my biggest pet peeve in the world is when people equate liberalism (a right-wing ideology) with the left, solely because the american baseline is so far right compared to europe. the closest shot the US have had of pivoting to proper left-wing is bernie sanders (at least as far as i’m aware, and i’m too scared of further rotting my brain by consuming more american politics)
Getting plugins to install is often a big hurdle, if they are working, they work. However I think performance suffers alot. Didn’t try it on any bigger synths yet tho.
In my experience yabridge is fantastic. With a bit of initial setup, it's the closest thing to a native experience that I've come across.
You do control it with a CLI interface, so you need to be comfortable with that.
You also need to have already installed the Windows VSTs manually using WINE or whatever, and so there's a bit of a typical "how well does this work under wine" crapshoot and a bit of a learning curve there.
I use it for spitfire labs, ott, and delay lama (very important) and all work great. There are occasional crashes when messing with parameters, but usually those don’t happen more then once. I haven’t noticed any performance issues.
Might depend on what DAW you use but I found it abit tedious to setup with Ardour, but after that it worked perfectly with the VSTs I was running on Windows, mainly Amplitube 5.
Could you please provide a brief description of Vital? I’m in the process of rebuilding my musicmaking setup after a 15 years long hiatus, so I need to update myself on what’s out there.
On that note, it looks like I’m gonna go for bitwig over Ardour. Any thoughts/opinions on that?
Vital is a vst similar to Serum, a pretty popular paid vst. It has a bunch of preset sounds but offers a lot of options for effects and automation to design your own sounds. I use it a ton personally and get a lot of range from it.
If you ever wonder why there’s an ORPHAN CRUSHING MACHINE and why they need $20k to prevent the use of it. It was because there’s this one llama with a hat that is trying to build a Meat Dragon to impress his mate named paul
When the actual apartheid country is calling you on your shit, you’ve gone beyond apartheid and into apartheid with power windows, steering, wood trim, the entertainment package, and heated seats.
It’s not just that, but this lawyer team is like a super lawyer team, who knows the legaleese regarding apartheid. They are the perfect candidates to represent Palestine in international courts.
For those of y’all who don’t know: MatPat has announced that he will be stepping down from The Game Theorists to focus on himself and his family; Tom Scott has gone on indefinite hiatus for similar reasons.
I believe this heralds a new era of the internet, where ‘old’ creators are not as influential as the ‘new’ crop springing up, given the rise of Tiktok and the general direction of social media as a whole.
This seems like a big change only because YouTube/content creators are such a new phenomenon. Makes sense to change tracks after doing the same thing for a while. Or retire if you get filthy rich. It’s a natural cycle, only this time in a new environment.
Tom Scott has been doing the same thing for 10 years. Hell I can barely do the same job for 2 years without getting bored out of my mind.
I don’t think it’s got much to do with new types of content being successful. If anything, those guys have just been doing this for so long that they definitely should take a loooong break, at least.
Tom Scott and Matpat didn’t talk about breaks; they’re closing up shop for good in some way: MatPat has said he’s handing over creative control of the Theorist channels and assuming a more casual admin role to spend more time with his kid. Tom Scott said that he set a limit for 10 years on his main channel; he may come back to it, but it doesn’t seem likely. Others are also quitting, such as Moo from the Vanoss Crew.
Tom didn’t say limit, he said goal. He said that after a break, he will probably upload videos to his main channel from time to time, but that when he does come back it won’t be at his current schedule or with his current format.
Lemmings continue to vastly underestimate who landlords are.
In fact, fewer than one-fifth of rental properties are owned by for-profit businesses of any kind. Most rental properties – about seven-in-ten – are owned by individuals, who typically own just one or two properties, according to 2018 census data. And landlords have complained about being unable to meet their obligations, such as mortgage payments, property taxes and repair bills, because of a falloff in rent payments.
I’m glad to see some actual numbers. I am curious how quickly that is changing. I was a social worker for ten years until the last few months, and I would help people find housing all the time. It feels like there used to be more “mom and pop” landlords when I first started compared to now. Now I see this corporate players for the majority of rental listings.
I think the high price of housing will eventually prevent most individuals from buying a rental property, and like every other industry, the immensely wealthy corporations will take over.
Ok, now what conclusions do you want people to take away from this information?
Possible takeaway: There are worse people / entities that could own the apartments and houses that are being rented out.
If that’s the only takeaway, it’s still not going to make me feel sad for landlords.
If they created an LLC, then whatever happens to their business, they can always just get a different job and their own housing situation will remain stable.
If they didn’t, maybe because they couldn’t get a large enough loan to buy property without putting up their own collateral, that was presumably their choice.
I don’t want anyone to lose access to housing (or food, or healthcare), but I’m much more worried about renters ending up unhoused than landlords.
