I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as GNU/Linux, is in fact, systemd/GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, systemd plus GNU plus Linux. GNU/Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning systemd init system made useful by the systemd daemons, shell utilities and redundant system components comprising a full init system as defined by systemd itself.

Many computer users run a modified version of the systemd init system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of systemd which is widely used today is often called GNU/Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the systemd init system, developed by the Red Hat.

There really is a GNU/Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the init system they use. GNU/Linux is the os: a collection of programs that can be run by the init system. The operating system is an essential part of an init system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete init system. GNU/Linux is normally used in combination with the systemd init system: the whole system is basically systwmd with GNU/Linux added, or systemd/GNU/Linux. All the so-called GNU/Linux distributions are really distributions of systemd/GNU/Linux!

Yes, it is possible. I think it will be something like this:

image source

where proprietary software will eventually be replaced by FOSS software. it just takes a while (Linux was released in 1991).

also, for social media, it’s not so much about the software used, more about who controls it, and hosting plays a significant part in this. the question is, how do we put up an organization large enough to actually sustain that many users?

who pays for image/short video upload for a billion people? small instances on the fediverse already cost real money. feddit.org has 1000 users and reportedly already costs $1000/month to host, IIRC (which seems expensive, even to me, anyways), and catbox.moe, which is a donation-funded service also costs around $1000 (says so on their website). that number would obviously increase sharply if there were more users. So: who pays for it?

i, too, have :3 in the .bashrc

step 1: download the iso

step 2: insert the round thing into your drive?

Thank you for taking the patience to put this into words so nicely! I really appreciate your perspective. Maybe I was being too rude calling Republicans “dumb”, I apologize. I guess I’m just as angry as many other people at seeing the proposed Republican plans (especially “slashing public spending” a.k.a. reducing social welfare) and seeing people actually vote for that.

Yeah, people in the US want change. I’m not sure what would be a productive and viable proposal that doesn’t completely fuck up the country. I’m European and have a non-interference policy for myself when it comes to the internals of the US. In other words, I don’t want to meddle too much with what’s going on in the US.

Just curious but are we heading towards an “eat the rich” society?

I guess we should be, but that’s just my personal opinion.

Realistically, no. The people have clearly expressed how dumb they are and what they desire in the November election. They want dumb Republicans, they get asshole CEOs. I don’t see it any other way.

Honestly, I believe voting is the best way to bring change about a society that wants to change. It’s just that I have given up the thought that the US wants to change in the direction that I would go. So no, it’s not gonna happen.

In real life I think a similar situation holds. First we have to make a distinction between a system having randomness; a completely unpredictable outcome and being chaotic; where the outcome is theoretically predictable but varies significantly with even tiny changes in input.

Yes, thank you for putting it so nicely into words. I was already aware of that distinction.

I’m studying physics right now and trying to organize my thoughts around that. I remember we talked about some mechanical contraption that exhibits non-deterministic (i.e. purely random) behavior due to the equations of motion having non-unique solution. If I remember correctly, it was a kind of “knife standing on its tip right at the edge of a cliff”-edge condition. There’s two solutions to that: It stands still or it falls down. There’s two distinctly different solutions because the equations of motion are non-continuous, i.e. even for the tiniest change in position, the net force changes from 0 to 1g.

Apart from that, there’s some more “pure random” stuff that I’m investigating into right now, like quantum stuff (as you mentioned). But there’s at least one more example that I’d like to think about:

A human/robot cannot fully predict their own future. That is because if they could, they could become aware of it and decidedly act against it. For example, if I predict that I will eat an avocado tomorrow, I might stop myself from doing that. So the prediction becomes wrong. In a certain sense, therefore one cannot predict their own actions. This isn’t due to a lack in accuracy, but it’s fundamentally impossible. I guess. Let me hear your thoughts! Your words are calm and collected; you seem to know stuff.

Btw, off topic; do you believe in true randomness? In other words, do you think that certain physics processes simply have an unpredictable outcome? (I’m asking because your response implies “No”, but I believe it is “yes”.)

that makes sense, yeah

trickle down is when i piss on thatcher’s grave

I’m not sure whether having deterministic behavior is a core characteristic of robots, but if so, I highly doubt that it makes a lot of sense to see me as a robot, because my behavior sure is random!

How many years before robots will take over the economy and rule the world?

There’s one more outlier though which is Electrochemical cell, like galvanic element or voltaic pile

It was used around 1800 as a major electricity source, but I guess it quickly became uneconomical in 1866 or sth when the dynamo was invented.

Edit: wait yes, it actually says this in the second paragraph of the linked article:

The entire 19th-century electrical industry was powered by batteries related to Volta’s (e.g. the Daniell cell and Grove cell) until the advent of the dynamo (the electrical generator) in the 1870s.

So, I don’t know why you’re taking a stand for Uranium today. It used to be a good technology 30 years ago, but today it just doesn’t make any sense anymore.

First factor is cost. Renewables (Solar + Wind especially) have really really gone down in cost (see this link and this link), and the population will favor the energy source that is cheaper in the long run.

Secondly, the environmental impact of solar is really not that big. When we talk about how much CO2 solar produces, it’s mostly because that solar needs silicon and that needs energy to be purified. And that energy mostly comes from coal, gas or other non-renewables today. But guess what, as the solar revolution progresses, that emission goes down as well, so solar actually becomes more environmentally friendly over time.

tbf, we have airplanes, but most goods are still being transported over lands or seas.

Well but they’re not around anymore because the uranium inside them is all consumed by now, right?

computer people don’t do sports --> muscle atrophy --> slim --> already looks more like a girl --> easy to transition

but yes, it is also correct :D

I have held this stance for many years (am not American though), and everytime I proposed it someone from the US told me “Nooo we’ve had that in the past and we fought a civil war in order to stay together!!! We can’t split!” and I think it’s like a broken marriage that was never easy to begin with that’s just being held together because the parties are too stubborn to say “ok well let’s split up”. It’s an unhealthy relationship.