namark @namark@qoto.org

@average_random_joe It is in that case, but that's not the impression I got from what you said before. I though that it was all one confrontation. Lets go back then. Words were exchanged and you knew each other. That he was trying to humiliate you knew right away, not from third time of getting kneed. You knew it from from context as well. You also articulated what you wanted, is that him to leave you alone, clearly. At that point communication was over, no new communication took place, it was just a power struggle between you two, and you came up on top. Simple as that. He could've came up on top instead, and then things would have been his way. There is no communication in punching or kneeing.

From what you were saying before it sounded like, someone just silently came at you tried you knee you 3 times in the groin, and was so bad at it, that instead of being hospitalized you punched him so hard his nose probably broke, all still without a word uttered. All that misunderstanding just cause you were trying to push your BS about violence being communication.

@dankmaximus

@average_random_joe point is that he didn't understand anything. Any you apparently either, cause you have no clue what bullying is. A random guy who is weaker than tries to confront you one time, and you call that bullying. Both of you had no clue, both before or after what happened.

@dankmaximus

@average_random_joe you basically broke the nose of some weenie who was randomly coming at ya, and this is your example of being on the receiving end? @dankmaximus

@average_random_joe so this was all one confrontation? I though he was bullying you like on several occasions @dankmaximus

@average_random_joe I'm not surprised at the topic I'm surprised at your bizzare conclusions. Nice job derailing and dodging arguments. From the way you spoke I imagined you being some sort of face punching expert, but apparently your only experience is a teenage squabble you had with someone obviously weaker than you.

@dankmaximus

@average_random_joe how was the punching different from the kneeing? What a fascinating new language. How is it that you understood that you need to punch from kneeing, and he understood that he needs to stop kneeing from punch? Seems like a lot of context you are omitting where there were actual words used to arrive at these understandings. Are you telling me these events transpired without words being exchanged? You were just lucky enough to be stronger so he didn't retaliate. My exact same arguments apply here, he probably concluded that he needs to pick on someone weaker than you, and where he stronger than you, blood would have been gushing out of your nose instead, what would you have understood then? That you need to bring a bat next time?

@dankmaximus

@average_random_joe I presented my interpretation of a conclusion, even two possible conclusion, rather clearly, you present yours if you will. I understand if you don't have a desire to continue when a clear fallacy you stated is pointed out, no harm in that.

My question is not about when you last punched someone in the face, but when was you last punched, and what you understood from it. You seem to only think about punching, beating and killing others, so I wanted you to imagine yourself in the receiving end of such communication and the great understanding that it delivers, but you seem incapable of such retarded thinking.

@dankmaximus

@average_random_joe I guess retard like me can never understand the higher form of communication that is face punching. What a tragedy.

In hopes of possible enlightenment I must enquire from a clear master of this language, such as you, for an example of such a communication you have had in a recent times, and what great understanding have you acquired from it.

In case inferior language is unpleasant to the eyes, here is a translation that took me great effort an several vocabulary books to make: when was the last time you got punched in the face, and what did you understand from it?

@dankmaximus

@average_random_joe I sent you the context, did you try reading that? Or anything I wrote? You are the only one going on tangents, I'm simply explaining to you how all of your tangents have nothing to do with understanding, and do not address my point.

I'm asking you to make up our mind, whether violence is understood or not, because you are contradicting yourself, first saying that it is never understood, and then proceeding to try to bring examples where it is understood, without actually telling how, just claiming it.

@dankmaximus

@average_random_joe here is the context https://qoto.org/web/statuses/105616792264566328

Now make up your mind is it understood or not understood. Your examples make no sense what so ever.

To punch someone who spits on you or your wife is a display of weakness in my eyes, and I don't see what is understood there. Best case they conclude "will pick on someone weaker next time", worst case - "this guy can't even land a punch" and then you are the one getting knocked out.

Use of force to stop a violent act is entirely different thing and has nothing to do with understanding.

Regarding all your war glorification, the surrendering side stops the war (and starts communication), not the other way around, unless you would argue for total annihilation, which will not be surprising at this point.

@dankmaximus

@average_random_joe yes, people who think rioting or beating children is good and proper are unheard and will remains so, unless they learn to express themselves otherwise. Violence is never understood, it's the ultimate failure of communication.

