<colemickens>
containerd has abilities so that devs can write plugins and allow them to do things like "fetch image layers".
<colemickens>
Is it possible to do this with nix, or does it require hacking on nix itself?
<gchristensen>
what do you mean concretely?
<colemickens>
I guess I should ask Ericson in #nixos maybe, sort of related to the ipfs work.
<colemickens>
gchristensen: I want to be able to plugins other things besides http binary caches, and/or be able to build a standalone application to acquire NARs in parallel and then ingest them to the store asap.
<colemickens>
this is somewhat in response to my perception that realizing store paths from mirrors can be somewhat slow / not parallelized and/or thinking about other ways of distributing NARs between a large number of servers.
<colemickens>
I've seen containerd plugins that use an ipfs swarm to very rapidly distribute an image, for example.
<colemickens>
I can't paste right now but there's a short video on Youtube, "Containerd meets IPFS - Edgar Lee" that demos it.
<gchristensen>
ah
<gchristensen>
imo a good API for implementing novel fetch backends is by writing an HTTP server which serves NARs
<gchristensen>
but yeah the way to do that is really by extending Nix
<worldofpeace>
bqv: packaging issue
<worldofpeace>
it's missing glib-networking in buildInputs for the gio module that enables ssl and tls
<worldofpeace>
if you're using the glib-networking module in nixos it will add it to the global environment as a fail safe so you never run into that
<worldofpeace>
it remains undecided to how to elegantly handle gio modules in nixos
<bqv>
worldofpeace: yeah, i worked that out eventually, and now i'm using wrapGAppsHook
<worldofpeace>
bqv: yep, exactly. I can't remember if that message is in the documentation
<worldofpeace>
our docs that is
<bqv>
curiously, now i'm having wayland problems...
<infinisil>
The last time a mod was active in /r/nixos was 3 years ago
<cole-h>
infinisil: "This person should... Be a mod for a minimum of 6 months"
<infinisil>
Oh that's only for when you're mod already apparently
<infinisil>
Yea..
<infinisil>
Well but then neither the normal redditrequest process or the topmod removal process works in this case
<infinisil>
"“Abandoned” subreddits are available for r/redditrequest. Subreddits are considered "abandoned" in the event that none of its mods have been active anywhere on reddit in the past 60 days."
<infinisil>
I guess there's also "The exact criteria used in evaluating requests is left to admin discretion." though
<samueldr>
infinisil: that discussion is still on the /r/nixos page for me
rajivr has joined #nixos-chat
<samueldr>
mods have literally zero involvement in the subreddit :/
<samueldr>
right now I'm still hoping that the redditrequest thread, which is flagged for a manual review, will get us a review, someone that will talk with us
<samueldr>
ah, so you did hide it, but didn't hide it
<samueldr>
at least the mystery is solved
<infinisil>
Yeah
<infinisil>
I take my accusation back
<infinisil>
Lol, that's a great conspiracy, every post I upvote gets shadowbanned
<cole-h>
That is too much power for one being
<drakonis>
the mods havent been active in months now
<drakonis>
so it is elegible for that
<samueldr>
it's complicated
<samueldr>
they technically were active recently
<samueldr>
since they undid the change and replied
<samueldr>
so as nothing seems transparent in that process, it may mean that the subreddit is not elligible
<samueldr>
what we have to hope for is that the manual review opens a channel for discussion
<colemickens>
You know, the lack of process around this makes me wonder if reddit is a good place to host a community.
* colemickens
coughs
<bqv>
cole-h: jesus christ
<bqv>
That comment tree
<bqv>
I hate both of them
<cole-h>
:)
<bqv>
Man what a clusterfsck. I don't want to agree with sircmpwn, but I definitely think that commit is dumb as hell, and I agree it should be reverted in nixpkgs
<samueldr>
using `nvim -d` (vimdiff) on two output of format-patch --stdout is surprisingly usable
<samueldr>
(for what is basically the same patch set)
<drakonis>
bqv: what tree?
<drakonis>
colemickens: reddit is the worst
<cole-h>
drakonis: The mpv commit I linked earlier, I believe
<colemickens>
bqv: okay, nixpkgs-wayland outputs "packages" and "overlay" in a flake now :)
<colemickens>
and flake-firefox-nightly has CI that's been green for ~24 hours I think now
<colemickens>
I'm looking forward to trying nyxt
<bqv>
colemickens: I have a package for it, but it requires turning off the sandbox cause the devs are impossibly obtuse
<samueldr>
uh?
<bqv>
Good to hear though, I'll assimilate it shortly
<bqv>
samueldr: was that at me?
<samueldr>
yeah
<bqv>
How can I help
<samueldr>
I wonder what requires the sandbox to be disabled
<cole-h>
Same
<cole-h>
Very strange
<bqv>
I've been asking for help with this for a while now, you've clearly not been paying attention. I cannot figure out how to fiddle lispPackages, and nobody here or on github wants to help, so I'm using quicklisp directly over network
<bqv>
If that offends you, you could always tell me how to fix it :p
<samueldr>
well I don't read every last message here
<cole-h>
s/not paying attention/been busy with literally anything else/
<bqv>
I'm only minorly salty because I literally remember talking to cole-h about it
<samueldr>
and I don't know the lisp ecosystem, so even though I have probably seen a message about it, there's not much I can do off the top of my head
<cole-h>
I don't understand how not knowing how to fiddle with lispPackages necessitates disabling the sandbox. At least, that's where my confusion comes from.
<bqv>
Well its that or I don't package it at all. There is no quicklisp2nix tool that works, so I'm stuck with a package manager that requires network
<samueldr>
ah, so the reason is to get the dependencies
<bqv>
The only solvable issue there is the sandbox, so I removed it
<bqv>
Yes
<cole-h>
I understand now.
<bqv>
Probably came of quite antagonistic, I don't mean to be, that whole situation has just been endless pain so I'm tetchy
<samueldr>
bqv: not sure I'll investigate much more but "it never works" amounts to what?
<samueldr>
I have run the command as described in the README, but as a no-op, it's currently working hard at "Examining system" for everything listed in the file
<samueldr>
(doesn't look quick)
<bqv>
samueldr: yeah, it runs for around an hour, then either errors out, or finishes but hasn't added the packages, from memory
<samueldr>
right, it helps to know what has been tried and what happened, otherwise it may look like "I tried nothing and I'm all out of idea" which isn't endearing for help
<{^_^}>
undefined variable 'tofu' at (string):318:1
<eyJhb>
Damn.
<eyJhb>
It
<eyJhb>
> help
<{^_^}>
undefined variable 'help' at (string):318:1
<eyJhb>
,tofu
<{^_^}>
To get a sha256 hash of a new source, you can use the Trust On First Use model: use probably-wrong hash (for example: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) then replace it with the correct hash Nix expected. See: tofu-vim
<eyJhb>
AHA!
<samueldr>
or 52i0
bkv has joined #nixos-chat
bqv has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
<bkv>
infinisil: should update that^ to have lib.fake*
<samueldr>
anyone can edit the factoids
<samueldr>
though the lib.fake* are not preferred by some
<samueldr>
personally I don't like how it requires getting lib from somewhere
<samueldr>
while knowing that it's 52 zeroes I don't have any dependency
bqv has joined #nixos-chat
bkv has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
<bqv>
infinisil: should update that^ to have lib.fake*
<bqv>
*sigh* I was meant to sleep early, but my pc keeps crashing so what would take 10 minutes has taken over an hour
<bqv>
Oh, its cause emacs.service is thrashing
ixxie has joined #nixos-chat
parsley936 has joined #nixos-chat
<eyJhb>
bqv: hit the bed yet?
<bqv>
Still up
<eyJhb>
samueldr: but I can't remember it is 52 zeros..
<eyJhb>
bqv: what is your local time?
<bqv>
10:30am
<eyJhb>
...? That is not close te early to bed then!
<bqv>
It is, I'm nocturnal
<eyJhb>
,locate bin sha1sum
<{^_^}>
Found in packages: toybox, busybox, coreutils, coreutils-full
<eyJhb>
So when do you go to bed normally?
<bqv>
Whenever the sun gets up
<eyJhb>
You go to bed
<bqv>
Yep
<eyJhb>
THe sun has been up since like 5-6 AM?
<eyJhb>
Depending on your contry I guess
<bqv>
Give or take a few hours
<eyJhb>
Hell you would love North sweden/norway/Greenland
<bqv>
I've been sleeping late all week
<eyJhb>
Where the sun don't really set
<bqv>
I need to fix it
<bqv>
My wife's from finland
<bqv>
Its very …grey
<eyJhb>
I have been up at 8 AM each day, and got to bed at 1/2 AM
<eyJhb>
Never been to Finland :p
<Arahael>
eyJhb: Half-AM? You mean, like, 12:30 am? :)
<eyJhb>
I should have stuck with the 24 hour format
<bqv>
1 or 2
<eyJhb>
01:00/02:00 and up at 08:00
<eyJhb>
Much easier
<bqv>
Id suggest unix time but it doesn't work for relative time
<eyJhb>
` inflating: displaylink-driver-5.3.1.34.run `, how many version numbers can they put here?
<eyJhb>
Mayor.minor.patch.patchv2
<bqv>
Last is probably buildid
<eyJhb>
Lets see if I can boot after updating evdi and displaylink
<eyJhb>
My guess is no, as usual
<eyJhb>
It... It works...?
<eyJhb>
The hell
<bqv>
Heh
<bqv>
colemickens: nice flake.nix
<ixxie>
bqv: grey today, but its been many months super sunny all day and most of night :D
<bqv>
colemickens: I should probably donate you my swc and velox derivations
<bqv>
ixxie: :D
<bqv>
I've not been for a year or so
<ixxie>
bqv: global warming makes the Finnish archipelago start to feel like the mediterranian
<ixxie>
bqv: I grew up by the mediterranian so I would know
<bqv>
Hah
<ixxie>
its noticable all over Europe
<ixxie>
Bavaria will be wine country soon
<ixxie>
Spain a desert
<ixxie>
Meanwhile I may need to move to lapland to get my dose of winter snow :(
<ixxie>
Helsinki just won't cut it
<bqv>
Yeah I noticed that too
<bqv>
At least you have options
<bqv>
I'd love to move to finland to be honest, but my partner likes it here more than I hate it here
<ixxie>
where is here?