I don’t want anyone to lose access to housing (or food, or healthcare), but I’m much more worried about renters ending up unhoused than landlords.As it stated, most are charging reasonable prices at or below market price. Meaning they are one tiny dam blocking hundreds of thousands of people who can’t afford to live in that city from being homeless. It’s one of the biggest takeaways when you read the article.
Most landlords, the large majority, are essentially people who decided to put their savings into equity rather than tossing their money into a big giant pile for the rich to make themselves richer, aka, the stock market. Sometimes you toss it somewhere and just lose it.
Their price to pay for that equity are taxes and upkeep. Their payoff is selling it when they retire or giving it to their children or grandchildren. I don’t think I’ve ever rented from any suburban or rural landlord that wasn’t in one of these two positions.
These people aren’t megacorporations buying up land from potential homeowners. They’re people in their 60s and 70s now realizing that their investment more often than not was a poor one. They subsidize their tenants allowing them to live in cities and areas they normally wouldn’t. And when they die, the homes are going to children to either sell for a quick buck to fund their own kids college or moving into them when they’re house is now too big since the kids just moved.
As always, the gamut of possibilities is way too wide for such anti-human extremist propaganda that gets pushed then eaten up by people who should know better.
So far the worst outcome for landlords that you have posed is that they “realize that their investment was a poor one”.
And yes, I want that landlord’s grandchildren to be able to afford college (which I think should be free for all, paid for by tax increases on the rich).
But you have to admit that we’re talking about vastly different worlds here, right?
What percentage of renters live paycheck to paycheck and are at risk of living on the street?
What percentage of landlords are at risk of living on the street?
What percentage of renters expect to be able to leave enough in money and assets to their children, so that those children can afford to pay college tuition for the renter’s grandchildren?
I agree with you that dehumanizing people is wrong. I agree that landlord’s can struggle too.
I agree that there are worse people / entities that could own apartment complexes and houses.
But you haven’t really convinced me that I should worry about the general well-being of the landlord class, or that it’s worth my time and energy to chide renters who say mean things about them online.
Did you guys know most rental properties are made of wood?
Unrelated but apparently worker termite colonies will molt into reproductive adults in the absence of a queen and many hobby sources supply worker termites to most US states! It can be a fun and fulfilling hobby for those of all walks of life.
Remember, it’s a cloud messenger, not a secure messenger. It’s cool to have all chats on every device, but by default, they are unencrypted. I message there, too, but only nonsense.
It’s fast, supports sending large uncompressed files, has fun stickers and great UI
It’s a great messenger really, just not E2E encrypted. I’d happily use Signal too but most people don’t care about the E2E encryption advantage and prefer Tele
I’m not saying Telegram is perfect by a long shot, and they’ve made some questionable decisions around crypto and paid-for services, but it grinds my gears when people suggest that it’s “unencrypted”.
E2E encryption means that yours and the other person’s device are the only ones that have the keys for decryption and are typically the only places where chats are stored.* The conversation is secured end-to-end.
Telegram has the master copies of your chats on their servers to enable certain extra functionality that you can’t get with E2E messengers, but it does not mean that the data is stored or transmitted unencrypted. The data at rest is encrypted and it’s encrypted when it travels to and from your device.
Sure, there’s the argument that governments could compel Telegram to hand over the keys to your chats, but considering that the platform is outright banned in more than one country with questionable regimes, it’s reasonable to conclude that they don’t give in to such demands. Honestly, if your government wanted copies of your chats so badly it’d be far easier for them to go through you and your device directly, and then no amount of E2E encryption is going to help you.
All that said, Telegram does actually have E2E encryption in the form of Secret Chats which, while having no method of backup, allows you to have two very different conversations with the same person and provides a level of plausible deniability that E2E only platforms cannot.
*Until you or the other party chooses to export a plain-text backup and store it on Google Drive where it’s far easier for governments to subpoena. I’m looking at you, WhatsApp.
Because that checkbox undermines the security of EAC. Essentially it allows the service to run in the user space mode instead of kernel mode. This opens up a lot of hacking to games. It’s absolutely not a solution epic wants to take with their largest game.
There is also a very good reason that vac is looked at as the worse anti cheat solution in the industry. So much so that CSGO has to have third party anti cheat in their leagues.
That’s simply not a great solution. You can’t make a fast paced fps feel good without trusting the client. Even quake has some factor of client trust. The issue is that even if the client sends just inputs across the network, you still end up with cheats that seems the exact inputs to click on a person’s head. You are trusting the inputs are sane. So that’s the raw metric of not trusting the client, it’s just sending the user data and the user data can be manipulated in order to cheat.
So you still failed to secure the game simply by trusting the client. It’s not possible and it’s an argument that comes from not understanding the technical challenge at play here.
