M1ch431

You can think it's funny all you like. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but you misunderstood my grammar. I was detailing two distinct types of people, with different views. The latter (after the or) are more on the side of purity testing other Communists because they see what would unfold after many, many years of Communism as de-facto Communism and proof that others are not true Communists (hence the slash ideological purists part).

I currently choose to engage with emergent (and divergent) thought, not snapshots and echoes of the past - but I'm not trying to devalue it - I'm just very interested in modern Marxist-Leninist discourse and thought. I have previously engaged with the theory and understand the history that surrounded it and level of technology that we had in the 1900s.

What if the answer to all of our worldwide problems is finding a balance between decentralized and centralized structures, balancing technology and the environment, finding a balance between currency and a moneyless society, and achieving balance between authority and liberty (with the goal of individual and societal sovereignty), and so forth?

In this thread, I see Anarcho-Communists (or final stage Communists/ideological purists) taking bat at Marxist-Leninists (who espouse mostly outdated theory, but not always) and Liberals who fail to understand really any ideology that differs from their own because of how thick the propaganda is (and who espouse ideals like Democratic Socialism while failing to realize that their social support is still enabled by modern slavery - such as the exploitation of third world countries).

I think a direct democracy, with authoritative and libertarian elements (such as enforcing liberty/a universal bill of rights for individuals) would be ideal.

It could have an economic system with built-in social supports (each according to their need) that emulates cash and all the best parts of blockchain (that isn't hoardable or worth hoarding, that also doesn't enable slavery/other forms of parasitism, and is generally private at the transactional stage - yet is auditable at a larger-scale), with centralized control of natural resources that still respects decentralized development and balance with the environment. And also does not have debt or parasitism of any form, instead encouraging diplomacy - such as contracts/agreements taking the place of debt to better the planet and encourage societal responsibility and stewardship (e.g. contracts that result in the stabilization of the society incurring the would-be debt).

Instead of total anarchy or various forms of authoritative control/dictatorship, we could simply combine direct democracy and hierarchy by electing leaders based solely on merit in the areas that are most needed, with strong controls so we get the best out of leadership and hierarchy and the resultant clarity and direction, without letting leaders and other experts become drunk on power. While also preventing the corruption of the individuals in power and the various forms of stagnation that result from entrenched power not conceding to new developments or advances.

I know I'm an idealist, but I'd like everybody to turn the chapter and realize that we are in 2025, not the 1900s. Technology and science have advanced every area of our society. We are so beyond scarcity that we are producing well beyond our needs with conditions and methods that are not even close to ideal (with ideal and emergent solutions and methods ready to take the place of those unsustainable methods).

We also have a global communication network - we can understand foreign languages without any human intervention in some cases, we can bridge cultural gaps, we can seek understanding and truth with our fingertips, and also we can push past the propaganda we are served on a platter, etc.

We can achieve something better than anything that has ever been conceived of previously, and it starts by crumpling up all of the things that no longer serve us. Concepts like racism, nationalism, really all of the isms that promote superiority over others. Bridging gaps, joining hands, while also countering disinformation (not misunderstanding) and bad faith.

We truly are not facing the same limitations that we did in the 1900s, although we may be facing new challenges like the rise of AI and the misuse of it by those currently in power.

There really is no more room in society for mucking about and fighting others while everything is in such disrepair, with so much needless suffering happening.

LibreWolf works fine for me with the defaults on many websites. If I want to browse a website that uses DRM or has other privacy-hostile mitigations, I can use another browser. It's not like I'm locked down to one option.

And I'm pretty sure LibreWolf does save history. As for cookies, you can keep them fairly easily. This is all in the options panel, which is very minimal and compact just like Firefox.

I do like your suggestion of settings groups even if it does increase the fingerprinting surface potentially, but I'm afraid the LibreWolf team is already struggling to keep pace. I'm sure if an issue/pull request was started they would consider implementing this.

Perhaps for fingerprinting purposes, you could even have site-specific configurations for everything besides DRM, but I'm unsure if that would be easy to implement.

💯

The world could indeed learn a whole lot from China's efficiency, how they do business, and specifically from their advances in manufacturing.

I see their point, but I disapprove of contributing to the destruction of the environment (from lengthy transport or industry potentially not using best emergent practices) because it's "cheaper" and that's what I was trying to touch on.

I'm no fan of Trump or his policies, but I don't think it's a necessarily a bad thing that he's encouraging American industry to develop (even if his reasons for doing so are vastly different from my own) - but as they pointed out - his policies are hilariously not to much effect, if any.

If products produced in China and sold here in the US are "bad", it's solely the fault of the American capitalists who don't have a care in the world besides selling the lowest common denominator in mass quantities, with no quality control on their side, consumer support, or care for how it's made or transported. And of course those who blindly consume are responsible as well.

If products are made in China and consumed in the states, there is usually no way to have things repaired or serviced as a consumer. We also have no idea what chemicals are being used and are exposing ourselves to and we can't directly control or quantify emissions from Chinese factories besides voting with our wallets. A lot of waste is produced because nothing is built to last - not because it was made in China, but because it was all orchestrated by uncaring capitalists.