<bqv>
The dreary uplands of england
<bqv>
I mean the weather doesn't bother me, but it is pretty depressing compared to other countries
<ixxie>
oh
<ixxie>
so she's an anglophile as they call it :D
<bqv>
I guess :p
<ixxie>
I can see how England is depressing (and not the weather)
<bqv>
Mhm…
<ixxie>
Maybe you can move to Scotland as a compromie
<ixxie>
compromise*
<bqv>
We considered that too, its a good idea
<bqv>
They might even get independence
<ixxie>
fingers crossed
<ixxie>
#DecentralizedEurope
evils has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
<bqv>
:p
<eyJhb>
,locate bin gh
<{^_^}>
Found in packages: gitAndTools.gh
<bqv>
eyJhb: see also: hub
<bqv>
And if you're not in a repo as api-breaking as nixpkgs, git-bug
<eyJhb>
I just needed to list all PRs
<eyJhb>
I want to see how many dups we have :p
<eyJhb>
I or, I wish I could... (no longer relevant as well)
<bqv>
Good luck doing that via the api, I think
<eyJhb>
We have strong names :p So should be SOMEWHAT doable
<eyJhb>
Maybe, dunno
<eyJhb>
But hell it would be nice
<bqv>
Probably better luck with html scraping lol
<bqv>
Which is ridiculous
<eyJhb>
Why would that be better?
__monty__ has joined #nixos-chat
<bqv>
No ratelimit
<eyJhb>
Currently I 'just' need the merged ones :p
<bqv>
Isn't that about 60k?
<eyJhb>
Shyyys
<eyJhb>
Yes
FRidh has joined #nixos-chat
<bqv>
Syyskuu
<ixxie>
eyJhb: what kind of duplication are you looking for?
<ixxie>
(gtg, will check the logs for your answer ;)
ixxie has quit [Quit: Lost terminal]
<bqv>
Always watching 👀
<eyJhb>
Daaamn
<eyJhb>
ixxie PRs that update to the same version or older
<eyJhb>
Damn it, it times out
<eyJhb>
590 pages to go
<eyJhb>
F it
<bqv>
Told you :p
<joepie91>
API rate limits suck
<eyJhb>
It does
<joepie91>
and yeah, basically all it means is that people are going to scrape the HTML, which costs more resources than answering API calls...
<joepie91>
(for the provider)
<joepie91>
it just makes no sense
<eyJhb>
I guess I will just try to get the versions from NixOS
<joepie91>
exception: the handful of sites who actually ratelimit non-API stuff too
<eyJhb>
But not sure, because 'pkgs.<package>.version' will not work for everything
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: multi-IP HTML scraping is probably still simpler than multi-key API scraping from multiple IPs
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: that, and in most cases you don't even need multiple IPs for HTML scraping
<MichaelRaskin>
I meant the rate-limiting case
<joepie91>
not sure what you mean then
<bqv>
i wish there was just some sensible protocol for PRs and issues
<bqv>
that didn't involve a flipping browser
<bqv>
then there'd be no need for all this
<bqv>
but whatever it was, it wouldn't matter unless github supported it
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: I mean that ratelimiting non-API requests is most likely by IP.
<bqv>
because praise be to github
<joepie91>
bqv: we could represent it as a DAG...
<joepie91>
:P
<bqv>
lmao
<joepie91>
if only there were some sort of protocol for synchronizing DAG changes with conflict resolution
<bqv>
good luck selling that one :p
<MichaelRaskin>
If only there was a version control system that already integrated the support for issues stored in DAG with merge support
<bqv>
that would be?
<MichaelRaskin>
Fossil
<MichaelRaskin>
(well, I think Veracity too, but Veracity got cancelled)
<joepie91>
(yeah, the problem here really is github and their total non-interest in actually keeping git decentralized
<joepie91>
)
<bqv>
Yeah
<bqv>
I mean it's doable in git, afaik
<bqv>
git-bug, git-appraise, etc
<bqv>
My pc is performing a scheduled gc, I'll be back shortly
<eyJhb>
MichaelRaskin: do you see Fossil replacing Git?
<MichaelRaskin>
No
<MichaelRaskin>
Git popularity is the result of Linus Torvalds — personally — investing a really impressive amount of time and effort into telling people why and how they could want to use a DVCS. Using a pretty bad DVCS intended for a specific and rare use case as an example.
<lukegb>
eyJhb: you might be better off using the GitHub Archive dataset in BigQuery (shilling a bit for my employer here)
<eyJhb>
MichaelRaskin: you never got Chromium to work in nsjail, right?
<eyJhb>
lukegb: that seems like a better idea yeah..
<MichaelRaskin>
It works fine with --no-sandbox
<eyJhb>
Then I guess there is very little reason to use nsjail, right? :p
<MichaelRaskin>
Why?
<MichaelRaskin>
Chromium is bad
<MichaelRaskin>
So I do not run _multiple_ things in it at once
<eyJhb>
Why so?
<MichaelRaskin>
Like in what sense they are not bad
<MichaelRaskin>
Their «log in» mix-up notion? Their restrictions on the extensions? Their pushing through whatever HTML5 features they want in the broken way because they ignore feedback?
<MichaelRaskin>
So if I have to run something in Chromium, it is at most one thing at a time
<MichaelRaskin>
And then I want Chromium itself not to have persistence
<joepie91>
don't forget the slow killing of the URL
<MichaelRaskin>
More than I care about a website finding an exploit in Chromium and stealing a file from inside the jail… which is just an empty fresh user profile
<joepie91>
which conveniently makes Google even more central to the operation of the web
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: look. I know you like Matrix, but in IRC the message length is limited
<joepie91>
:D
<pie_>
joepie91: is rust with async basically lazy rust?
<joepie91>
pie_: in a sense, I guess so. since futures need to be actively driven (at least in the tokio model, I assume std async is the same)
<joepie91>
it's not exactly the same as lazy synchronous operations, since you have the async boundary to deal with
<joepie91>
(though that is much less of an issue in a language with ownership rules)
<MichaelRaskin>
But basically Chromium is IE6.0 2.0.
<pie_>
on google ranting, i dont know if one of my addons broke, or google doesnt work with js disabled without going into a redirect loop since yesterday
<joepie91>
(async boundary as in, you cannot assume that external state has not mutated inbetween two bits of async code, due to scheduling other stuff on the event loop in the interim - this is not the case for normal lazy synchronous evaluation, where you still have the "current stack completes first" guarantee, it just doesn't evaluate certain things until they are used)
<pie_>
and i got a recaptcha on google scholar
<pie_>
(which also means you cant use google scholar on tor anymore probably)
<joepie91>
pie_: it's unfortunate that sci-hub no longer proxies google scholar
<joepie91>
they used to
<pie_>
hm. that might be why.
<joepie91>
so you could just search for stuff on sci-hub, and it would replace the article links with direct via-scihub downloads
<joepie91>
nah, it hasn't done this for at least a year
<joepie91>
probably far longer
<joepie91>
this was an early sci-hub feature that most people don't seem to know ever existed :P
<pie_>
doesnt mean they didnt have the captcha, i might just not have run into it till now
<joepie91>
right
<joepie91>
pie_: funny thing re: async and lazy code, my streams design for JS actually also resembles lazy evaluation, despite using Promises, which are self-driving
<joepie91>
the difference between eager and lazy evaluation is really just a function call :p
<joepie91>
(that is, a 'stream' is more or less designed as a function, which upon being called, produces a Promise that eventually resolves to a value)
<joepie91>
philipp[m]: I'm tempted to set them off by saying "thanks for the content warning!"
<joepie91>
very, very tempted
<joepie91>
but yeah, that thread looks like the trashfire I'd have expected from that place
<philipp[m]>
Antisemitism is fine but I draw the line at people not wanting to use some words any more. Still giggling.
<ar>
>antisemitism aside
<eyJhb>
I would have expected Torvalds to give them a fuck you
<joepie91>
eyJhb: Torvalds seems to have genuinely worked on his attitude for the past several months
<MichaelRaskin>
It looks like he worked more on the ways of expressing it
<eyJhb>
I was still hoping for it, in this case
<bqv>
he caved?
<MichaelRaskin>
On the form — yes
<bqv>
sorry, i haven't read the link, are they going to now replace all the words in the kernel source?
<MichaelRaskin>
That posting of him explaining that what he would earlier describe with a combo of two to three expletives is a «breach of trust» still carried quite a bit of a punch
<joepie91>
bqv: reading the link is a good starting point for answering that question :)
<bqv>
i'm in a sticky browser situation, help me out
<joepie91>
ah
<joepie91>
bqv: in that case: no, it is a set of wording/style rules for new code
<MichaelRaskin>
You don't have curl and lynx?
<bqv>
reddit in lynx sounds excruciating, do you not think?
<bqv>
joepie91: gotcha
<bqv>
fair enough
<joepie91>
old reddit should be fine
<joepie91>
new reddit, probably not
<MichaelRaskin>
bqv: new reddit is _just_ bad HTML. old.reddit.com is fine anywhere
<MichaelRaskin>
New Reddit design is not fine _anywhere_ anyway
<joepie91>
bqv: "For symbol names and documentation, avoid introducing new usage of 'master / slave' (or 'slave' independent of 'master') and 'blacklist / whitelist'." -- followed by a list of suggested replacement terms for different contexts/purposes
<joepie91>
and some "don't break existing stuff pls" notes
<eyJhb>
Am I blind, or where are you reading that joepie91 ?
<bqv>
i can get behind that. it's a reasonable response
<eyJhb>
I am more behind, do not get that offended about words in some source code, etc.
<joepie91>
eyJhb: telling people "don't get that offended about it" is missing the point by a mile
<eyJhb>
joepie91: what would you then say the point is within the mile?
<MichaelRaskin>
I suspect there is a lot of USA/non-USA culture gap here.