No amount of clientside anticheat software can stop that either though, anything running on the clientside can be faked/manipulated with enough effort
Also you could argue someone could simply plug in another device that takes a video input and can simulate a keyboard and mouse
On the server side, you could check for abnormalities in a person’s stats, for example if they get >90% headshots, if they’re getting a lot of kills outside a weapon’s normal range, amount of time aiming at enemies through walls that they shouldn’t be able to see etc etc
Then, once someone is suspicious enough, flag it up to a human moderator who can watch them and verify
Not saying there shouldn’t be any clientside anticheat at all but at the point of the anticheat putting itsself in kernel space it’s gone too far
On the server side, you could check for abnormalities in a person’s stats, for example if they get >90% headshots, if they’re getting a lot of kills outside a weapon’s normal range, amount of time aiming at enemies through walls that they shouldn’t be able to see etc etc
That’s called heuristics and EAC does that as well. Why not do both?
Not saying there shouldn’t be any clientside anticheat at all but at the point of the anticheat putting itsself in kernel space it’s gone too far
Why? this isn’t the opinion of a lot of the players out there.
This sounds awfully like one of those weird debates where twisted and contorted buzzwords get thrown around and once one of us Europeans innocently enters the discussion gets downvoted and hated into oblivion because everything we say is taken in some weird context we didn’t know shit about.
In what context dies a “Nordic model” come up and what’s it supposed to entail?
The Nordic model is often thrown out as an alternative to Marxism. The argument is that Nordic countries managed to create a capitalist society without exploitation.
Well, I’d say at least less exploitation than the raw capitalism the US has right now.
The funny thing is that the Allied powers helped establish a nation that has fixes for many problems the US faces right now, both constitutionally and economically in 1949.
Germany’s economy calls itself “social market economy” and acknowledges that the state has to interfere with “the market” whenever the developing power gradient in capitalism threatens to stomp the weaker. Does it work perfectly? Of course not! Nothing does on that level. Is it in danger of being hollowed out by capitalist fuckfaces constantly? Absolutely. Yet the model might give.some ideas.
The problem is that exploitation is largely just exported to the countries that the west subjugate. Plenty of exploitation in places like Africa and Latin America is currently happening in order to produce cheap goods people in Europe consume. This is the kind of stuff that props things up theguardian.com/…/mars-nestle-and-hershey-to-face…
If anything didn’t need a source then it’s that the wealth of rich nations is upheld by the less rich nations. Anyone who isn’t aware of that should not be listened to on any political or economical topic
Yet, what you said earlier struck me as incredibly “buzzwordy” so to say. You hinted at the choice being Marxism (we’ll come back to that one) and capitalism with the “Nordic Model” (reductive US-centric naming schemes at work) being sold as a (for you not satisfactory I assume) middle ground.
You seem to reject this middle ground because (and correct me if I’m wrong, I’m reading between the lines here) it will not solve the huge discrepancy in wealth between our richest and our poorest countries in earth.
So far, so good. Now: when you talk about “Marxism”, what do you mean by that exactly? I’ve seen this word thrown around countless times (again, mostly from the US) and most of the ppl doing so would have made Karl Marx vomit in his luscious beard when he heard what wild theories go by “Marxism” these days. So you’ll have to be rather specific as to what you mean. "Marxism " isn’t a clear-cut thing in the best of times.
Secondly: I’m assuming you want the global revolution the theories by Engels and Marx discuss im their economical parts and change the whole world towards a classless society by an uprising of the working class (however that would look). Isn’t any call for such a thing another manifestation of the same air of superiority we 1sr worlders tend to fall victim to? Any capitalist would tell you that the nations held back by the “1st world” just needed to fend for themselves and all would be great, right? While I can see how this is not a sentiment one would support (I don’t either), it’s not completely off. Even if we in the west decided that Marxism (again, whatever that means) is the Bee’s Knees right now, isn’t it just the same kind of patronizing if we just assume that the people in poorer countries think the same and expect them to (again) follow our lead into what we tell them is a better future? What if they want capitalism or whatever else? (Unlikely, yet still)
Now regarding the “Nordic Model” or all other forms of social economy: I think it’s safe to assume that the US and Europe have a comparable amount of “oppression per person” regarding foreign industry, yet the amount of exploitation of domestic workers will vary greatly.
Lacking many state-driven social security nets, the US will likely come upnfirst when it comes to local exploitation. So, if there was a way to ease this up while the rest of the world is not up for revolution stuff, why wouldn’t it be worthwhile to take that route?
Yet, what you said earlier struck me as incredibly “buzzwordy” so to say. You hinted at the choice being Marxism (we’ll come back to that one) and capitalism with the “Nordic Model” (reductive US-centric naming schemes at work) being sold as a (for you not satisfactory I assume) middle ground.
