• 0 Posts
  • 728 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle
  • I’ve had fewer problems with GoG + Lutris in Linux than I’ve had with Steam in Linux, to the point that I had to pirate one of my Steam games in order to be able to run it in Linux (the pirate version runs just fine).

    Mind you, I get the impression that older AAA games are the most problematic ones, thought that’s maybe because I don’t run anything with Kernel Anti-Cheat and nowadays don’t really do online gaming (in fact all my games in Lutris are run inside a firejail sandbox with network access disabled).



  • And for those on the other side of the Atlantic, there are several computer shops that will just put a computed together for you without an OS.

    Here’s a random example “configure your own computer” from a computer shop in France. In this one the OS (Système d’exploitation) is not included and you have to pay extra for it.

    In my experience with custom assemblies like this the OS is never included.

    When I live in the UK at some point I’ve even used of these kind of stores there to get a custom notebook.

    It’s basically an “assemble your own computer” for people who don’t know how to do it and aren’t confident enough to try (understandable given that the parts value of a whole desktop PC adds up to at least €1000 so there generally is some fear of fucking it up if you’ve never done it before).


  • I don’t think the sensors really matter for a server but the rest makes some sense.

    Still, 80 bucks will buy you quite literally a Mini-PC (a really crummy one, granted) which can run more server tasks because it has as much or more memory and storage and isn’t hindered by there being an Android OS layer there doing nothing useful, and which is absolutelly and 100% under your control because it boots into your OS of choice.

    Half than that will buy you a crummy SBC which probably de facto has as much capability to run server tasks as that Oneplus (it’s weaker but doesn’t have Android there eating up resources) though in my experience those things tend to be a bit finicky.

    I don’t think it’s actually worth it to spend $80 on an used phone to use as a server (unless you do need UPS-like features or built-in mobile nertwork access) since you quite literally have better options brand new for that money, but if you have one around it can make sense even if it’s a bit more work getting it going and is not fully under your control (unless we’re talking about something jailbroken where you can install Oxygen or Lineage on, so a Pixel would probably be a better choice).

    That said, there is a certain technical elegance in the whole notion of repurposing an Android Phone to be a home server.



  • Except the price, which is much lower for the SBC, way much lower if one uses one of the lower end Orange Pi or Banana Pi SBCs.

    Also you can put Linux on the SBCs (which always come unlocked) hence do way more with them as servers than if one has to use Android as the OS.

    I mean, I can get it if people with the technical chops, love for technical challenges and an old and pretty much worthless Android phone, configure it as a server if only because “why not?!”, but it’s not exactly a great option considering that a 40 bucks SBC can do the same, only better, more easily and with far more possibilities (given that it will be running Linux rather than Android).

    PS: Actually somebody below mention mobile network connection, which, thinking about it, would be a good reason to use an old Android phone as a server since it has built-in support for 3G (unless it’s quite old) whilst the SBC needs it add to it which might be a problem for the cheaper SBCs (just wondering about how I would get around to do it, I think you need to connect a USB dongle to it and it has to be something compatible with Armbian Linux)






  • You have it backwards: going after the natural voters of the other side in a two-party system is the riskiest thing you can do because the other party has a massive advantage with those voters which is an historical track record of telling them what they want to hear and them voting for it - rightwingers trust them on Rightwing subjects and are used to voting for them.

    Even if (and it’s a massive massive if) a party succeeds at it once due to the party on the other side having deviated too much from its traditional ideology, all it takes for the party on the other side is to “get back to its roots” to recover most of those lost votes and subsequently win, whilst meanwhile the leftmost party that moved to the right has created for itself an obstacle in their own “going back to its roots” in the form of a section of the electorate which feels they were betrayed.

    Sure, they’ll eventually get it back if they themselves quickly “go back to their roots”, but it will take several electoral cycles.

    Further, if that gap remains too long on the Left even in a two party system it would create room for a third to grow, starting by local elections, then places like Congress, then Senate and eventually even the Presidency.

    One of of the key ways in which First Past The Post maintains a Power-Duopoly is because growing a party enough to challenge the rest in multiple electoral circles takes time and the duopoly parties will try to stop it (generally by changing back their policies to appeal to the core voters of that new Party).