<eyJhb>
^^
<eyJhb>
All this rebranding, changing words etc. feel like USA BS tbh..
<joepie91>
eyJhb: the point is that it's just good manners to not unnecessarily use language that other people feel uncomfortable way; in the same way that when a friend asks you not to say "fuck" around him because it makes him feel uncomfortable, you're probably going to follow that request rather than trying to make a point out of being allowed to say what you want
<joepie91>
feel uncomfortable with*
<joepie91>
this is not really any fundamentally different from that, just on a larger scale - there are people who feel uncomfortable with the language use, the language use itself isn't necessary (and in fact quite inaccurate) and mainly just a force of habit, so why not stop doing that?
<bqv>
eyJhb: the way i see it, this is the most sensible response. anything more would just have caused a total scandal from people screeching about linus being unreasonable as usual
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: I'm not in the US
<bqv>
and that would probably result in the mass word substitution we don't really want or need
<eyJhb>
bqv: but it is more than Linux, sooo
<bqv>
sure, but linus only cares about linux
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: familiarity with US cultural issues also counts
<joepie91>
tensions are running higher in the US but the problem exists just as much outside of the US
<eyJhb>
And these word replacements leads us to having so many different words, for a single term that was universial
<joepie91>
what the whole "why would you bother changing language" arguments generally boil down to is some form of "well *I* don't see the problem with it, so this is stupid", which is... lacking in empathy
<eyJhb>
An easy to understand for most
<bqv>
there's still a load of dumb stuff going on elsewhere, i know, but the place to fight that fight is not inside the linux kernel source code
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: different lines of tension in different places
<joepie91>
the wording never was precise nor very logical
<eyJhb>
master/slave is not easy to understand compared to {initiator,requester} / {target,responder}'
<joepie91>
literally the only reason it was commonly used was habit
<joepie91>
eyJhb: no, it isn't. because it contains much less information about how the roles of two systems relate to each other
<bqv>
the one that cracked me up was whatever repo was trying to replace "dumb" in the context of "dumb terminal"
<joepie91>
eyJhb: see the article I linked which goes into this
<joepie91>
and consider this: ultimately the only reason these name changes are a point of contention at all is because people take issue with them
<joepie91>
the vast majority of projects are not screaming from the rooftops that they are changing naming
<joepie91>
they try to quietly, internally change the process, to avoid unnecessary language that makes people feel uncomfortable - and then a few asshats decide to turn it into a source of drama by making an issue out of it
<joepie91>
it isn't the people introducing the naming change who cause the fuss
<eyJhb>
Either way, there is a very slim chance it will change my mind joepie91. There is too many things that makes a small amout of people uncomfortable, and I see no reason that we should cave in to every.. single.. one...
<eyJhb>
ANd general something I found more US than eg. nordic
<joepie91>
so when you're talking about "fighting the fight", cc bqv, consider that it never was reallly a fight to begin with, it was *just a terminology change*
<joepie91>
and one particular group of people decided to turn it into a fight
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: You say «just a terminology change» like it has ever gone smoothly _and_ quickly
<MichaelRaskin>
Smoothly and slowly, sure, many cases
<bqv>
when you're talking about refactoring every codebase on the internet, if you expect to not have resistance, you're delusional
<joepie91>
eyJhb: what do you mean, "cave in to every single one"? you're saying "cave in" like it's somehow shameful to take into account other people's emotions and experiences, and this is about a specific change, not "every single thing any one person in the world might possibly request"
<bqv>
that sort of thing is *always* going to result in a fight
<bqv>
culture is irrelevant
<MichaelRaskin>
(I include the cases motivated by precision more than politeness)
<joepie91>
bqv: noone is talking about "refactoring every codebase on the internet"! other than the people trying to turn this into a fight
<joepie91>
you're talking about a nonexistent problem
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: I recently learned that Microsoft has internally added this terminology guidance to their policies several years ago, without a peep
<joepie91>
so yes, it happens
<joepie91>
you just don't hear of it, because it went smoothly
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: as I said, smoothly and slow is not a problem
<joepie91>
bqv: and I have been tracking changes like this for a few years now, and in almost every case it's people coming in to pick a fight about "the decline of technical language" and whatever
<joepie91>
like, this isn't some new phenomenon
<joepie91>
this has been ongoing for years
<bqv>
people making ridiculous pull requests like that is very much a new phenomenon
<joepie91>
...
<joepie91>
bqv: just because it is a new phenomenon *to you* does not mean that it is new to the rest of the world
<qyliss>
I remember seeing that sort of thing five years ago
<joepie91>
again: I have been tracking this for years, it has been ongoing for years, including provocative PRs which very much are not the majority of cases
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: the fact that it did not crash and burn? I mean, I do not believe _any_ large refactoring going quickly and smoothly, doesn't matter it nature
<eyJhb>
joepie91: They can do it, but there is just soo many idiotic things regarding X, Y and Z, feeling uncomfortable, where the bigger party has to change a large part to accompany a lot of things. And it is just a tendency that is EVERYWHERE atm.
<bqv>
you're suggesting that the spate of organisations making mass changes like this in the last few weeks is just by-the-by? nothing more than normal?
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: actually, some terminology changes have happenned in Nix* over the last few years
<MichaelRaskin>
Fortunately proposed by the experienced inside people
<joepie91>
eyJhb: so *what exactly is the problem here*
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: "refactoring"? the change that sparked this discussion is to a styleguide for *future code*, it does not involve any refactoring of existing code whatsoever
<joepie91>
eyJhb: because how you're describing it sounds a lot like "I don't care about this therefore it is idiotic"
<joepie91>
which, well, fill in the blanks
<MichaelRaskin>
So the question of good faith and of competence was clear and things went quietly
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: well, sure, declaration of a start of something can be done quickly. But there are quite a few policies that are not followed, so it does not count as fully job done
<eyJhb>
joepie91: more of, they can do it, it is fine, I still do not approve of this kind of culture. You can try and dictate, and tell me you do not like X, but you cannot really expect me to stop doing it.
<joepie91>
eyJhb: again: *what is the actual problem*
<joepie91>
what does this cost you, why is it a thing that you "do not approve" of
<joepie91>
it's a styleguide change that recommends different, more precise, less uncomfortable terminology for future code
<joepie91>
what is the issue?
<__monty__>
I don't think I understand the layers here. The video seems pretty reasonable, not friendly to jewish people maybe, but groups them with white liberals.
<__monty__>
(I'm up in the scrollback.)
<joepie91>
eyJhb: because from where I'm standing, the only *actual* cultural change is that people are starting to accept that yes, discrimination exists, in many forms, and yes, we do actually need to care about that in tech and we're not magically exempt from that, and yes, we do actually need to be empathetic with minorities and not make their life worse
<joepie91>
which, of course, if you are in a privileged demographic, is going to mean you suddenly have to care about people outside of your own demographic - which is the point
<bqv>
i don't think any of us know well the situation in america, which is fair enough, but to most of the rest of the world i've spoken to it just seems like a load of furious people demanding mass refactors of all our codebases at everyone's expense, because of some culture war that's ultimately irrelevant to software. i only phrase it that flippantly to get the point across, i understand the
<bqv>
point, but outside the US it doesn't quite mean the same and it's realistically just an inconvenience that detracts from what i understand the actual point to be - I say this as a member of the minority in question
<joepie91>
this isn't a deviation from what's "normal"; it's correcting a problem that has existed in tech for a long time
<joepie91>
and a side effect of that is that somehow-privileged people, who could previously pretend that all is fine in the world, now cannot pretend that anymore
<joepie91>
bqv: the problem is absolutely not unique to the situation in the US, it is just more high-profile there right now
<eyJhb>
joepie91: these arguments do not really hold up
<eyJhb>
Somewhat saying that I think everything is fine in the entire world
<joepie91>
the exact same issues of racism and misogynism etc. also exist in Europe, for example, they are just less obvious
cole-h has joined #nixos-chat
<joepie91>
eyJhb: I mean, consider what position you are in, personally, if you can afford to say "I don't really care that people feel uncomfortable with certain terminology"
<bqv>
understand me when i say i'm not remotely saying racism (subtle or otherwise) doesn't exist, but the idea that using the words "master" and "slave" in source code is part of it is genuinely absurd
<joepie91>
you may not have realized it before, and that is fine, but if you are in a position to make statements like that, you are in a privileged demographic
<joepie91>
the change is that people are starting to have to acknowledge that
<bqv>
i'm well versed in subtle racism, it's the primary kind you get here in the UK, but this seems like a farce to me
<eyJhb>
bqv: generally going online to be offended by such is weird...
<joepie91>
eyJhb: people don't "go online to be offended".
<joepie91>
people generally don't "go to be offended".
<joepie91>
this makes no sense.
<joepie91>
unless you are submitting yourself to a "roast me" video, you are not "looking to be offended", and phrasing that way is basically just a way to trivialize people's real concerns
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: did you just make a universal statement about people's thought process?
<eyJhb>
The people I know whe grew up under apartheid in SA, generally would understand why such words are used and not throw a hissi fit over it.
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: yes.
<eyJhb>
joepie91: Getting offended over a piece of text you find is absurd
<joepie91>
with the appropriate qualifiers.
<eyJhb>
Especially when not targeting you
<philipp[m]>
There are definitely people that self harm by looking at online content.
<joepie91>
eyJhb: why is it?
<eyJhb>
Why is what?
<joepie91>
eyJhb: because that is basically just a rephrasing of "words can't hurt"
<joepie91>
eyJhb: why is it absurd?
<bqv>
honestly the only justification i have for this situation is that the cultural tensions in america are very different to everywhere else. if you're telling me that that isn't the case, then i can't comprehend why anyone thinks this is a smart idea
<joepie91>
bqv: the cultural tensions are different, yes. just the underlying cause isn't
<eyJhb>
Words can hurt, but the ones not specifically targeted at you shouldn't matter that much
<joepie91>
or at least not meaningfully in this context
<joepie91>
eyJhb: by whose standards?
<joepie91>
"shouldn't matter that much" sounds like you feel qualified to tell people how they "should" experience the world and their interactions with it
<eyJhb>
Well I guess we have to take the side of the minority that gets offended, because you are not allowed to say no are you?
