I played this in high school circa 2013. There was a server up 24/7 that hosted an infinite loop of the Venice map that always had the highest server pop. You’d occasionally find other servers going, or be able to host your own and get randoms, but more often than not, I played a TON of Venice for about a year. Good times.
Pretty sure this is the command my dad used to test disaster recovery systems.
you know. to simulate the entire cluster going poof. He spoke of having to get somebody else to actually send it, because it just felt that wrong.
(pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Pretty sure when he was asked to test their disaster recovery for his org… his first thought was probably “i’ve never nuked an entire network before”)
From a quick video I saw, they seem similar indeed, but I haven’t played Thrive enough. I have only made it to a single-cell prokaryotic organism, lol (which is basically very close to the beginning of the game).
I would say yes and no. It is a game about evolution with some similarities but it is very focused on a realistic representation of evolution. This makes it a more complex game than spore and actively encourages many different niches not just agressive, peaceful and mixed as spore did.
Aldo currently they are working on finishong the cell stage and the beginning of the multicellular stage while have more in deapth discussion about the transition between the microscopic and macroscopic phases among other things.
If you think your dad was sent to fight against the Nazis for ideological opposition, i have bad news for you. Maybe he personally fought out of that motivation, but must countries at the time were either fascist themselves or on the edge to fascism.
If you look at the US there was the ongoing genocide against native Americans, the racial segregation, eugenics, despicable human experimentation carried out on minorities, concentration camps for Japanese during WW2… Even the pledge to the flag in the schools was something Hitler admired and copied. Until the German Nazis became unpopular in the US the pledge to the flag with done with the “Bellamy Salute” that is the same as the Nazi salute. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute
What is different though is that after WW2 it was understood which social problems, in particular fucking over the lower and middle class, create the breeding ground for fascism to be successful. Since the 1980s with Thatcher and Reagan and then the neoliberal wave over Europe, we had 40 years of deliberately empowering fascism. Now they reap what they sew.
I have to differ on your last point. I don’t think capitalism is necessarily at fault, nor must the working/middle classes be struggling for fascism to emerge. If anything, quite the opposite. It is the better off countries that end up turning fascist. All fascist countries are/were first world countries, in various states of advanced development.
I think it would be more accurate to say that fascism is an extreme form of imperialism, because they are ultimately very similar sentiments. A more powerful group taking advantage in various ways, of a less powerful group. Now you could say, “it’s all the same thing”, capitalism, imperialism, fascism, it’s all the same “hierarchy is the ultimate source of evil dynamic”, but it seems to me that this just reduces all these concepts to absurdity.
Fascism is also on the rise because of improved technology for thought control / propaganda / public relations / advertising. Social media lets the worst of humanity band together and pool their energy.
But wealth inequality, both worse effective quality of life for the poor and increased economic power by the wealthy is I believe a main driver. Technology is just the tool. The ultra wealthy and their lackeys today have more power than ever and are more isolated and inundated with ideology that is basically insane.
I wonder if there are studies that show correlations between quality of life and fascism in different nations.
Capitalisms’ unsustainable model of infinite growth requires something like imperialism to keep going, and even if you could point out alternative venues for capital acquisition, it’s still what people in power want, since it gives them more than just fuel for capitalism, but also more power. Countries and companies that do not rely on imperialism directly, most often rely in others that do. While it’s not entirely futile to discuss whenever that has to be the case in theorethical capitalist solution, it is the case in one we’re living under, and since it’s the ruling class of hyper-wealthy that make decisions about the worlds future and current state of affairs is result of those decisions, it is the system we have to deal with. Unless, you know, we bring out the guilottines and start over, but I don’t see much point in retrying capitalism to see if it won’t lead us down on the path to facism again.
I guess we have to disagree. Growth is an inherently good thing in my view, and I don’t based that on capitalistic ideology. Without growth, the metaphorical pie is finite. What does this mean? It means there is some distribution of this pie, however equal or unequal. Now on one side you will have people like you trying to make the distribution more equal. On the other side you will have war lords, dictators, and power hungry individuals trying to grab more of the pie for themselves. All of you will have to resort to violence to make that happen.
And the magic of economic growth is that you can enrich the world without having to physically fight other people to steal their shit.
The bottom line is, we would have even more imperialism if we did not have economic growth.
