact sadly did not gain attention
Many of these whistle-blowers are older experienced engineers who will be biased towards a higher death rate.
This, plus being highly involved in any court case is extremely stressful, which can take a toll on your mental and physical health.
Which is why I’m still kinda leaning towards an actual suicide with the first case. Being stressed, tired, having your life dictated around court schedules while you sleep in hotel rooms… I could see that wearing someone down after a while.
I just don’t think it makes real sense for a company to hire an actual hitman to operate in the US. Corporate murders happen, but usually overseas, and usually not when they’ve already testified.
Not saying it isn’t a possibility, I just think it’d be cheaper to pay the guy off and have him sign an NDA.
Do you have a source for that? I doubt there’s graph of “workers murdered by companies, by country” or “murders, pre- vs post- whistleblowing” so it sounds like that might be at best an educational guess, or at worst pro-US bias.
There’s no material reason to kill people who are going to testify against you anymore. Corporations basically started to capture the judicial system in the late 60’ and for the most part succeeded in their goals by the late 80s.
Tort law has been effectively neutered, leaving the only real legal recourse being ineffective , long drawn out class action lawsuits. There is a reason the last person killed on that Wikipedia article was when unions started dying off.
It’s silly that people are so adamant that sourced materials make up the entirety of any debate. Especially considering that the vast majority of people are terrible at actually comprehending what those sources are trying to say, and if they were created by authors with inherent biases.
We live in a world with a glut of “scientific papers” created by corporations, think tanks, and desperate grad students.
Not explicitly about hitmen, but it is about corporate murder and how the judicial system evolved to protect them. People still get killed by their employees all the time, now it’s just mostly unsafe working conditions. What is the point of utilizing a hitman when you have lawyers on retainer who can easily mitigate the problem legally?
This is incredibly naive. We are talking about a company that was literally too lazy to check if all the bolts were in place and secured in an airplane, risking a fatal incident with hundreds of people killed. And that is after two planes already force crashed killing everyone on board, because of a faulty IT system that was not properly checked.
Boeing has proven plenty, that they have a full disregard for human lifes, if they think they can get away with it. So assassinating whistleblowers and using their influential friends to cover it up as opposed to uncertain and lengthy court battles requiring millions to be spent on it, is absolutely in character.
Again that character was to ignore safety warnings, despite knowing that sooner or later a plane will crash and it will cause a shit ton of damages to the airlines and it will cause a shit ton of litigation towards Boeing. It was by far the obviously cheaper choice to just do proper QA. They have neither a moral nor a long term profit/investment outlook on humans lifes. All they care for is immediate profits.
This is incredibly naive. We are talking about a company that was literally too lazy to check if all the bolts were in place and secured in an airplane, risking a fatal incident with hundreds of people killed. And that is after two planes already force crashed killing everyone on board, because of a faulty IT system that was not properly checked.
Why do you think an airplane company is so confident that they can ignore public safety in lieu of profits? It’s because they know the US Government is just going to give them a slap on the wrist. They effectively murdered those passengers, where’s the charges?
Boeing has proven plenty, that they have a full disregard for human lifes, if they think they can get away with it. So assassinating whistleblowers and using their influential friends to cover it up as opposed to uncertain and lengthy court battles requiring millions to be spent on it, is absolutely in character.
Corporations already have millions of dollars set aside for legal suits, it’s the price of doing business. They don’t care if court cases go on for long periods, they know they can remain solvent longer than their former employees.
Also, killing a person doesn’t mean the court cases just stop, they’ve already given their testimony. Furthermore, hiring someone to kill someone isn’t getting rid of evidence, it’s just creating a new witness to your criminality. You think anyone working as a hired murderer is going to shy away from blackmail, or not use you as a bargaining chip if they ever get into legal trouble?
it will cause a shit ton of litigation towards Boeing. It was by far the obviously cheaper choice to just do proper QA.
dO yOu HaVe a SoUrCe 4 ThAt?
Corporations do liability and cost-benifit analysis all the time, and it’s often a lot cheaper to deal with class action law suits than it is to do proper QA or Recalls, just look at the ford pinto.
I think you overestimate the the effectiveness of courts to bring up punitive damages on multi billion dollar corporations.
A whistleblower is the type of person to refuse such an NDA, regardless of buy-off price. They would understand that if Boeing is willing to pay them 10 million or whatever, that the information they have, should they release it, prevent over 10 million dollars worth of damages to the public.