<joepie91>
eyJhb: that's an evasive answer
<eyJhb>
It sounds like a different take on the parents who raise their kids without saying no
<eyJhb>
"Yes you might feel offended about this, but you should not" could be a answer as well
<joepie91>
eyJhb: the question here is why you feel qualified to tell people how they should experience the world around them, as if that is something that one can just... switch over, in their head
<eyJhb>
Instead of catering to every... single.... thing...
<bqv>
i find that hypocritical
<bqv>
joepie91: you're effectively telling me that i should be offended by people using the word "slave" in my presence, regardless of context
<bqv>
what right do YOU have to tell me that
<joepie91>
eyJhb: again, noone is saying "catering to every single thing", that is 100% an invented situation
<joepie91>
eyJhb: but you still haven't answered my question
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: I think it _would_ do good to your point to remind that yeah, state legislatures that wrote _literally_ race-based laws in 20-th centures did not get forciibly disbanded with administration of corresponding places rebuilt from scratch.
<joepie91>
bqv: of course I'm not saying that you "should be offended". what I'm saying is that you should be respectful towards and empathic with people who are
<eyJhb>
joepie91: it is where we are headed
<joepie91>
eyJhb: says who?
<eyJhb>
You just said it yourself, multiple times? It is a slow thing that happens for yeears on end
qyliss has left #nixos-chat ["WeeChat 2.8"]
<joepie91>
eyJhb: no, I absolutely did not say that.
<eyJhb>
Getting bigger and bigger, having legaslation passed on how you should refer to people etc.
<bqv>
joepie91: the thing is, some of those people go one step further and would call me a "race traitor" for arguing on this side, so another problem i have is that this entire debate just ends up furthering cultural tensions
<eyJhb>
Implied yes
<joepie91>
at no point did I claim that we were headed towards a society where you have to cater to every single thing from everybody. those are 100% your words
<joepie91>
no, not implied either
<bqv>
i don't see how i'm not being respectful when i say i understand the general idea, but i don't agree with it. "being empathetic" does not equal catering to someone's every demands
<joepie91>
eyJhb: to be a bit blunter: you are seeing a slippery slope that isn't there, because you're feeling uncomfortable with being held accountable for language use and interactions with other people who previously did not need to be taken into account
<joepie91>
eyJhb: this is why I mentioned "privilege" earlier
<eyJhb>
joepie91: No I simple don't care, I will use the language I will and if you do not like it that is your problem, not mine
<cole-h>
:/
<eyJhb>
I take care with my lang in #nixos-*
<eyJhb>
But that is about it
<joepie91>
if you are not aware of your position in society, and what unspoken rights and benefits and advantages that grants you, then something like this can feel like the fabric of society is falling away from under you
<eyJhb>
ANd saying it is "privilege" is BS...
<joepie91>
eyJhb: you're basically just confirming what I'm saying...
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: I think some of the now impolite words (in various contexts) were polite replacements a century ago, but it did not work out.
<joepie91>
"I will use the language I will" is a choice that a lot of people don't have, and you have to understand that you having that choice is a form of privilege, even if it isn't your fault that you got into that position to begin with
<bqv>
linguists are cacking themselves at this point, i'm sure
<joepie91>
what is changing is that that privilege is starting to be torn down
<eyJhb>
Why would they not have that choice joepie91 ?
<MichaelRaskin>
But yes, there are things that have been fixed, so now the new replacement will still accumulate connotations, but less bad this time
<eyJhb>
I might be failing to see a example on this
<joepie91>
that doesn't mean that you suddenly have to account for everyone's every wish; but it does mean that you become accountable for your language use, and can no longer say what you want with social impunity
<eyJhb>
I am always accontable for my language
<srhb>
Then you should try not to reduce others' issues to hissy fits. ;-)
<eyJhb>
Free speech does not mean free of consequences
<srhb>
Indeed.
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: starting? I think there are some next steps being taken in reducing some of the kinds of injustices
<eyJhb>
And accpeting the consequence that someone might dislike me, for using words is OK
<eyJhb>
specific words*
<srhb>
That's a weird sort of fatalism in my eyes.
<MichaelRaskin>
Which will not fix everything but have a good chance to make some things better.
<joepie91>
eyJhb: because if someone is in a disadvantaged situation, using the wrong language can get them killed, for example. taking an extreme example here for illustrative purposes: if you're a black person being held up by police in the US, you have to be a hell of a lot more careful with your language than a white person, or you'll get shot
<joepie91>
there are many less extreme variants of this
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: word replacements don't work in isolation to fix a systemic issue, of course. but the point of the word replacements in this case isn't to fix a systemic issue, but rather to reduce unnecessary discomfort of minorities
<eyJhb>
joepie91: it seems like there would be a good solution for this
<joepie91>
it's precisely because these words do not have an obvious malicious association, that replacing them with different terminology can have a useful effect
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: I am not opposed to word changes as long as they are done by people with enough internal knowledge to actually do the real change smooth; byut I think your make claims that pull things a bit out of context
<joepie91>
because you don't have the group of racist asshats trying to appropriate the new term as a racist term
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: yet.
<gchristensen>
"ok"
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: I mean, this discussion started with the kernel wording change. what wasn't "smooth" about that?
<MichaelRaskin>
I mean, the problem is that the old ones were being smeared for decades
<joepie91>
the shitstorm only started when the usual contingent of freeze peach asshats started making an issue out of it
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: Actually the kernel change is done well
<bqv>
i think we all agreed that the kernel change was a good result
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: my point is that *most* of these sorts of changes - and there are many - are done well!
<bqv>
minus perhaps eyJhb
<joepie91>
bqv: yet here we are having a discussion about a slippery slope and imaginary technical problems
<eyJhb>
bqv correct :p
<MichaelRaskin>
Yep, including all those I have seen in Nix*
<eyJhb>
But I tend to be a angry old man regarding this
<eyJhb>
As I fail to see how master/slave will stop the idiocracy in the US
<bqv>
joepie91: imaginary in the context of this one change, not in the context of every other. i don't know about slippery slopes, but to say this is a trivial change in every situation is a bold claim
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: I mean, the treadmill effect is real, and I do not believe it is correct to deny it — but it _does not_ make such changes bad if done by people qualified to do them
<srhb>
eyJhb: It's not zero sum. There's so much wrong, it takes a lot of work, big and small.
<srhb>
eyJhb: And it's not like it's even remotely isolated to the US.
<eyJhb>
srhb: no no, but they are really good at it. And big and small things does work, but in these examples it need to be a lot bigger at some point
<joepie91>
bqv: and that's kind of the point I'm trying to make here - the amount of discussion around this change is absolutely out of proportion for the significance of the change, and it says a lot about who's controlling the narrative
<joepie91>
eyJhb: it doesn't, that was never the point
<joepie91>
bqv: there have been a handful of projects introducing these sorts of changes in a technically suboptimal manner. a *handful*, certainly not enough to warrant the deterministically-occurring shitstorm every single time a change like this gets posted to Reddit or HN
<joepie91>
bqv: it is fine to criticize those specific changes. what I have a problem with is when people extrapolate that to "naming changes in projects are idiotic"
<srhb>
eyJhb: Sure, but there's no reason to let that stop us from doing anything else.
<eyJhb>
But I guess we will see how this effects the general language in the years to come
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: isn't _anything_ posted on HN deterministically fated to start a shitstorm?
<eyJhb>
What I have gathered from personal experience is just more people getting offended by smaller things..
<srhb>
eyJhb: I think that's just plain wrong.
<bqv>
joepie91: the problem that i think you miss, and why i constantly point out that the situation in america is very different to elsewhere, is that this sort of thing done wrong, can have the complete opposite effect of what you want
<eyJhb>
srhb: It might be, but there is really no way of proving that
<eyJhb>
IT might just be a build up bubble of everything bad
<joepie91>
eyJhb: you keep going on about "getting offended". why is it such an issue to you that people get offended? getting offended is a completely normal human experience
<eyJhb>
That is now slowy getting fixed, because more people care and feel comfortable saying they do not like X
<joepie91>
bqv: I understand that perfectly well. what I'm saying is that it *isn't* being done wrong.
<srhb>
eyJhb: Possibly. I think it's a silly focus anyway. The focus should be on: Why is this "offensive" (I hate that reduction) to some people
<joepie91>
by and large.
<srhb>
eyJhb: That way, we can empathize and better ourselves.
<srhb>
The other position is largely just borne out of the perception of being inconvenienced by people having feelings and opinions in the world.
<eyJhb>
joepie91: because soo many get offended by such little. Eg. how you dress and feel comfortable might offend someone
<eyJhb>
Not saying to go nude
<joepie91>
bqv: one thing you have to understand is that the shitstorms started around this, are started by the same racist asshats who have a vested interest in trivializing concerns around language use (as a category)
<joepie91>
there is no way to make this change without having them pile on, because they are actively looking for shit to pile onto
<joepie91>
eyJhb: that doesn't answer my question. why is it such an issue to you?
<eyJhb>
But it is also a limit on how you yourself is allowed to express yourself
<eyJhb>
joepie91: I think it would actually be easier to draw this.
<bqv>
joepie91: i have a problem with anyone particularly offended by nonmalicious use of language, does that make me racist? i would hope not, that would be ironic. again, i know subtle racism well, i wouldn't call someone using terms like this in source code a form of it
<gchristensen>
there are lots of limits to how you can express yourself
<joepie91>
bqv: you, too, are still not answering the actual question being asked: *why* is it such an issue to you?
<eyJhb>
There is, but there are coming more and more. But yes, I understand these concerns and why some might want this
<joepie91>
it is clear that both you and eyJhb have an issue with it, but the "why" is remaining repeatedly unanswered so far
<bqv>
because it seems like a dramatic overreach that vastly misses what i would understand the point of the blm movement to be
<bqv>
which i have said before
<joepie91>
bqv: that is still an answer that I can respond to with "so what?"
<joepie91>
it is not obvious why this is a problem -- what specific cost do you see, to whom?
