Shamar @Shamar@qoto.org
Joined May 2019
Did you look at https://git.simple-cc.org/scc/file/README.html
The website it so minimalist it's hard to do anything but contact the developers: https://www.simple-cc.org/
You know @ekaitz_zarraga?
I'm trying #TinyCC! 😉
I gave a look to all the compilers at http://suckless.org/rocks/ but apparently #tcc is the most mature and the only one completelly self-sufficient.
BUT.
I do not know.
What it I restart from #9front?
No ELF. No #POSIX. No... shit.
It took a huge amount of work to do all this in #Jehanne but... why going after so much complexity? Why not just restart from scratch?
Give a look at this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235367.html
Relying on #GNU (and on US-based software) is becoming a huge hazard.
Or more precisely, it's just proving to be such hazard and we were to naive to realize before.
We need to rebuild everything from scratch, anything that cannot be completely rebuilt in a month must be rewitten.
So what's the point of compatibility?
Thanks @Vectorfield for this long analysis of #SJW philosophy and epistemic approach.
To me, the dynamics of powers and the importance of problematization of them in culture and praxis is pretty important (that's something I actively do in many context) but I see it as a step (and a method) toward the effective modelling of truth (the search for truth, for falsifiable knowledge, the aim of #hackers' #curiosity), not to as renounce to it.
At the end of the day, for a hacker, "You cannot argue with a root shell" is a fundamental epistemic rock to build upon.
That's why, probably, despite being an oppressed and marginalized minority, hackers are not going to be loved by SJW. Because we cannot renounce to the search for truth, without renouncing to be hackers at the same time.
I'd like to read something about this from @zacchiro and from @mcp_ about what you wrote (for very different reasons).
I just have a question on what you wrote: who first proposed the "manufacture" of problematics and truth (that is lying) as a method for political identity activism?
I'd like to find a clear statement about this.
Solibo ha torto. Marcio.
Ma anni fa, all'Università di Milano, spiegai che continuando così la pressione evolutiva diventerà tale da dividere l'uomo sapiens in due specie distinte: una dominante, libera, ed una di schiavi ottenebrati.
Tutto il mio lavoro si oppone a questa direzione evolutiva, laddove altri sembrano ben felici di intraprenderla.
E a volte, mi sembra, che forse dovrei lasciarli fare.
Fantastico. 🤣
In queste occasioni penso che avesse ragione Solibo.
Se solo i nostri figli non dovessero condividere il pianeta in cui viviamo...
Bene @erm67, continua ad affidare fiduciosamente i tuoi figli a #Google.
Stai tranquillo... non si accorgeranno di nulla.
@informapirata
Ehm... no.
Le fanno tutte, con telecamera sempre spenta e pseudonimo.
Ne hanno perse meno dei compagni, cui crolla la connessione appena accendono la telecamera.
E meno male che odi chi odia! 🤣
Purtroppo stai danneggiando gravemente i tuoi figli, ma... non lo sai, quindi non te ne preoccupi.
Un consiglio, non guardare questo video: https://video.resolutions.it/videos/watch/c9b50e80-85de-4b62-bc3a-8f6501d26b65?start=0h59m40s
Io ho rifiutato.
Le mie figlie inviano i compiti via Regel, non via classroom.
Partecipano alle lezioni a telecamera spenta e con pseudonimi.
L'anno scorso ho anche messo su gratuitamente un server Jitsi per la classe così tutti potevano farsi vedere serenamente senza cedere i propri volti a #Google.
Quest'anno non mi è stato permesso.
E non è certo per odio: si tratta di minimizzare il danno di lungo periodo: https://video.resolutions.it/videos/watch/c9b50e80-85de-4b62-bc3a-8f6501d26b65?start=0h59m40s
Che hai ragione.
I siti regel risolvono verso cloud AWS, per esempio.
Come diceva Soro quando ancora avevamo un Garante della #Privacy, Regel è il male minore, ma sempre un male.
Peraltro in 3 mesi a tempo pieno probabilmente lo riscrivo da zero in PHP paro paro (magari senza #Google Analytics, però).
3 mesi di 4 persone come me ee un grafico e viene fuori una cosa nettamente superiore.
Ma meglio Regel (con uBlock) che Google Classroom.
Regel fa tecnicamente schifo.
Anche come registro elettronico, sebbene potrebbe funzionare per la didattica a distanza ASINCRONA, se usato da persone sufficientemente competenti da aggirarne i limiti.
Detto questo, gli insegnanti sono obbligati a caricare ed accettare i compiti tramite il registro elettronico perché alcuni studenti (o i genitori) rifiutano legittimamente di usare #Google Classroom.
This also means that #Google can reimplement any innovation born in #FreeSoftware that they cannot buy.
Ultimately, it's the definitive legitimization of #EmbraceExtendExtinguish.
I'm not much sure it's a good news.
Shamar
boosted
Cambridge Analytica didn't *abuse* Facebook, they *used* Facebook - used the services that FB had set up and marketed to political dirty tricksters to disseminate disinformation. That was the system working as intended.
FB used the we-fight-arson wheeze to come out of the Cambridge Analytica scandal stronger and more powerful than ever: they shut down the APIs that potential future Facebook competitors used to help people escape its walled garden, claiming it was an act of firefighting.
7/
I don't know Americans enough to argue on that, but having just 2% of people who does not feel the need to join a mob or another, look quite incredible to me.
I'd argue that it's not the issue at work with #RMS, even just because there are signers both letters from all over the world.
