• 0 Posts
  • 1.25K Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 1st, 2023

help-circle

  • They’ve also ran a few state-level scams and Ponzi schemes to have the funds for that military and other spending.

    Their business model was - step 1, cheat to have money, step 2, use money to rearm, step 3, conquer and loot, thus get funds that way, step 4 probably would be to force some peace, then rearm, then rinse and repeat, but they didn’t manage to capture a few strategic areas they needed in time. So they had fuel shortages, food shortages, and ultimately lost.



  • rottingleaf@lemmy.ziptoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldCasual reminder
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    What do you expect, people think Hitler was good for most Germans and restored economy and made trains run on time, and the defeat part oh well. Because that’s what movies show. And that’s because for commies Hitler was just a variation of the west, probably less capricious, while for the west Hitler was bad, but good against commies. So both would show Nazis as being better than their opponent.





  • Yes, and social media deliver on that wish by punishing nuanced opinions and anything which is not the lowest common denominator.

    And they did that from the very beginning.

    In the olden days what was acceptable on a web forum was defined by its owner and some mods. Everything had an alternative, people would communicate over few systems simultaneously - the forums themselves, ICQ, mail. When you were banned on some forum, you didn’t lose anyone of the people there.

    It was certain that you can’t silence someone just by banning them. And conflicts were regular, so somebody and their friends would be banned or leave some place, but they were still part of a larger social fabric on some subject.

    Social media style hate storms and insularity actually were discouraged. They bothered the mods, other people and in general were stopped by banning all participants for a month or so in the specific place the argument happened.

    And what’s the normal behavior for social media today was unambiguously considered trolling back then. All of it.

    When normies came to social media, they realized that now yes, you can silence anyone you don’t like, just have more friends or gaslight more strangers and that’s it. And you can troll as much as you want if it attracts more attention. In a social network there’s only one authority.

    It was false in the beginning, people were not effectively silenced, and disinformation wasn’t that strong, but with more people moving to social media it became true.


  • Also Gecko’s development is led by people thinking that it being usable outside of Firefox\Thunderbird is a bad thing. There was a time when Gnome’s browser was based on Gecko, not WebKit. And in general it’s influenced by bad practices.

    SerenityOS is an amazing project, of course. To do so much work for something completely disconnected from the wider FOSS ecosystem, and with such results.

    So it’s cool that they’ve decided to split off the browser as its own project.


  • Anything touching your texts is a wildly dystopian idea.

    It’s like boiling a frog, now EU is already trying to do things which would be considered unbelievable dystopian shit in Russia, year 2008.

    They got here by accepting smaller steps in the direction of unbelievable dystopian shit, because “what, are you a sovereign citizen”, “dura lex sed lex”, “we are not a libertarian institution and we need to catch criminals”, “we need to regulate society for a better future”, “our institutions and bureaucracy are built to prevent such erosion, we won’t go down that slippery slope”, yadda-yadda.

    One thing people should realize is that common sense and dignity are above any law, no matter how correctly passed. Concentration camps in Nazi Germany and wherever else were perfectly legal. Those people will build in the future will be perfectly legal too. Hell, those they are building right now are legal and your government (any on the planet) doesn’t argue with that.

    And not only that, but you don’t even have to argue against laws invading your freedom, they are simply negligible. You don’t have to prove that you don’t need something, “I don’t want this” is sufficient!

    Also read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_a_Dog .



  • That’s in some sense getting back to the “open protocols” idea of ~2005, with federation and common identities. You’d still have 1) bothersome process of maintaining such a site, 2) problems how to find such, 3) an identity provider which can go down with your identity, like a Lemmy instance can.

    It’s insufficient. Facebook and others have used an existing demand for a recommendation system and automatic moderation and search and all this junk.

    I’m enthusiastic about Locutus.






  • Well, how can one speak about some thing’s author, the person who has built it from scratch, as of someone who can ruin it or not?

    That said, it’s hard for me to read her in English, and I’ve read HP mostly in at least three translations to Russian, one official and two unofficial ones. The former sucks, and from the latter two the one which reads the best is by the least professional translator (actually she’s not a translator at all), and I mean Maria Spivak (the original one to circulate in the Runet and samizdat versions, not the abomination published much later).

    It communicates the feeling of mad and a bit hooligan-ish fairy tale, I suspect that emotionally it’s the closest to the original.

    Anyway, it’s pretty normal for an author to have a magnum opus and the rest of their works to just not make sense.