<bqv>
which i will respond to again with, this kind of thing done wrong can worsen the issue
<eyJhb>
joepie91: you can say "so what?" to everything we just discussed
<bqv>
i of course want to see the end of racism, overt and otherwise
<bqv>
i don't think this is the way to go about it
<bqv>
and what makes it worse is that people will use my saying that to turn my own race against me
<joepie91>
eyJhb: not once we arrive at a point of concrete costs being mentioned
<joepie91>
"X disadvantages Y by making them Z"
<joepie91>
bqv: okay, what is "done wrong", and how would it "worsen the issue"?
<eyJhb>
joepie91: I have stated why, not sure if you missed it, generally I do not want to cater to everything and everyone, and I don't think it should be like that
<eyJhb>
But that does not mean, that I will not use the appropiate language when asked
<joepie91>
eyJhb: so should I interpret that to mean: you have an issue with people being offended because it inconveniences you?
<bqv>
1. one sure way to make a group mobilize and grow, is to back them into a corner. 2. the only way to solve racism is to hit it hard, i'm sure you agree. 3. therefore we should hit it hard, but only where necessary, to reduce the amount of potential blowback and trump-esque situations 4. this situation is one of the least important if at all manifestations of covert racism 5. therefore this is
<bqv>
not a priority and is going to result in problems
<eyJhb>
joepie91: No, but I am not sure my anwser will change what you think regarding that
<Valodim>
hooo boy
<joepie91>
eyJhb: it's what I'm reading in the "I do not want to" part; if you can provide a different answer that describes it more accurately, I'd be happy to consider it (but yes, I *am* skeptical that it is about anything besides inconvenience)
<srhb>
If this is a worry about blowback from "potential allies" from being inconvenienced in some way, I just really question the real value of that sort of allyhood.
<joepie91>
bqv: how would you "hit it hard"?
<joepie91>
(and remember, the point of these terminology changes is not to get rid of racism, it's to stop making people feel uncomfortable unnecessarily)
<eyJhb>
Well, okay lets put it this way. Should art be under the "total PR should not offend anyone" paradim?
<MichaelRaskin>
gchristensen: let me check…
<joepie91>
eyJhb: also, to be clear, I am not saying that "inconvenience" is necessarily a bad reason - but it's impossible to address your concerns well unless it's clear what you are actually concerned about
<joepie91>
gchristensen: CSS disagrees
<srhb>
eyJhb: I don't think these kinds of hypotheticals work very well. Instead: Put yourselves in the shoes of some maintainer
<gchristensen>
lol
<srhb>
eyJhb: I now tell you: This terminology is problematic (to me personally, and to others like me generally, because ...)
<joepie91>
eyJhb: "should not offend anyone" was nver the premise
<srhb>
eyJhb: Now, you get to make a decision on whether to take action.
<joepie91>
never*
<MichaelRaskin>
gchristensen: this key is actually useful
<bqv>
in the same way blm is managing to globally at the moment, just not with demands that aren't exactly a high priority concern. if i were leading this, i would want people to understand each and every situation in which they might not realise they're imposing subtle prejudices that actually affect the balance of equality. i don't see what using the word "master" has to do with how i live my life
<bqv>
to how a white person lives theirs, for example, so i don't see that as a priority. some people may be offended by words, that's up to them, but by pointing this fight in that direction, they're just growing support for those who resist the movement, which dilutes it's efficacy as a whole
<srhb>
eyJhb: Doing nothing from a position of "no matter the input from anyone, or the history of group $foo, I will never change anything" is not something you would do, nor anyone else really.
<MichaelRaskin>
All three colours are quite a bit different in intensity (which is an important part), so that people with reduced colour dimension perception can check what is intended to do what
<eyJhb>
srhb: then I would take the appropate actions to ensure, that it does not make you feel unsafe/unformfortable
<gchristensen>
MichaelRaskin: :D
<srhb>
eyJhb: Hallelujah!
<eyJhb>
But it has always been like that
<srhb>
And yet in the hypotheticals the outcome is always the opposite.
<srhb>
For reasons unknown.
<eyJhb>
But it is more of, if I work alone can I then use these terms, if I make art can I then do this, if I am not around you can I then again use these terms
<MichaelRaskin>
gchristensen: and what I needed to check is to convert it to grayscale, because of course I cannot be sure I do not ascribe different intensity purely because of colour component
<eyJhb>
Also, I had a debate about something that I talked to worldofpeace about
<joepie91>
bqv: this sounds like a variation of "we shouldn't do anything that our opponents might be able to criticize", which is a super common argument against every form of activism, and is basically never valid when some form of oppression or bigotry is involved - because your opponents don't need you to do criticizeable things, they will invent them out of thin air if necessary
<joepie91>
bqv: more generally, activism doesn't work when you play by the rules of your opponent
<eyJhb>
If a person wants to be referred to a specific set of pronouns, is it then OK to not use them when the person is not there?
<eyJhb>
Because there seems to be split opinions about thta
<joepie91>
by playing on their turf, you let them control the narrative, you let them control your movement, and what you are and are not permitted to say and argue for, by making certain things look trivial
<srhb>
eyJhb: You get to be the judge of whether you would do or say something to/about some person behind their back that would hurt them if to their face, or retold to them.
<joepie91>
so IMO, "what will opponents make of this" should be a total non-consideration in activists contexts
<bqv>
joepie91: it's not about playing by the rules, it's about tactics. by demanding ridiculous things, you make the activism look ridiculous, which is basically what the whole BLM thing has become in this country at this point, and it's sad to see
<eyJhb>
srhb: that is also what it ended with
<joepie91>
activist*
<srhb>
I mean, what alternative is there
<joepie91>
bqv: but again: your opponents don't need you to do "ridiculous" things to make you look ridiculous
<eyJhb>
srhb: dice rell
<eyJhb>
roll*
<joepie91>
it literally does not matter what you focus on, your opponents will find a way to do so anyway
<joepie91>
because they are the ones in power
<joepie91>
they are the ones who control the narrative
<bqv>
think back to extinction rebellion. imagine their demands weren't accurate but wildly unrealistic, and instead slightly more reasonable. we might have actually had something come out of it!
<joepie91>
one of the best defenses against that is actually to suddenly be very universally present in every facet of life
<bqv>
right now, nothing came of it and people treat them like silly toddlers
<bqv>
this is how not to do activism
<joepie91>
even in cases that seem trivial, making it clear that you don't tolerate being trivialized away
<bqv>
that's exactly what's going to happen with BLM, at least here
<srhb>
eyJhb: That seems unlikely to support any realistic end goal. :)
<joepie91>
bqv: it's easy to look at ER and say "well clearly being unreasonable doesn't work". but you're overlooking the 5+ decades of "reasonable" climate activism that predates it, which *also* didn't really get anywhere
<joepie91>
bqv: having a strong stance is the wrong thing to attribute the (relative) failure of a movement to
<eyJhb>
But all this, and this discussion is not that I do not want to treat people with the respect they want. But there are cases where I might want to use a specific word, and then some might be offended. And that is a case-on-case basis
<joepie91>
it is just incredibly difficult to make lasting, serious changes, whatever your approach
<srhb>
eyJhb: If I want to make sure I don't hurt anyone, I'd certainly strategize to abide by their wishes whenever it's not harmful to me or anyone else.
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: I think recycling did pick up quite a bit
<eyJhb>
The best examples on this, is swear words
<srhb>
eyJhb: Yes, of course.
<srhb>
I mean, everything is on a case-to-case basis in human interaction
<srhb>
You weigh the costs, the risks, your priorities and those of others'
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: a giant chunk of "recycling" actually just gets dumped in poor countries to be burnt
<srhb>
It' not like there's a manual, but it's also not like there's no good way to go about this.
<joepie91>
(especially plastics)
<gchristensen>
and you try your best and say sorry when you mess up
<srhb>
It may be hard to optimize for happiness (or even non-suffering) but it seems a worthy cause.
<eyJhb>
srhb: Yes, but most of this does not feel like a case-to-case basis, but more of a "lets replace everthing with this word instead"
<srhb>
Yeah, of course. Mistakes happen.
<bqv>
joepie91: what i'm not saying is that ER shouldn't have been as forceful with their protests as they were - that was good. what i am saying, is that demanding that the UK government go carbon neutral in 3 or whatever years (when that's agreed upon to be essentially technically impossible) was idiocy. if they'd gone for a longer period, it would have been fine, but because they were asking for
<bqv>
something quite impossible, it made the government look like the adults in the room for not listening
<eyJhb>
Which might be the wrong way to look at it
<srhb>
eyJhb: That may be pretty sensible as a "in most cases, don't use this word for that"
<joepie91>
bqv: I'm not convinced that the period would've mattered at all. the government can basically just make up "realistic" numbers
<joepie91>
if you say 3 years, then "realistic" is 10
<joepie91>
if you say 10 years, then "realistic" is 20
<joepie91>
etc.
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: which is close enough to the original status quo, but some recycling did get working
<eyJhb>
I just like my swear words damn it.
<joepie91>
again: you cannot rely on the cooperation of your opponent
<gchristensen>
and from ER's perspective, the earth doesn't care what your government considers realistic
<joepie91>
if you are designing your movement around cooperation of your opponent, in any way, shape or form, it will fail to meet its targets
<srhb>
eyJhb: I'm not saying don't swear, and you know it :-P
<joepie91>
if you design it not around cooperation of your opponent, it will probably still fail, but it's a little less likely if you can drum up the support
<bqv>
you genuinely think one of the major economies in the world, which was at the time dependent on coal power, could have gone from that to carbon neutral in 3 years? because that's lunacy. we'd have had to phase out cars entirely within the month for that to even have a hope of working, let alone all the other contributors
<joepie91>
bqv: indeed.
<eyJhb>
srhb: anyways, makes sense, but the way it has been put now is as close as it comes to it. Still don't like having to change things like this, as it feels of trying to forget the past or putting meaning into words that was never their. But that is personal opinion
<joepie91>
which is the point.