If the global supply chain was localized to geographic regions, we can greatly reduce emissions from transport. With regulation and our technological advances, we can also build new industry that is significantly less harmful to the environment and the people that work and live around it. I'm not claiming that China isn't implementing new policies or practices or trying to make light of their efforts to reduce their emissions.

Their company is not just a software development company - they are presumably designing hardware, having it produced, and selling said hardware.

If you can't answer basic questions about the product you want produced, as a company selling hardware, then clearly you need to hire somebody who can answer those basic questions and deal with the manufacturing side of the business.

There are just very few companies left still working in manufacturing in the US, and of course they are selective about the clients they take and the projects they work on. If you can't form healthy business relationships and learn to do business without calling people that you deal with babies for having questions or requirements, then perhaps it's possible that you strongly consider contracting with another company to manufacture the hardware for your software.

It's highly inefficient and harmful to the environment to ship steel across the world. We need to stop unsustainable practices, produce products locally, and develop economies of scale that make sense instead of simply "offsetting" emissions or relying on carbon capture that is not directly integrated into our industry.

That all being said, the world could learn a whole lot from Chinese manufacturing processes.

I deleted part of my post and fucked up what I was trying to say.

I don't think the R4L project is for naught or is impeding progress. I see their good faith and their efforts. A split codebase can just be chopped off at the base and business can move on as usual at any point.

If Linux kernel maintainers are against potential improvements being found to the existing C code as a result of parallel development, then perhaps they should require the Rust developers to suggest what the added/changed code could look like in C (if possible) and their reasons for changing the implementation in Rust before they can push their implementation (forcing R4L to shoulder the brunt of the work) - or force R4L to stick to close-approximations and working within the existing system to properly change existing functionality through established processes.

I apologize that I misrepresented his arguments, I of course meant to say that his problem was a split codebase and I understood as much, I just misspoke. Other comments have enlightened me to better understand his arguments and concerns since I posted, as well.

You: [...] have been generally trying to jam their code everywhere

I suppose your earlier statement was just stuck in my head, and I was wondering to what extent they have "infected" the codebase with Rust.

And I learned about the manual when a creator I was linked was talking about how there are parallels between the manual and the decline/failure of the U.S. education system, but I similarly disagreed with them that the issues of the U.S. education system are due to internal or external sabotage (through any methods described in the manual, whether intentional sabotage or not) or anything close to it. This was before Trump.

laymen who are not involved in the process in any way (on either side) acting like armchair experts and passing harsh judgement.

It doesn't matter what laymen say, so how can they be the problem?

This is why people like Martin feel justified going on social media to publicly complain, because they know they’ll get a bunch of yesmen with no credible arguments to mindlessly harrass the developers they disagree with.

Did Hector call people to action to harass the developers that "they disagree with"? Or did they try to promote awareness on the issue that is clearly causing them frustration? They certainly questioned whether or not there was another way besides shaming people on social media and it shows potential growth from my perspective.

If the project fails, it will be because of this behavior, not because of the “old guys” being stubborn.

Social media is another medium to express yourself and communicate ideas - it is neither good nor bad. If a project that is already developed pretty openly cannot address the criticism by social media/the public of their statements and behaviors, then perhaps they should privatize their communications. Or perhaps just address the criticisms in good faith and explain themselves in the spirit of open source.

From my understanding, it's not Hellwig's job to maintain the Rust side of the code. They can find multi-language codebases a pain all they want and throw a gigantic tantrum focused towards the R4L project - it doesn't affect the code that they are responsible for. I don't see why the whole R4L project couldn't just be removed if R4L is not maintained by those who develop and support it.

but I will do everything I can do to stop this.

Is an open admission of Hellwig to sabotaging the R4L project.

Seeing the R4L folks as saboteurs or anything close is not in evidence. This isn't the '90s, we have the means to be a lot more productive in regards to coding and managing codebases, and historical maintenance problems are irrelevant. If the R4L team is truly sabotaging the codebase by adding too much complexity or overhead, there are levers that can be pulled to change their direction without blindly rejecting or hindering their efforts.

Again, I am aware of the manual. I was recently exposed to it, as well, so it's very fresh in my mind. I understand why you mentioned it and understand what you are saying, but I disagree, I don't see the parallels.

I think Linus just wants the drama to stop and the progress to flow, but I'll let him speak for his emotions towards the R4L project and avoid speculating about him.

I'm just openly speculating that there are vulnerabilities in the code, and that the R4L project will uncover those as a natural product of its evolution. I don't think a CIA sabotage manual is apt to describe the R4L project, largely because I see it as progress. From my perspective, maintaining old C code is not something they are sabotaging.

As opposed to the R4L members, there are those who are openly admitting to sabotaging the progress of the R4L project. If you've seen the past public clashes between the R4L project and the Linux kernel community, you'd also be able to garner that from those interactions as well.

Yes, from my understanding as an outsider and layman, of course. From my perspective, the observation and insights developed from the R4L project will make Linux much stronger project overall moving forwards.