Indeed to be honest, I see the real suffering of marginalized Americans is being weaponized (through these cancel mobs, but not only) against other peoples outside the US, to impose solutions to problems we do not have.
I don't think this is reconducible to a polarization that do not recognize nuances, though.
To me, it looks like a mix of identity politics (people trying to create a followship for themselves) and fear of complexity (inability or refusal to understand or even just recognise the huge complexity of our world).
I think that what @Vectorfield described here on post-modern truth might have a role: https://qoto.org/@Vectorfield/106004674022466292
Yet, I think that #Informatics might be useful to navigate outside these phylosophical swamps through probabilistic models, explicit and well defined contexts and dialogue between different perspecitves: http://www.tesio.it/2019/06/03/what-is-informatics.html
The problem is epistemic through.
Let's try to assume the perspective of an anti-realist #SJW that does not care about what #Stallman said or did just to move the global debate on his theme.
Let's even forget Stallman.
How can I teach him the informatics that run his own computer if he refuse logic as a tool of oppression?
This way, he refuse to understand what could reveal him his actual oppressors and free him.
I will never understand how one can justify means with goals.
It can't work because means are to goals what seeds are to plants, what causes are to effects.
Yet... people happily join a cancel mob... to prove they are "inclusive".
It must be a post-modernism thing, a refusal of logic as a tool of the white-male... I don't know.
But I'd really like a computer running without such logic.
Shamar
boosted
@freemo There is a deeper reason why the woke tend to believe absurdity and lie about people:The postmodern philosophy underlying their ideology is anti-realist
<br>
For most of us, the concept of “truth” doesn’t seem terribly complicated until we try to define it. Truth is… what’s true—this is actually the first definition for “truth,” paraphrasing a bit, in some dictionaries. Truth is that which is in accordance with reality is another. Philosophers understand that “truth” is a more complicated topic, and people in different schools of thought have different understandings of what truth is. Some, for example, hold that truths must be in some way transcendent of all human contingencies—that which absolutely holds for all people in all times (sometimes in all possible universes). Scientists tend to use a more pragmatic understanding (sometimes called “provisional truths”) that could be rendered as statements about reality upon which we can bet and reliably win. Most people, including nearly all scientists and many philosophers, generally agree that for something to be a “truth” means its having something to do with accurately describing reality.
<br>
The postmodern school of thought, which profoundly informs the Theory of Critical Social Justice, however, does not see truth this way. In fact, it is openly hostile and radically skeptical of these understandings of truth, which might generally be described as being “realist” in orientation because they see some correspondence between truth and reality. Postmodernism is generally anti-realist in orientation, meaning that it does not necessarily see a connection between “truths” and reality. Truths might happen to describe reality, say as the Earth and the Sun describing a dynamic system in which both travel along eliptical orbits around their common center of mass (which is inside the Sun), or not, say as the Sun going around the Earth. Under postmodern thought, both of these understandings are “true” in the cultures that consider them true. That is, postmodern thought sees truth as entirely a matter of human (social) contingencies. This is what the American postmodern philosopher Richard Rorty meant when he wrote, “We need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there and the claim that the truth is out there.”
<br>
Truths, in postmodern Theory, are socially validated statements about reality, which means that they are, ultimately, products of not just the cultures that produce them but of power within those cultures. The French postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault described this as power-knowledge, insisting that knowledge claims (truths) are ultimately only expressions of power. This sound strange, but the logic is accessible. What is considered true is decided by people by some social process of validation, the thinking goes, so “truth” is a social and political status conferred to certain ideas, which is then reinforced by their acceptance as true. Simultaneously, “truths” confer (political) power, as “knowledge is power” implies, because if it is accepted that a proposition is true, then people who accept it as such will behave accordingly. Thus, Foucault Theorized that “truths” are socially constructed by the systems of power (and the powerful within them) in society and then used to dominate, particularly in the attempt to maintain their power and exclusive status (see also, hegemony, episteme, and biopower).
<br>
Most of this anti-realist, political understanding of truth (and knowledge) has been imported more or less intact into Critical Social Justice.
<br>
In Critical Social Justice, “truth” is still considered culturally contingent, but because of the strong influence of identity politics at the core of the Critical Social Justice project (which could be said to use critical and postmodern Theories to do identity politics – see also intersectionality and positionality), the relevant cultures are ones rooted in various identities Theorized to be “minoritized.” Thus, “knowledge” and “truth” as we generally conceive of them are considered shorthand for “cis, straight, white, Western, male knowledge” or “cis, straight, white, Western, male truth” (see also, white science, white mathematics, and white empiricism, and also feminist empiricism), which are just one way of knowing. In fact, they’re a particularly bad one because these dominant groups not at all aware of their self-serving biases or limitations of their own knowing system (see also, internalized dominance and meritocracy).
<br>
Thus, on the other hand, Critical Social Justice generally believes in cultural knowledges (e.g., racial knowledge) that have been marginalized by “dominant discourses,” which are deemed to be straight, white, male, able-bodied, thin, Western, Eurocentric, etc. These are believed to arise because different identity-based cultures have different ways of knowing (epistemologies) thus recognize different knowledges, and dominant ways of knowing (e.g., science, reason, logic, dialectic – see also, master’s tools) are believed to have utilized their greater power to unjustly exclude them from the range of “acceptable” ways of knowing and knowledges (see also, epistemic injustice, epistemic oppression, and epistemic violence).
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-truth/
Maybe your protocol is mixing different orthogonal concerns at the same level?
Maybe your commands belong to the payload?
Joined May 2019