Growth isn’t a problem when it’s sustainable. However, there are natural limits to how far and how fast technological development and resource extraction will allow us to grow the economy.
Additionally, competition within capitalism forces the wealthy to seek out any and all means of growth. If they do not they actually risk all of their wealth becoming devalued. This drives innovation but it also is the driver of imperialism, exploitation, environmental degradation, all of which grow the economy.
When growth because less attainable due to various natural constrains, the wealthy start to cannibalize the systems that keep society stable. Again, they can’t help themselves. If they don’t their class position is threatened as some other capital owner beats them to the limited profits that come from privatization and austerity.
This usually results in mass unrest across all the various classes in society. That includes some of the middle classes who also rely on exploitation to maintain their standard of living. In response to threat of social unrest, the wealthy usually align themselves with right wing authoritarians that claim to be able to bring order to the chaos and renew growth through imperial expansion. This kind of politics is often supported by some of the downwardly mobile middle classes. That’s how we get fascism.
I don’t think capitalism is necessarily at fault, nor must the working/middle classes be struggling for fascism to emerge. If anything, quite the opposite. It is the better off countries that end up turning fascist. All fascist countries are/were first world countries, in various states of advanced development.
That’s not right, at least not for the fascist regimes in Europe that emerged prior to WW2. The countries where it happened (specifically Germany/Italy/Spain) had all seen civil unrest or even civil war in the recent past, they were hit hard by the global financial crisis in the twenties and had high unemployment and widespread poverty. This was the very thing the fascists used to ingratiate themselves to the public at large, by creating jobs through massive public building and rearmament projects.
By the way “first world countries” is post-WW2 terminology and didn’t originally have a connotation of superior economic status, but was referring strictly to ideological alignment. Whether a country belonged to the capitalist/communist/unaligned block in international politics during the cold war.
Depends on your distro. You need to set up all the requirements for hibernation (like “enough swap space to store current memory contents + whatever is left in swap” and zswap doesn’t count).
IIRC Fedora defaults to ZRAM instead of swap, so you probably need to set up a swap partition first. I don’t know if you need to disable ZRAM, but you probably need enough swap space on disk to store the contents uncompressed.
You’ll also need to modify the kernel parameters/initramfs configuration to add the resume parameters in the right spots, or the system will hibernate but not try to resume your session on boot.
Then there may be some selinux issues depending on if Fedora fixed them or not. I don’t think hibernation is supported by default on Fedora so you may need to tweak things like polkit files to get the permissions right.
I believe running the command sudo systemctl hibernate should manually induce hibernation. You can use it to test if your computer even has the ability to hibernate before figuring out what permission tweaks you need for KDE. Make sure you’ve saved your work before trying that, though, as not all systems will wake from hibernation without further troubleshooting.
You may also need to disable security settings like secure boot and/or kernel lockdown mode it hibernation might be refused.
You’ll also need to modify the kernel parameters/initramfs configuration to add the resume parameters in the right spots, or the system will hibernate but not try to resume your session on boot.
In the right spots? I was in the impression you only need to do that so one place, in the bootloader’s boot entry (or, yeah, if there are multiple entries then possibly each one). Which other places should I also look?
Also, I’ve recently set up hibernateion for someone, and IIRC forgetting the resume= kernel parameter is not that critical today because it will immediately resume instead of completing shutdown.
It depends on the existing bootloader configuration. I think for Fedora you need to add a flag in a dracut config file somewhere, I don’t know if that also takes care of the bootloader configuration.
Having that button doesn’t automatically result in that feature actually working. The development stakeholders don’t seem to be interested in it actually working other than chance and given that even Windows and macOS moved to “always connected” suspend instead of full sleep with hibernation, I don’t see a push for feature parity on the horizon (that’s why Windows laptops and more recently also MacBooks often cannot wake up because the battery is depleted). It’s really bad and IMO one of the few big problems to solve (at least on my Windows notebook because of its broken regular suspend, I can force it into hibernation).
I had somewhat decent success making a swap file (not a partition):
How were you setting it up? Maybe you just always made the same mistakes.