I just don’t see someone like that committing suicide in a hotel parking lot out of state the day (two days?) before they are supposed to testify. That would go against everything they were doing up until that point.
A whistleblower is the type of person to refuse such an NDA, regardless of buy-off price. They would understand that if Boeing is willing to pay them 10 million or whatever, that the information they have, should they release it, prevent over 10 million dollars worth of damages to the public.
Maybe, but 10 million dollars is nothing to Boeing, and an awful lot for even an ethically driven person. Especially if they’ve been laid off and are in active lawsuits against a multi billion dollar corporation.
They can afford to stall as long as legally allowed, and the legal system is built to levy the scale in their favor. It’s basically impossible for a person in this type of suit to have a normal life, and the corporations know that and try to exploit it as much as they can.
I just don’t see someone like that committing suicide in a hotel parking lot out of state the day (two days?) before they are supposed to testify. That would go against everything they were doing up until that point.
Suicide isn’t timely, nor is it a logic based decision. Unfortunately it’s fairly common for people to kill themselves at times people (especially their loved ones) would not initially expect.
I mean there’s an argument to be made that once the allegations are public, there’ll be in investigation regardless, and if you don’t want to go through the ordeal of being grilled by probably some of the best lawyers in the world or put your family through finding your body then it makes sense to commit suicide that way and still have a big impact
Arch wasn’t affected at all, cause the backdoor trigger was only on deb and rpm distros.
However it still a good practice to update your system and leave this version behind. Anyway, Arch already updated and is no longer distributing the backdoor version, therefore 5.6.1-3 is safe
You can use Arch btw again. Actually, you never had to leave it at first
Oh, I thought the “You can use Arch btw again.” is a play on the “I use Arch, BTW.”-meme. :D It’s even better, because this was not intentional I guess.
I know that Arch wasn’t affected but it’s only true for the known ssh backdoor. Afaik that thing can contain 100+ more “viruses” in it that we don’t yet know about. And btw I was using a distro that was quite a bit different to Arch (no, not Manjaro) so idk if it was any safer than Debian sid
If you worry about potential other backdoors in newer XZ versions, then you should also look into your kernel, systemd, dbus etc etc. All these things, can potentially contain backdoors that no one knows about yet.
As for currently known backdoors, the Arch versions are safe.
Of course backdoors can be anywhere. I was worried about this one especially because somewhere I read that the malicious code wasn’t removed but just restricted with some hacky stuff in 5.6.1-3. It turned out to be false, at least for Arch, so, in case the new information is true, I can switch back I guess. Using a “safe” version of Arch is better than running all the apps as Flatpaks that can still have the infected version of xz libraries as dependencied anyways
I don’t know for sure, it depends on changes in the liblzma API. If there were any changes (backward compatible or not, usually nobody cares about forward compatibility), yes, recompiling is required.
This is the reason I keep an OpenBSD system around. Maybe it’s a false sense of security, but I feel that they are pickier about the base system at least.
Afaik, no. Worth mentioning is that the fundamental design of the major BSDs is to clearly separate the core OS from third party applications. But as far as just being able to use Flathub or similar, I don’t think so. If any BSD has experimented in that direction my bet would be FreeBSD.
To add to your point: The .deb ones are most likely safe, since it would only be on the unstable & experimental branches. Your garden variety production servers & personal computers should be fine. That is unless you’re into some unusual setup like with playing around with the upcoming version, or for some reason are pulling your own xz build.
Fedora 39 and 40 (which is still in beta) uses xz 5.4. Fedora 41/rawhide (essentially the development branch) was affected it seems: access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2024-3094. CentOS Stream and RHEL have way more outdated packages than that, so they were never vulnerable to this backdoor.
Ah, so the .rpm is pretty much like the .deb in that it’s mostly unaffected. Speaking of, I think the .deb side may have VanillaOS affected since it’s based on Debian’s unstable branch.
Not quite. It wasn’t confirmed to be affected, but they can’t prove that the build environment itself wasn’t compromised, thus the rebuild.
As a result of CVE-2024-3094 332, Canonical made the decision to remove and rebuild all binary packages that had been built for Noble Numbat after the CVE-2024-3094 332 code was committed to xz-utils (February 26th), on newly provisioned build environments. This provides us with confidence that no binary in our builds could have been affected by this emerging threat.
“Safe” is a strong word to use. It’s safe from that specific backdoor, and it seems like the known backdoor was the main goal of the attackers, but we don’t know if they’re playing 4D-Chess and have already implemented another backdoor which they’re actively using.
kbin.life
Top