<gchristensen>
_it doesn't matter what I think_
<bqv>
gchristensen: which is fine, that's why i say it has to be tactical. you go too far, you're going to be ignored
<gchristensen>
I think we should be asking for carbon neutral in 1 year
<eyJhb>
srhb: If you said don't swear to me, then we would have to revoke your danish citizenship, sadly... :p
<joepie91>
bqv: those backing you will not ignore you because you are making strong demands. they will ignore you when you start compromising and losing sight of the original goal
<bqv>
ER never had any hope of cars being phased out in any country they protested in
<joepie91>
the point is to organize well enough that those backing you are a large-enough group that you are not subject to your opponent's decision on whether to take you seriously
<bqv>
do you disagree with that?
<gchristensen>
it doesn't matter what I agree with
<joepie91>
bqv: yes, I disagree with that.
<gchristensen>
it isn't my movement
<joepie91>
activism is a high-stakes, low-win game
<gchristensen>
also, covid had a certain way of getting people to move
<joepie91>
you will almost always fail, but when you don't, you can get things done that people called impossible a month earlier
<srhb>
eyJhb: We live in a world of people that are sadly unable to telepathically transfer their meaning, or to convey meaning through soundwaves without the cultural heritage they carry. It's hard work, but it's what we've got :)
<srhb>
Fortunately we're pretty resourceful too!
<joepie91>
it would've absolutely been possible to get cars phased out. difficult, but possible.
<gchristensen>
srhb: esp. when we're all about to die
<joepie91>
and the broader your base, the broader your presence in society, the more likely you are to succeed
<srhb>
gchristensen: Well, hopefully. Yet to be seen, really. >_>
<eyJhb>
srhb: see, you have a problem and a solution for it as well.. Telepathy
<gchristensen>
srhb: has to be sudden and imminent! we won't be resourceful on climate change until we are *really* about to die
<eyJhb>
Are we hopefully about to die?
<joepie91>
which circles back to why I think that the fight against racism needs to be fought on many fronts, not just the obvious and big wins - because the small things, the continued presence of people going "hey, uh, maybe let's not" all the time, is going to be a big factor in making your movement palatable to the general public, by making it something that is constantly around them, normalizing its presence
<joepie91>
(which may sound counterintuitive, but yes, being persistently annoying is actually a pretty effective way to become normalized)
<gchristensen>
joepie91: truth
<srhb>
gchristensen: I'm afraid you're right. :|
<gchristensen>
srhb: see: "climate change" vs. "covid" response
<srhb>
If only the richer nations were stuck in the regions that get hit first and worst >>
<gchristensen>
yup
<srhb>
gchristensen: Ouch, yes... We got off really lucky wrt. covid. At least the first wave.
<srhb>
And so far climate change is just "sucky rainy summers or draughts that we can deal with" -- so no incentive big enough yet, I guess.
<srhb>
(locally, I mean.)
<eyJhb>
So USA have gone from 45k cases to 55k to 60k to 71k
<MichaelRaskin>
I think with CoViD-19 the compliance resource here in Germany is getting pretty significantly drained by now
<srhb>
Fortunately we're way way way low, so I guess the hope is to... Recharge public compliance capacity?
<eyJhb>
But it is insane. You lived in Canada?
<srhb>
If that doesn't go well, I guess we'll see.
<srhb>
Officials have softened their stance on masks, probably for the same reason.
<gchristensen>
okay, sure, +/- a few thousand is margin of error here
<MichaelRaskin>
srhb: I think to _recharge_ you need to remove quite a bit more restrictions on leisure activities
<eyJhb>
srhb: Have there ever been a stance on masks?
<eyJhb>
Offically?
<srhb>
MichaelRaskin: Which has happened here, to a substantial degree.
<srhb>
eyJhb: Yes. Don't use them, people aren't capable of using them correctly, has been the official stance.
<joepie91>
bqv: (aside, I do actually have some results to back this up -- my activism is largely centered around technolgy, but I've been an absolute ongoing pain in the ass around MongoDB for example, with measurable consequences for its reputation)
<eyJhb>
Yeah, that is also what I gathered
<joepie91>
srhb: oh that bullshit
<srhb>
eyJhb: But that's changing now.
<srhb>
joepie91: Likely, yes.
<joepie91>
they're still running that line here
<eyJhb>
To basically, it might be useful in some cases
<srhb>
I think they're warming up for wave 2, all in on masks
<srhb>
Because they don't believe we have, as MichaelRaskin says, enough "compliance resource" left to do a full lockdown again
<eyJhb>
I need to get my rice, then I am ready to quarantine again
<joepie91>
confusing the heck out of people, because people are simultaneously told "don't use masks, they don't work and can make it worse" but also told "wearing a mask in public transport is mandatory", like, ????
<srhb>
joepie91: Yeah, it's mandatory in our airports, and that's about it I think
<srhb>
So still confusing, but not as much
<srhb>
It will be once they mandate it in public transports this autumn :P
<bqv>
joepie91: sorry, i got slightly distracted. i mean i do disagree strongly, but at this point at least our difference of opinion is obvious, so i'll leave it there
<joepie91>
10/10 messaging consistency there
<bqv>
?
<MichaelRaskin>
srhb: here pre-restriction (one could go to work if it is not client-facing etc.) the stance was «dunno», and when lifting most restrictions the stance was «mandatory in shops and in public transport now», and technically speaking stops were always included and compliance was low, and now compliance inside busses is high but slipping
<joepie91>
bqv: yeah, I'm happy we got to a concrete point of disagreement at least :P
<bqv>
oh, not aimed at me, ok
<srhb>
MichaelRaskin: Ah, okay, I wasn't aware that we had that different policies.
<joepie91>
bqv: oh I'm probably lagging again. the messaging consistency complaint was at the NL govt
<eyJhb>
Anyone know the correct name for the syscall `statx`, seems like it might be called something else... - `[W][2020-07-11T17:51:50+0200][23035] bool sandbox::preparePolicy(nsjconf_t*)():122 Could not compile policy: 3:1039: Undefined syscall `statx'`
<srhb>
eyJhb: Are you thinking of __xstat?
<srhb>
The overrideable stat counterparts in libc.
<MichaelRaskin>
I think with WHO doing a turn-around…
<MichaelRaskin>
I think right before the mandatory wearing, mask percentage in shops was rising to around 25%…
<joepie91>
masks are still super rare here unfortunately
<MichaelRaskin>
(I was wearing _some_ kind of handmade cover then, and slightly updated to formally follow the new advice one wearing a mask became mandatory — I am not sure it made things better, but whatever)
<eyJhb>
Not sure, it is for a seccomp profile for Firefox. Got the current syscalls from strace... :p
<eyJhb>
Guess I have to use a blacklist instead
<MichaelRaskin>
As far as I understand masks work just by catching «ballistic» droplets, and, with luck, catching _some_ of aerosol by increasing the turbulence of the flow. It's true that very rarely I see a person wearing a plausibly airtight mask
<cole-h>
eyJhb: What version is your libseccomp? They added statx like 2 years ago (according to my Google-fu)
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: crucially, the rectangular masks protect others from you, not the other way around
<eyJhb>
cole-h: as new as nixpkgs unstable I would assume, 2.4.3
<cole-h>
Weird.
<joepie91>
so indeed they are not airtight, but that is also not required, as the point is indeed to break up the flow
<eyJhb>
cole-h: I really wish FF had a list of all the syscalls they make
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: yep, that's also my understanding — ballistic droplets + turbulence-reducing-aerosol-exit
<eyJhb>
MichaelRaskin: I cannot for the life of me remember you repo. What profile do you use for FF?
<MichaelRaskin>
I do not, actually
<MichaelRaskin>
It is just in an nsjail
<MichaelRaskin>
so it can see a limited et of things
<eyJhb>
Damn.
<__monty__>
Still up in scroll. Re, the "pointless discussions" that arise whenever these terminology changes come up. IMO, the discussions are a lot more valuable than you're giving them credit for. The people actively participating in the discussions don't usually change their position in any meaningful way but it's exposing a ton of people to a topic they wouldn't otherwise consider.
<joepie91>
__monty__: unfortunately that exposure is mainly on the terms of the racist asshats with their "snowflakes", "everyone being offended", "SJWs" etc. nonsense
<joepie91>
since they typically control the conversation
<eyJhb>
joepie91: feel like you are calling me racist
<eyJhb>
Asshat I can however allow
<joepie91>
eyJhb: no, I am referring to the people who intentionally start these shitstorms
<eyJhb>
THat still seems like me
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: given that two sides talk past each other anyway, I think you can control one half of the conversation…
<joepie91>
unless you were the one monitoring the kernel commit list, and decided to start posting it to Reddit etc., I doubt that :P
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: it's a lot more complex than that
<joepie91>
it's not just "two sides talking past each other"
<joepie91>
it's mainly a small contingent of racist asshats (alt-right etc.) trying to intentionally start fires around this and spin a slippery slope narrative around it, a small contingent of people actively arguing for the changes defensively, and a large group of people looking on from the sidelines and getting loosely involved in the discussion and often not recognizing the bad-faith tactics on the side of the racist asshats
<__monty__>
MichaelRaskin: You seemed to be talking about color blindness, re gchristensen's key? The the red-green duality make it hard for the most common form?
<joepie91>
"talking past each other" is very often a manufactured situation by alt-right people to play on onlookers' emotional responses without having to ever actually defend or support any point (and I don't mean that as some conspiracy theory, I mean that that is a widely-applied and *documented* recruiting tactic)
<joepie91>
not always, but very often
<MichaelRaskin>
__monty__: I am not sure, it sounds like red-green is one of the frequent ones
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: if talking past each other is what is going to happen anyway (and there is no need for conspiracy if the effect is perfectly achievable by a single person!), you might just work under the assumption of talking past each other anyway…
<MichaelRaskin>
I can tell you that in this specific case I agree with the conclusion (this specific change is handled well) more than with your arguments for it.