From memory, this is how I did it last time:
create swap partition of RAM size
put that in fstab, reffered to by PARTUUID
activate swap with swapon -a, or just reboot
edit bootloader config to have resume=PARTUUID=yourpartuuidxxxxxxxxxxx in the kernel parameters list. Be sure to edit the right file, not one that will be overwritten. For GRUB2, this is /etc/default/grub I think.
if the bootloader’s config system works like this, regenerate the complete config. On openSUSE, the file mentioned above has a comment at the top with the command you need to use. It’s something like grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub.cfg but do not copy this command because it’s probably inaccurate
save your work while you’re unsure if it will work
test hibernation
I have done this on 2 PCs already.
If you have garbage hardware, like a chromebook that only allows expandable storage through a micro SD card reader, which can randomly lose its mind so that Linux resets it on resume, then it may not work ever or only unreliably. But with SATA connected storage you shouldn’t have this problem.
I used Hibernation in the past (years ago), but nowadays I don’t. It also depends on the BIOS configuration and probably the motherboard. There was a period (on a different distribution and probably something different hardware, can’t remember details) when the Hibernation did not work. I mean Hibernation to suspend to disk and shutdown PC entirely. I’m actually curios if it works for me right now and will test it. :-)
Edit: Ah okay, it can’t work for me, because I set a very small swap. Never mind.
I’ve made it work on arch, debian and fedora, on a T420s, T480s, T14 AMD, MBPr 2012, each on luks2 + btrfs with systemd-boot, and it works flawlessly on all of them. the setup is super-involved and cumbersome though but it’s easily accomplished once you get the hang of it.
the links posted here along with the arch wiki is what I used. it helps if it’s not your primary and only device, so you have time to retry until you get it right.
Did you encrypt your swap as well? I used to use hibernation back in the day but without LUKS encryption. Ever since I’ve started using LUKS encryption, I never bothered with hibernation again, allthough I would like to.
a combination; some have swap as a btrfs subvolume, some as a swapfile in root and those are encrypted, when the system boots it requests the encryption passphrase, regardless if it coldboots or restores. restores from swap are way faster than coldboot plus all your stuff is how you left it.
on some systems I have a separate swap partition outside of luks2/btrfs and that one’s unencrypted. when it restores from there, it doesn’t request the passphrase and the boot is even faster. that’s obviously less secure but my threat model is a lost/stolen laptop, I seriously doubt someone’s gonna forensic the shit out of my swap, it’s more likeky it’s gonna get wiped and sold.
to fully utilise this tech, it’s essential to set up suspend-then-hibernate, another awesome feature that’s way too cumbersome to set up. the laptop suspends for like 60 minutes and if it’s not woken up, it hibernates to disk.
I mean in the grand scheme of things there are only a handful of types of people, maybe a few hundred and those types repeat over and over. Everyone has their own unique experiences, personal drama and relationships, but their behavior and core traits are shared with probably millions of people throughout history. Thinking you are unique is not a rational belief and if it becomes integral to one’s personality (like it has to millions of people before them) I think they should be mocked, just for the sake of getting their heads straight.
It’s not that you aren’t allowed to be the most important character of your story, it’s just that you shouldn’t think that’s because you are something that never was before and never will be after.
The way I think about it is that we’re all “snowflakes”. No two people are exactly the same. So while one can correctly claim to be unique that also applies to everyone else. It’s not like everyone else is the same but you’re unique. Also, being unique doesn’t automatically mean someone is better than others - one can also be uniquely bad.
I think you’ve stumbled on it yourself. If every person is unique and special, nobody can be singled out or given preferential treatment. That would be an impossible task to cater to ~6 billion or what ever we are at now, individually
What if someone IS unique, though? I would consider Socrates unique. He was so determined, stubborn, and self-assured of his belief that he was a clueless fool that he was willing to die for it. What if someone is a once-a-generation brilliant mind or psychological anomaly? What if someone has a schizospectrum disorder and experiences a reality nobody else lives in?
I’d argue that’s not a unique person, but a unique skill of an ordinary person. Interacting with Socrates as a person probably wouldn’t have been extraordinary but experiencing his unique ideas for the time would have.
The snowflake metaphor really gives us everything we need. Yes each one has a different crystalline pattern but ALL of them will melt at the same temperature. Thinking your uniqueness extends to everything and frees you from all the rules is the problem. Of course, conservatives love rules too much and don’t even recognize when they are setting up rules for how your crystalline pattern is “supposed to be.”