What I actually said was that the Nordic model is used as an example of a viable alternative to Marxism. Nowhere did I say Marxism was the only possible option, simply that capitalism with the Nordic model is not a viable alternative.
You seem to reject this middle ground because (and correct me if I’m wrong, I’m reading between the lines here) it will not solve the huge discrepancy in wealth between our richest and our poorest countries in earth.
I’m not really sure what you mean by middle ground here. Either the working class owns the means of production, or you have a capital owning class in charge.
So far, so good. Now: when you talk about “Marxism”, what do you mean by that exactly?
What I mean by that is workers owning the means of production such as factories, schools, farms, and so on. I mean a society where labour is done for collective benefit, and the decisions of what work is done and to what purpose are done democratically.
Isn’t any call for such a thing another manifestation of the same air of superiority we 1sr worlders tend to fall victim to?
Not at all, a call for workers to overthrow the ruling class and be in charge of their own work is in no way a manifestation of 1st world superiority. That’s frankly a bizarre argument to try and make.
Even if we in the west decided that Marxism (again, whatever that means) is the Bee’s Knees right now, isn’t it just the same kind of patronizing if we just assume that the people in poorer countries think the same and expect them to (again) follow our lead into what we tell them is a better future? What if they want capitalism or whatever else?
They wouldn’t be following western lead though would they. They would be following China’s Vietnam’s, Laos’s and Cuba’s lead. These are the existing Marxist states today. The west is not leading anybody here. Furthermore, the original argument here was against western colonialism and subjugation of countries. Countries having sovereignty and the right to self determination is a prerequisite for any sort of liberation.
Now regarding the “Nordic Model” or all other forms of social economy: I think it’s safe to assume that the US and Europe have a comparable amount of “oppression per person” regarding foreign industry, yet the amount of exploitation of domestic workers will vary greatly.
There is no great mystery here. US is simply further along the path to late stage capitalism than Europe is. However, direction of travel is very much the same. Sweden is a great case study for this jacobin.com/…/sweden-1970s-democratic-socialism-o…
So, if there was a way to ease this up while the rest of the world is not up for revolution stuff, why wouldn’t it be worthwhile to take that route?
Where do I argue that if such a route was actually available that it should not be taken? It’s a bit of an fallacious argument to claim that Marxists want to a violent revolution.
The very concept of “revolutionary violence” is a false framing of the situation, since most of the violence comes from those who attempt to prevent reform as opposed to those struggling for reform. Focusing on the violent rebellions of the downtrodden overlooks the much greater repressive force and violence utilized by the ruling oligarchs to maintain the status quo, such as attacks against peaceful demonstrations, mass arrests, torture, destruction of opposition organizations, suppression of dissident publications, death squads, so so on.
Most social revolutions begin peaceably. Why would it be otherwise? Who would not prefer to assemble and demonstrate rather than engage in mortal combat against pitiless forces that enjoy everyadvantage in mobility and firepower? Revolutions in Russia, China, Vietnam, and El Salvador all began peacefully, with crowds of peasants and workers launching nonviolent protests only to be met with violent oppression from the authorities. Peaceful protest and reform are exactly what the people are denied by the ruling oligarchs. The dissidents who continue to fight back, who try to defend themselves from the oligarchs’ repressive fury, are then called “violent revolutionaries” and “terrorists”.
It is unreasonable to assume a model outside of this will be attainabille within the next two centuries.
Instead let’s focus on drawing back the exploitation within our own country this century then we can shift our perspective. We will never stop exploiting the poorest countries if we’re still exploiting our poorest citizens.
I can sit here and spin the exact same question about reducing global exploitation.
Reducing global exploitation would implies self sustainability and with the west, particularly the US, they never reach self sustainability with their current economic model of giving 95% of their production/wealth to the top 1% while a very large portion of its population is struggling economically/mentally/physically.
It’s a stepping stone in the problem of global exploitation, but it can’t happen overnight nor independently.
The thing is that the nordic model still gives the lions share of the wealth to the 1 percent, they just use the proceeds from exploiting the third world to supplement the wealth of the domestic working class.
Instead let’s focus on drawing back the exploitation within our own country this century then we can shift our perspective. We will never stop exploiting the poorest countries if we’re still exploiting our poorest citizens.
This just incentivizes more exploitation of the Global South.
In the American model, Larry and Carl turn the tray themselves, there’s only one slice of pie on it, and Homer is still in the dungeon getting whipped.
Good point but it’s important to note that in the US, the state definitely interferes with “the market”, but only when power is threatened i.e. bailing out the banks instead of the mortgage holders in 2008, subsidies for fossil fuels and the meat industries, and other instances of protecting capital which would otherwise get a boo-boo should it be exposed to either free market forces or something like the efficiency of single payer health care.
lemmy.ml
Top