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: I didn't say that it's "what is going to happen anyway"
<joepie91>
I just said that it's a manufactured situation in most cases around this topic
<joepie91>
manufactured situations are preventable when you know how they work and what to expect
<MichaelRaskin>
Well, you presumably do not control the other side, and you yourself say that the most active people on the other side will not actually engage with your arguments
<joepie91>
yes, and the answer to that is to stop treating it like a debate, which it isn't
<joepie91>
(to be clear: this does not apply to the discussion we've had in here, I do not believe that anyone here was arguing in bad faith)
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: I am not sure how this is different from accepting you are talking past each other and doing a bystander play
<joepie91>
because you're not "talking past each other", one party is talking past the other, it's not bidirectional
<joepie91>
and that is precisely the situation you want to avoid
<MichaelRaskin>
If you they are not listening, you cannot avoid talking past them because they are just not where you are talking at
<joepie91>
I feel like we're disagreeing on what "talking past someone" means
<joepie91>
I'm interpreting it to mean "not addressing one's actual point, and misinterpreting it to mean something else, intentional or accidental"
<joepie91>
the problematic scenario I am talking about is where one side intentionally ignores the other side's point, but the other side tries to legitimately address the one side's points
<MichaelRaskin>
I am pretty sure that in the process you accidentally miss the point other side makes, and then I am not even sure do you need any intentionality on the other side to miss your points, or just not buying a large portion of what you claim to be facts
<cole-h>
gchristensen++ Nice
<{^_^}>
gchristensen's karma got increased to 327
<__monty__>
joepie91: I feel different. That kind of situation is *exactly* when things are clear-cut for anyone actually reading the discussion.
<__monty__>
It's way harder to take a decision when *both* sides are reasonable.
<__monty__>
It's rarely hard to detect when one side is disingenuous.
drakonis has joined #nixos-chat
<julm>
gchristensen: https://twitter.com/Angus_Duncan/status/1281241353003962373 <- funny :) and, when transporting enough passengers, likely better for the environment than individual cars, self-driving or not. On this topic, as of 2020, 70% of greenhouse gas of Paris' public transports (the RATP, one of the largest bus fleet of Europe) are still emitted by their bus, not their subways. In France 39% of
<julm>
greehouse gaz come from transports. France's National Low-Carbon Strategy is to electrify transports massively to power them using nuclear reactors (which are "low-carbon").
<__monty__>
You put that in quotes as if it's equally bad?
drakonis has quit [Quit: WeeChat 2.8]
fpletz has quit [Quit: ^D]
waleee-cl has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
polezaivsani has joined #nixos-chat
slack1256 has joined #nixos-chat
<julm>
__monty__: sorry, that was not my intent, it was just to underline that it's the generally accepted term, not a judgement of mine. On a lifecycle basis, the IPCC retains for the world the median value of 12g of CO2-equivalent per kWh, and it's only 6 gCO2/kWh(e) in France. Comparing medians, nuclear technologies arrive in second at the top of the low-carbon technologies. Source :
<__monty__>
julm: No problem. It's just that I've seen a lot of opposition to nuclear energy based on FUD.
lopsided98 has joined #nixos-chat
<joepie91>
__monty__: the problem is that that assumes a highly analytical approach to the discussion, which isn't what most people do by default. if you're looking at the discussion in a highly analytical manner, you are simply not the target audience for that strategy
<__monty__>
joepie91: I know, but I don't think there *is* a good way to convince the people who don't approach it that way.
<joepie91>
__monty__: there is. by refusing to play the game on the terms of the malicious party :)
<joepie91>
create your own narrative
<MichaelRaskin>
Even better if not tied to facts, either?
<joepie91>
dismiss people just trying to throw a wrench into it
<joepie91>
for dealing with those people, yeah
<__monty__>
But then you estrange the people who actually pay attention.
<joepie91>
once they have been removed from the equation, you ideally should be coming up with a well-reasoned narrative, of course :P
<__monty__>
And aren't those usually the ones that actually help make a difference?
<joepie91>
__monty__: it feels like that, but you don't
<bqv>
you do. that was the point i was making
<joepie91>
what's important is that you don't just dismiss the other party and fall silent
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: so, basically, there is no difference between you and them
<MichaelRaskin>
Because neither side has any anchoring in reality?
<MichaelRaskin>
I probably don't buy this either, but…
<joepie91>
rather, you stop the malicious party from controlling the direction of the conversation, and then start a constructive discussion, with people who do act in good faith
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: the difference is that they are acting maliciously and you are not
<joepie91>
it is a form of conversational self-defense
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: you do understand that they make the same claim?
<joepie91>
there's no point taking some moral high ground if that means you're handing the platform to a bad actor
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: some do, yes.
<joepie91>
I don't see how that changes anything.
<MichaelRaskin>
And that they sometimes even have a long and internally consistent and not _easily_ shown contrary to facts narrative for their side, too?
<joepie91>
very, very rarely.
<joepie91>
in the bulk of cases, there is absolutely no serious attempt to even make a coherent and logical point from the other side
<MichaelRaskin>
I mean, detailed self-consistent narratives are rare on all sides because it is a ton of effort and once there is one there is even less pressure to build more
<joepie91>
they're not rare in constructive discussions
<joepie91>
but constructive discussions - about political subjects - are themselves rare
<joepie91>
because of bad actors liking to throw a wrench into them :)
<joepie91>
with a bit of practice it becomes easy to identify those in the discussion who are genuinely trying to understand or make a point, and distinguish them from the bad actors who are just trying to fan the flames
<joepie91>
once you exclude the bad actors by refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of their participation in the conversation, that leaves space for a constructive discussion with those who you have identified as being constructive
<MichaelRaskin>
Well, you just said that one should build a narrative and preferably not tying oneself too much to any specific facts being true
<joepie91>
not exactly
<eyJhb>
MichaelRaskin: I think I have my nsjail module working now!
<joepie91>
the point is that you (or some other well-intentioned actor, regardless of actual views) should be the one who decides what the topic of the discussion is
<MichaelRaskin>
eyJhb: cool
<joepie91>
you should be the one leading it
<eyJhb>
Ugly as hell, and need cleanup. But video, x11, sound, policy etc. works
<eyJhb>
Also, custom chroot in /nix/store for each, and mktemp for each home and tmp if you want
<joepie91>
this means that if someone comes in trying to fuck it up with appeals to emotion, you do not owe them any facts or rationales whatsoever
<joepie91>
and they can be dismissed with the same certainty that they came in with
<joepie91>
once that is sorted, you can have a normal constructive, reasoned discussion with well-intentioned participants
<joepie91>
that is where the facts come in
<MichaelRaskin>
Erm. I cannot stop interpreting this, that in the context of the Reddit thread linked it means «do not bring any facts until you run out of trolls that should be dismissed»
<joepie91>
(and yes, this is largely a game of charisma to start with)
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: pretty much.
<MichaelRaskin>
Also note that unlike, dunno, «8 can't wait», you are running on appeals to emotion.
<joepie91>
trolls do not care for facts; if you give trolls facts, all you're doing is playing your cards away before you have a chance to make a point, because they will respond with some bullshit and noone will take the point seriously anymore
<joepie91>
so, don't give trolls facts
<joepie91>
don't feed the trolls
<joepie91>
instead, make it clear that they are not welcome in your conversation, that their presence is not considered legitimate
<MichaelRaskin>
So let the conversation look symmetrical, basically
<joepie91>
talk over them, as if they aren't there, responding directly only to the well-intentioned people
<joepie91>
use their own tactics against them
<joepie91>
not exactly. rather, look like the more certain person
<joepie91>
hence why I said it's a game of charisma
<joepie91>
if you look decisive and informed in branding someone a troll and dismissing their presence in the conversation, then a significant chunk of people are just going to assume that it is correct
<bqv>
this i find fundamentally upsetting
<MichaelRaskin>
Yep. just as a similar chunk will agree with the troll saying that the troll is you
<MichaelRaskin>
I mean, they will have approximately the same amount of evidence
<joepie91>
and that is how you take back control over the conversation
<joepie91>
bqv: yes, so do I. but I also recognize that moral-high-ground approaches do not work with people whose tactics are specifically meant to exploit those
<bqv>
the reason being, what you've done with that technique is remove the weight from accuracy and truth, and put more weight on emotion and charisma. that's effectively a triple edged sword, and not everyone is trained in swordsmanship
<MichaelRaskin>
I would even say, what you do is make it easy to trolls on both sides to prevent any discussion from ever happenning
<joepie91>
bqv: and I completely agree that there should be a heavy focus on accuracy and truth. BUT, and this is the important part, that is an unachievable narrative as long as there are bad-faith actors in the game
<joepie91>
focusing on accuracy and truth will only help after eliminating the participants trying to exploit it
<MichaelRaskin>
Given my assumption that there are always bad-faith actor in a large enough game, this means I should not perceive anything you say as true
<MichaelRaskin>
(on heated topics, obviously)
<bqv>
the problem i have there, is that while i think you're working on the axiom that someone can act objectively in bad faith, i don't think that's always the case
<joepie91>
this is down to community gardening
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: that assumption is false
<joepie91>
the most powerful actors in community gardening are those who can actually eject people from a community, but 'normal' members of the community certainly have influence as well
<joepie91>
if you shape a community to make bad-faith arguing an unacceptable, disavow-on-sight thing, then the people doing so will start to disappear
<bqv>
that's kind of what i meant by "not everyone is trained". i've seen many situations where various things are called of an opponent, that are true from one perspective but not from another
<bqv>
i'm not trying to act as though i'm objective in that i see all sides, just that i see more than one, so it appears to me that it can't be objective
<joepie91>
bqv: I mean, I'm very much having this discussion from the perspective of "you are someone who knows of the shitty tactics and how to spot them". this is also why I linked the Alt-Right Playbook series earlier, which goes into detail on a lot of this
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: the problem is that you create enough of a symmetry that you have some chance of creating a place where people just do not disagree, and a much lower chance to create a place where people disagree in a way that you recognise as good faith
<joepie91>
generally the question isn't "are these bad-faith tactics", because that's clear as day; rather the question is "is this person using them explicitly and intentionally, or parroting someone else"
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: what I am describing does not create echo chambers
<joepie91>
not removing bad-faith actors from the community is far more likely to do so
<bqv>
i understand, but what i'm hitting at is that this isn't something exclusive to the right or left, because from my standpoint, it's very much both that do that
<joepie91>
bqv: the alt-right has specifically and intentionally weaponized this
<joepie91>
that is the difference from your garden-variety fallacious reasoning
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: you want to say that noone on the left tried?