I figured it had to be about uniqueness. But also, I really do think we've all got certain commonalities but our experiences make us quite unique. Hmm. I wonder sometimes if the idea was brought together by people who attended k-12 primarily. Because a lot of the videos we saw way back when brought up the individuality of snowflakes quite often. But also I know there were a lot of projects surrounding us all making our own snowflakes. And it was an idea that just got stuck in their heads (as things tend to because we can't remember everything but certain things when repeated enough times lodge their way in). A lot of the films we were shown I think were from the 80s, maybe the 70s? And I don't think schools changed too much until around when smart phones were around. I know it's for sure a different jungle nowadays. And I was raised in an underfunded school system and (this is going to sound absolutely cruel) but I know a good chunk of Republicans that aren't vampires but are hella indignant probably weren't going to particularly well funded schools either. Just some stuff I'm kicking around, nothing for sure in here. Just makes me think. It's kinda like how certain generations get stuck on certain things. And if there wasn't much funding the materials would have to be drawn out more, which could expand the exposure/idealism that "every snowflake is unique."
But I mean at the end of the day it's all bully logic and it's made to poke fun at people who they think are different and difficult. But I've got my thoughts on that too. I will say outside of all things that "staying the course" and being "moderate" at the least (conservative otherwise - I don't think we've really ever been all the progressive - and I guess I am just talking US politics) have already lined up many people for failure with no real reversal. And the thing I keep seeing people pop-up and talk about is if we're bold enough to keep going or if we can lay our egos down and find alternatives to many of our damaged systems and idealism. And I think a lot of this stuff is used so that we don't.
But I will also say being around angry or manipulative people (I'll use the term extremist but I don't even think you have to be that extreme to be angry) isn't fun. At least for me personally. And I have walked away feeling marginalized on both sides of the fence. And I think some liberals, while their hearts are (may be) in the right place, have some pretty unrealistic views and sit on their hands quite a bit in a kinda Universalist limbo. And both sides are super susceptible to mediacoholicism and rage. But that doesn't stop me for a second of voting dem the whole way down on every ballot.
I think I read once on Reddit say that someone considered themselves liberal until they moved into a hyper-liberal space and then slowly rolled to a more conservative space. I don't think there's an space under this sun that I would become a conservative. But I will say that I have found myself also disliking (some) people who I suppose would be considered "snowflakes" to hyper-conservatives. Because they have always come off a super manipulative, unable to compromise, and quite often hollow. But there have been some really cool freedom fighters I've met too. Who just are (exist), and even if they come from certain spaces just want what's best for people who have been chronically oppressed. So it's not so much the idealism. As it is a certain kind of person, and it's not just someone's bobbing and weaving around with blue hair. I'd also say it's not so much the performative nature as I'm a big mo with big expression and love people rocking their panache. It's just some of these folks kinda remind me of something like...idk. I mean they're for sure very internet-y. The whole lot of them (both sides). But they kind of remind me of someone constantly adopting everything around them but ultimately lacking their own substance or identity. And I had an ex like that, who was a hipster. And it was always like she was playing at being something, but in reality she was just copying the things around her. And like I guess I hear fake it til you make it and like the idea of like...if you're copying something it's cause you like and you want to be it - and what was that thing imitation is the purist form of flattery. And we're all influenced by all sorts of things and none of us original in that sense. But there's just something really sad about a person who doesn't even get to be a person but instead a persona. And I mean that like - all the way to the top. It sucks.
So yeah, here's my word vomit. Hopping off cause this one was a doozy.
Yeah, for conservatives, conformity is a large part of their mindset. A large part of their personality is focused on fitting in to be part of the “in group”. To them, the nail that sticks out deserves to be hammered back into place.
It’s also part of why they get so violently angry when they see things like blue hair or trans people; They’re genuinely afraid that if societal norms change, they’ll need to conform to those new standards. It’s why all of the “they’re gonna turn you trans, they’re putting litter boxes in classrooms, they’re trying to turn your kids gay, etc” type of fear mongering on Fox News actually works. It sounds crazy to anyone who isn’t focused on conformity… But to those who do focus on it, it seems like a genuine potential result of changing societal norms.
kbin.life
Hot