    The US itself once had the Whig Party as one of the power duopoly parties and that exists no more.

    The Democrats abandoning the Left is not a stable configuration for them and carries both the risk that the Rightwing electorate sees them as fake and the Leftwing electorate feels betrayed, and now they’re stuck in the middle with a reduced vote.


  • Whilst the first paragraph does make some sense, it presumes that in such a situation the Republicans would not conclude it’s the style of the candidate rather than his ideas that caused the rout. That might be a little optimist considering that the traditional Republicans’ were just as far right economically before and almost as right in Moral issues, but they had a different style of candidate (remember Reagan?).

    It might also be a little optimist to expect an absolute walloping of anybody, Republican or Democrat.

    That said, it’s a valid scenario, though it relies on very low probability events.

    The second paragraph is inconsistent with every single thing the Democrats have done in their pre-electoral propaganda, from the whole “vote us or get Trump” (something which wouldn’t scare the Right) to the raft of pre-election promises on Left-wing subjects like student debt forgiveness or tightening regulations on giants such as Telecoms a little bit. If they really thought they could win with only votes stolen from the Right, they would be making promises which appeal to the Right, not the Left.

    Besides, the whole idea that Rightwing voters would go for the less-Rightwing party rather than the more-Rightwing party is hilarious: why go for the copy if you can get the real deal?

    From what I’ve seen in other countries were Center-Left Parties totally dropped their appeal to the Left and overtly went to appeal to the Right, they got pummeled because the Maths don’t add up and, as I said above, Rightwing votes will choose the “genuine article” over the “wannabes”.

    It’s not by chance that in Europe even whilst becoming full-on Neoliberal parties, Center-Left parties maintained a leftwing discourse and would throw a bone to the Left once in a while (say, minimum wage raises) when in government.


  • Three points:

    • Biden and Harris are right now with their actions physically supporting the Genocide. Trump talks about supporting the Genocide even more. Well, guess what: Trump lies shamelessly (as the Democrat propaganda here doesn’t stop reminding us of in everything but, “strangely”, not this subject) and isn’t even competent when it comes to actual execution. So on one side we have an absolute certainty that the candidate supports the Genocide and on the other one we have a probability that its so based on the statements of a known liar. I would say the claims that Trump is worse on this are doing a lot of relying on Trump’s word (on this subject alone) in order to elevate his evilness of this above that of people who are actually, right now, shamelessly and unwaveringly supporting the Genocide with actual actions.
    • If the Leadership of Democrat Party manages to whilst refusing to walk back on their active support of a Genocide, win the election with a “otherwise it’s Trump” strategy, they will move even further to the Right because that confirms to them that they can do whatever they want and still keep in power. Now, keep in mind that the Democract Party leadership already supports Fascism (ethno-Fascism, even, which is the same kind as the Nazis practiced), so far only abroad (whilst Trump does support Fascism at home) so there isn’t much more to the Right of that before Fascism at home. You see, for a Leftie voting Democrat now will probably be the least bad option in the short term, but it’s very likely to be the worst option in the long term because it consolidates and even accelerates the move of the Democrat Party to the Right.
    • Some people simply put their moral principles above “yeah but” excuses and won’t vote for people supporting the mass murder of children.

    In summary:

    • Trump’s Genocide support is a probability based on his word, willingness and ability to fulfill it (i.e. his competence at doing it), whilst Harris’ is an actual proven fact with actions happening right now.
    • A vote for the Democrats whilst their policies are so far to the Right that they’re supporting modern Nazis with the very weapons they use to mass murder civilians of the “wrong” ethnicity, if it leads to a Harris victory will consolidate this de facto Far-Right status of the party and maintain momentum in going Rightwards. Voting like that is, IMHO, a Strategically stupid choice even if the case can be made (and that’s the entirety of what the Democrat propaganda here does) that Tactically it’s the least bad choice.
    • Some people can’t just swallow their moral principles, especially for making a choice which isn’t even a “choose a good thing” but actually a “choose a lesser evil”, and “Thou shall not mass murder thousands of babies” is pretty strong as moral principles go.