<MichaelRaskin>
(I mean intentionally)
<joepie91>
oh, I'm sure that people have tried. but it certainly didn't pick up
<MichaelRaskin>
I think in some cases it looks like it did
<joepie91>
this mode of bad-faith 'discussion' also fits far better in authoritarian ideology than it does in progressive ideology
<bqv>
authoritatianism is on a different axis to progressiveness, no?
<bqv>
those are not opposites, by any of my understandings
<joepie91>
bqv: in the common interpretation of "progressiveness" they are pretty closely aligned axes
<bqv>
i have to disagree with that
<joepie91>
you occasionally get authoritarian progressives, but a strong focus on hierarchy just doesn't gel very nicely with the goal of general equality
<joepie91>
so their ideologies tend to kinda fall on their face pretty quickly
<bqv>
you're speaking of intersectionality
<bqv>
(?)
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: I do not see how this mode requires hierarchy and not served well enough by mere loyality-to-group
<lovesegfault>
gchristensen: did you get the aeron?
<joepie91>
bqv: not specifically, no
<joepie91>
bqv: rather I'm arguing that authoritarian ideology is based on the assumption of a social hierarchy of some variety, whereas progressiveness - in the common interpretation - is based on the assumption of equality of some variety
<joepie91>
their foundational mental models are opposites
<MichaelRaskin>
Equality and demands of group loyality are orthogonal issues, though
<bqv>
i think we have different definitions of authoritarianism (yours seems closer to a generalised term of the patriarchy)
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: authoritarianism, to function, requires at a minimum the assumption that one group of people is inherently more deserving of a position of power than another
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: you just described a tactics that from outside looks exactly like that.
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: I am aware
<joepie91>
I did say "use their tactics against them" for a reason :)
<bqv>
egh, i'm going to have to wander off to the shops
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: the problem is that this basically
<joepie91>
I fully recognize that this is an authoritarian tactic
<bqv>
so then how can it be that progressiveness is the opposite of authoritarianism?
<MichaelRaskin>
keeps the conversation on their home ground quite effectively
<bqv>
if you can use authoritarian tactics to push progressive ideals?
<bqv>
but yes i do have to go, back in 10
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: it doesn't. because their "home ground" is exploiting a desire for a moral victory on the other side, not counting on their own authoritarian tactics being used against them
<joepie91>
bqv: I'm not arguing to use this tactic to push progressive ideals; I'm arguing to use it to eliminate bad-faith discussion participants
<MichaelRaskin>
joepie91: where do you get confidence trolls who are bad at projecting confidence
<joepie91>
which is a dependency for being able to talk about progressive ideals on a more reasoned basis without interference
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: I don't understand the question
<MichaelRaskin>
Well, for you to have an edge at this shouting match, as you do not try to project good faith in any way inaccessible to trolls, you need to be better at shouting matches than shouting-match-trolls
<joepie91>
well, not so much "shouting matches", but you need to be better at charisma, yes
<joepie91>
I've found the most effective approach to be the "your nonsense is beneath me, piss off" stance
<MichaelRaskin>
How boring the trolls there are!
<joepie91>
so "you are dumb and don't know what you're talking about, go away" is an appeal to emotion that seems pretty effective
<joepie91>
because the typical arguments from bad-faith arguers in these sorts of topics, sound blunt and unnuanced
<MichaelRaskin>
Not that yours here were avoiding these characteristics
<joepie91>
if said trolls change their arguing strategies and talking points this could change, of course
<joepie91>
it's always going to be a bit of a cat-and-mouse game
<MichaelRaskin>
I mean «Sure, I see you have no reply to obvious truth» should be table stakes for any troll!
<joepie91>
that is not what I mean :)
<MichaelRaskin>
I really expected that the alt-right trolls had as the starting position «these leftists are denying trivial facts»
<joepie91>
that is trying to criticize their participation in the discussion, which isn't very effective
<joepie91>
I'm really talking about not addressing their behaviour in the discussion at all, but making it clear by inference that you consider them too far beneath you to even grace them with a substantial response
<joepie91>
a lot of people can spot a troll just fine, and so criticizing their behaviour doesn't do anything to convince anyone (they already know it's a troll), it just gives the troll more ammo to make appeals to emotion
<joepie91>
instead, what you want to communicate is "I have no time for trolls, bye"
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: oh, some do. but the thing is that you don't actually have any obligation to respond to them
<joepie91>
you don't even need to disagree with them
<MichaelRaskin>
I do think that you give them more ammo but making the factual claims that even I find hard to buy
<joepie91>
you can literally just quote their two-paragraph rambling post about leftist bias and reply with "Sure. I have no time for trolls, piss off." and immediately follow up with an extensive response to some random good-faith comment
<joepie91>
draw the focus to the constructive conversation, basically
Ashy has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<joepie91>
that's actually also a nice safety measure - if you can't find a good-faith comnment to address, chances are you're too easily considering something bad-faith :P
<MichaelRaskin>
That's definitely true
<MichaelRaskin>
About you, I had a feeling that you play a bit too freely with factual claims even in the good-faith responses
<joepie91>
(and there's a whole lot of complexity and a whole separate skill in "reliably spotting bad-faith actors" too, of course, that I haven't addressed here at all really)
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: do tell :)
<MichaelRaskin>
I think it would be both more honest and more convincing to say that surely despite the similarities the shape of the impact is very different across the countries, so a pretty large group of diverse people of African descent, and even of African-Americans can easily fail to be representative.
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: not sure I understand what comment that is referring to
waleee-cl has joined #nixos-chat
<MichaelRaskin>
You said that the basic issues are the same everywhere and downplayed the gap between cultures etc.
<joepie91>
I'm not saying that there are no differences between cultures/countries in terms of impact
<joepie91>
rather I was arguing that the issue is not wholly unique to the US, and that in eg. Europe it is often perceived as not-an-issue-at-all while that isn't really accurate, it's just not talked about
<joepie91>
(though that is slowly changing)
slack1256 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<joepie91>
and I'm arguing that specifically because of the increasingly widespread narrative that "it's just the US where people are going apeshit over supposed racism"
<MichaelRaskin>
Well, for master/slave terminology making people uncomfortable I think it is good to remind people that erm, in some places the state legislature is in direct continuity from the ones passing the explicitly race-based laws in living memory.
<joepie91>
I am aware
<MichaelRaskin>
I am sure you are aware about the fact, but you seem to prefer to argue in the opposit direction
<joepie91>
no?
<MichaelRaskin>
Erm, you talk about universality of the problems even when the difference in impact _is_ necessary to consider to understand why this is even worth paying attention to?
<joepie91>
the arguments I make are relative to what is being argued and/or believed; that argument was specifically in response to the belief that this is "just another US-specific thing"
<joepie91>
it is more prevalent in the US, sure, but it is not US-specific
<joepie91>
and especially when "it's US-specific" is being used as an implicit way to argue "the rest of the world shouldn't need to care about this", I take issue with that
<MichaelRaskin>
Yes, and an argument «a project that is actually global should remember that these specific words carry a ton of bad weight in a large region» seems to be a pretty strong one?
<joepie91>
MichaelRaskin: I wasn't making the argument in defense of the changes in the Linux kernel, that one stands on its own. I was making it in defense of future considerations that *aren't* the Linux kernel, to try and keep people aware that yes, we do in fact have racism over in Europe, also against black people, and they should not be forgotten either
<joepie91>
because all too often they are
<joepie91>
people aren't computer programs; the information they receive isn't scoped to a specific incident
<joepie91>
and if you agree that this is a US-specific issue, even when just scoping it to the current case, you run the real risk that "this is a US-specific issue" is the memory that people retain
<joepie91>
hence why I want to point out that this is not, in fact, US-specific - even if at the same time I can agree that it is (at least currently) more impactful in the US
<MichaelRaskin>
And never scope this claim, so then it looks like a complete nonsequitur in context
<joepie91>
?
<bqv>
the issue i have there is that it seems easy to see that global cultural politics are vastly different in all different countries, and this movement having originated from the US, is trying to solve the problem in ways that are tailored for the situation in the US
<bqv>
- these are not the situations in every other country
<bqv>
while racism exists in all countries, it's not in the identical form to the US, and you run risks when you treat it so
rajivr has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<bqv>
...was it something i said?
<joepie91>
bqv: I got distracted by something else, but quickly before I go to bed: I agree you can't treat it as identical, but the current anti-racism movement (which isn't *just* BLM) isn't just limited to the situation in the US
parsley936 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
parsley936 has joined #nixos-chat
<eyJhb>
bqv did you ever go to bed?
<eyJhb>
What black magic does Firefox communicate using?
<MichaelRaskin>
Communicate with what?
<eyJhb>
MichaelRaskin: it seems that when I start multiple instances using nsjail, it will reuse the jail. But I am guessing this is its inteded behaviour?
<MichaelRaskin>
You forget --new-instance
<MichaelRaskin>
They seem to communicate each other via X properties
<eyJhb>
--new-instance for nsjail or FF?
<MichaelRaskin>
FF
<eyJhb>
But that is SUPER annoying that they can do that just by using X
<MichaelRaskin>
I did not check whether they succed to do the same with Wayland… (I would not be surprised if yes)
<MichaelRaskin>
I guess you could have better isolation with VNC or something like that
<eyJhb>
Works now MichaelRaskin , thanks :) - Yeah, I was just looking at it. But that would be weird with YT and adds much overhead
<eyJhb>
But yeah..
<eyJhb>
xpra maybe?
<MichaelRaskin>
Yeah, maybe
<MichaelRaskin>
I might imitate what you come up with if you end up with a good setup
__monty__ has quit [Quit: leaving]
<eyJhb>
MichaelRaskin: keyboard input is kind of slow using xpra...
<eyJhb>
But seems cool
<eyJhb>
adisbladis: have you used xpra?
slack1256 has joined #nixos-chat
polezaivsani has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
Ashy has joined #nixos-chat
parsley936 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]