@dankmaximus

@awethon Yes you are clearly aware, and also clearly prefer the national interest of USA over the national interest of China. It's like you local mafia going after a random robber and you go "yes great robbery is so wrong, good job mafia! What, you rob every business on the block left and right? Of course you must protect your own interests I understand."

I don't understand anything you wrote about wordplay. How does any of that relate to toolchain bugs and hardware backdoors I mentioned. I'll like watch you audit the code and build all software that you use, including the toolchains, accounting for the uncountable list of bugs in them and potential hardware bug doors, or find a friend that would do it for you.

- but I can produce the same binarryyyy ToT
- oh yes the same buggy leaky binary, sure, good for you

There is no trust involved, when you buy a car you know it's not going to randomly explode, not because you oh so trust the manufacturer, who's your good old friend, but because if it did, it would be driven out of the market, because competition, however small, exists. Now you are watching a monopolist try to elminate competition and applauding, cause you just happen to like the name of the brand.

@awethon yes only silicon valley should be allowed to do that around the world in national interest of USA. Software from china? No no no, that has got to be open source and verifiable. Now to get to deepinphobia, we take one small step: "well I can't personally verify it, who's the verification authority? Software is updated all the time, we can't keep track, they can sneak in the killer spy virus anytime, utilizing toolchain bugs and hardware backdoors to be undetecable!".

@awethon are you one of those people who went "china will take over the world with deeping linux, run! save yourselves!"

USA: i own all software
China: can I have myt own software?
USA: NO
Russia: can I have my own software?
USA: NO
me: can I have my own software
USA: NO
my granma: can I have my own software
USA: NO

This is good apparently.

@d_ribeiro I doubt any other religious book is any less bonkers. The problem with religion is taking it literally and to an extreme, which is exactly what you are doing. It really doesn't matter if you are for or against it at that point.

@minoru lot of text, little substance.

Programming is clearly engineering as a practice that stems from rigorous science. It is a branch of mathematics, and even more so than say electrical engineering is of physics.

The industry is not an engineering industry though. It has two crucial differences (one might say pathologies): production costs nothing, distribution costs nothing. This allows huge long term returns on investment in selling crap on marketing alone, allows to create an industry without an infrastructure, which applies to everything from embedded to web.

Things like human lives (or other extremes of importance) don't matter, not because we don't care, but because we don't have the ultimate solution that will save all lives (solve all important problems), and we can only improve on what we have through fair competition, which itself will define quality standards, written or unwritten. The latter maybe even more important, as regardless of law you can still get crap, and only way you would really know it, is when a local electrician or mechanic or plumber refuses to service it and recommends a replacement. Where is my local programmer? Ah, working for an international megacorp, making bottle caps for their snake oil.

@Soygoy

Barbra Streisand - Woman in Love
Mireille Mathieu - Une femme amoureuse

now one of these women in love would fuck you up good...

@georgia

Don't you love it when your fresh baked gui designed to handle any screen size and dpi breaks, cause the underlying system changes the meaning of a pixel, so that some old fart application that didn't care scales?

- Why don't you just go fix the old farts?
- We can't they proprietary ToT, here is some backwards API you can juggle to get back to sanity ^_^

#programming #gui

@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe I don't think there is no place for money in foss, it just requires something that nobody really wants.

The open source projects today can get away with what you describe only because they compete in markets defined by, and adhere to standards(usually none) set by proprietary software culture/industry. People involved acquired their experience, habits, belief, expectations etc. in that environment. One of the crucial things the established industry lacks IMO is a proper infrastructure. Most programmers should not serve one or the other international megacorp, they should serve the general public directly, through local small businesses providing installation, configuration, maintanace. They should not aspire to the next great breakthrough in the field, but to simply serve their immediate neighbors well. Many engineering industries have this, the difference is that software engineering can only have this, and this must become the main revenue source. There is no real production or distribution. What is called production is just R&D (which should be funded by those relatively small businesses not in any way marketed to the general public), and distribution is only hard when you try to exert total centralized control over it.

I think the hard pill to swallow is that without the proprietary software culture, you and I would have a job and a salary akin to an average plumber. So for any of it to work we must set aside our aspirations and figure out how to do just that, figure out how to get our immediate neighbors to pay us to install, configure and maintain software for them. Takes an entirely different set of skills than what we trained for and studied, but that's where we're at, it's the wild west and we've yet to establish the first infrastructures.