  • If only they were just locks.

    I think it’s a better metaphor that they removed all windows, made the walls 2m thick cement and replaced the door with a 10 inch thick heavy steel door.

    Absolutelly, it makes it very well protected from unauthorized outsiders just coming in … at the cost of living in a bunker with no natural sunlight, stale air, mold and having to push a 2 ton door to get in or out.

    Now, some people might be ok with living in such a bunker for their own personal protection, but very few are ok with living in a bunker to protect the software in the computer they have in their bunker from being copied.

    People are pissed because Denuvo makes their life harder whilst having literally zero upsides for them personally.


  • Anti-muslim Racism has been pretty common and accepted in the West since even before 9/11 (though it definitelly exploded in the aftermath of it) plus Jews are seen as Whites Of A Different Religion (it’s not for nothing that Zionists since the very beginning constantly repeat the “Israel has Western values” mantra).

    So for those people the entire reading of the situation, judgment of the actions of the participants and definition of what’s an acceptable or unaccetable response is anchored on what their anti-Muslim and pro-White prejudices tell them is the character of everybody in each of the sides involved (or, in simple terms, who are the “good guys” for whom everything is justifiable and the “bad guys” whose actions are always evil).

    This is why so many Liberals ended up siding with American Fascists in their defense of an ethno-Fascist (i.e. Nazi-like) regime commiting ethnic Genocide - they too aways judged people based on their etnicity, differing only from one another in the list of “presumed good” and “presumed bad” ethnicities, and in this specific case both shared “Jews” in their list of “good ethnicity” (the Fascists because they saw them as Westerners - i.e. White - and the Liberals because they saw them as Victims following the Holocaust, a view heavilly propagandized by Zionists) and “Muslims” in the list of “bad ethnicity” (curiously both because they’re not White, and both via the cultural differences between them and “Westerners”, though Fascists and Liberals disliked different elements the culture of “Muslims” - I use quotes because whilst they see it as a single culture, it’s not, not even close).


  • The self-proclaimed anti-racists were never against racism, they just had different lists of ubermenschen and untermenschen that the traditional racists.

    If one is running around with the idea that people’s worth is defined by their ethnicity and that one can presume they’re oppressors or oppressed based on that alone they’re still a racist and still operating on the same fundamental prejudices about the worth of people as the Nazis.

    Because of how the Zionists in Israel worked so much and so successfully to entrenched the idea that Israel represents all Jews, an ethnic group which the new-age-racists collectively deemed “victims” and “good people” (remember, the racism is classifying people on their race, not being positive or negative in your classification: after all, the Nazis too deemed all Arians as better than the rest) what the Israeli Genocide did was put in focus the racism of the Racists passing themselves as anti-Racists when those who they believe represent one of the “good races” started openly doing the very same kind of ultra violent racism as the Nazis.

    People who genuinely were against racism reviewed this stance whilst those who still operate on the same racist principles as the Nazis - that people’s worth is defined by their ethnicity - came up with all sorts of excuses in defense of “the good race”, very much like Nazi supporters defended the Arian race because it was a white race like theirs.

    Basically Liberals made it plain as day they’re just another kind of Fascist who support all other kinds of Fascism unless they themselves are its target.


  • Just like somebody giving weapons and ammo to the Ku Klux Klan whilst they’re actively using them to kill afro-americans is a fucking extreme racist KKK supporter, so is anybody giving weapons and ammo to a white ethno-Fascist state actively genociding people of another ethnicity because of their ethnicity is a fucking extreme racist ethno-Fascist (the same variant of Fascism as Nazism) supporter.

    Unless you’re a fucking racist yourself who judges actions differently depending on the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators, those two are equivalent.

    So any self-proclaimed anti-Racist liberal supporting Israel with actual weapons and ammo is not only by their own actions the worst, most raciste violent and genocidal kind of Fascist there is - one similar to Nazism, no less - they’re also a massive hypocrite.

    So yeah, based on the leaders they vote for Americans are by association the modern Nazi supporters.