Name one?

Lmao. Thankfully it’s not real and ipv6.disable=1 will stay in my kernel boot params forever. Just add more layers of NAT if you need more addresses.

Jesus Christ america

Seems reasonable and pretty well-adjusted and by today’s standards very self-aware. She’s just in a tough situation and doing what works.

Y’all just scared and interpreting this in the most bad faith way possible. Stop reacting. Don’t be a reactionary.

Is the container exposed to the internet?

If yes, do not.

If no, I think it will be ok so long as it’s actually not exposed to the internet, e.g. ideally behind NAT with no port forwards and all ipv6 traffic turned off or some other deny all inbound firewall outside the system itself that sits between it and the system on which the container runs.

In the worst case scenario: you’ve given someone a file share on your root partition, but if it’s not exposed to the internet, then the chance of it happening is extremely remote.

Yeah it does, I didn’t say it doesn’t, just like it makes sense for other bourgeoisie like the tech billionaires to defend low taxes and low regulations, it’s class war where classes act in their material self-interest, as they should.

I agree.

Even more broadly, politically - copyleft in general is very unpopular with people, even amongst leftists and self-identified communists who you’d think would be all about that since y’know, good of the commons and the fact that communist states literally didn’t give a fuck about copyright and the literature seeing it transparently as another government method of enforcing corporate power, especially apparent today when it comes to pharmaceuticals snd the fact that capitalism needs this intellectual property monopoly as an added incentive for R&D is an issue with capitalism’s broken incentive structures, not cost of it.

Few people seem to understand the power of intellectual property, and various critics of corporate technology either omit mentioning or openly defend intellectual property, despite corporations having monopolies being the reason enshittification is such a phenomenon in the first place.

It seems like a lot of arguments about the role of technology in society instead boil down to more-stuffism vs. less-stuffism, usually based on emotionally charged preference for modern aesthetics or how much they believe the noble savage/appeal to nature fallacies.

When it comes to AI for instance, anyone reasonable can see that if it’s open sourced for everyone to use then it’s just a simple common good like a public library, use it (responsibly) and there’s no issue.

Closed source private models in use by corporations suck up the environment (which belongs to everyone) and use the capital they steal from wage workers who actually produce the things they sell to give themselves leverage over said consumers/workers and other corporations, and this is not fair to the 99%.

Picture a world where AI is good enough to where it actually provides value to use it in a good chunk of jobs, and the best AI is corporate and closed source, and they just enshittified it and jacked up the prices, but if you want to get a job, you better know how to use it well. It would mean that corpo has an enormous power over your life now and you got little choice but to pony up, and they can raise prices whenever they want and snowball that capital into more and more.

I think the reason in this instance is that a lot of artists are bourgeoisie themselves and they understand that. They may be progressive as a personality strait/gimmick/style and talk about “empathy” but they understand the material reality of things.

They had the opportunities and the room for failure necessary to go into such a high risk field, and their ultimate form of commercial success is essentially using that privilege to create intellectual property they could make money from, hence the “concerns” over “style theft” and moralist fearmongering over vaguely defined concepts like “soulless”, which is usually as arbitrary as “white” for racists (not implying equivalence here).

I find generally that a lot of the anti-AI viewpoints are simple self-serving veils of bourgeoisie who’s capital is threatened, no different from the culture war fearmongering about vaping, a dying grasp of the tobacco companies of old threatened by shenzen gadget slop factories.

The material reality is that digital goods are effectively infinite, copying an image isn’t a crime nevermind copying a style or some such, it is transparently absurd to imply otherwise.

I see AI as a positive because it undermines the monopoly on intellectual property of capitalists, but I don’t like it because it seems to be making people braindead consoomers of “content” that doesn’t seem to cultivate the intellect

I think that’s also a pretty valid framework for examining it.

That seems absurd, we’d never build a civilization if everyone was at this level of dysfunction or anywhere near a majority, nevermind one with such rigid specific rules.

From a quick glance - it seems more like ADHD prevalence is around 2-10% depending on how it’s looked at, which is still very very high, but nowhere near.

Unless you have figures that demonstrate otherwise, I think it’s more productive to assume that unless someone is specifically professionally diagnosed and taking medication they need to perform basic functions, you can’t just assume they have the disorder, rather than them just having some traits that externally might resemble some traits commonly associated with the disorder.

Interesting! Thanks.

Except this isn’t how language works, “Why do all the Asians wear black jeans?” invites both questions, unless the former is explicitly stated as a fact. It is obvious that any such thing is an unfalsifiable observation.

People aren’t robots. “you’re making everyone do extra work” - not how people work, not how reasoning works. Viewing something through a framework of even incorrect assumptions can provide unique insight. That is inviting speculation.

On the other hand - you’re continuously asserting my claim is false but have provided no proof of this.

You have only questioned the proof of my claim, which yes - is anecdotal only, pure observation, as I readily admitted, and was never intended as a fact.

I would suggest setting aside some time to cultivate your critical thinking skills.

DbPowerAmp has a bulk converter tool. It’s proprietary payware but cracked versions are available.

I have literally never been on “a vacation” in the way boomers seem to mean it - where they go somewhere.

it doesn’t mean I don’t take PTO, ofc I do and it’s not that I couldn’t afford some sort of cheap holiday package if I had to - I’m sure most of the holiday prices I’ve seen advertised are a total scam because the economics just don’t make sense and there’s all sorts of hidden expenses, but even if they’re that cheap, it’s a large enough sum of money where I wouldn’t spend it unless I had to.

“Driving to Arizona” requires a car ($$$), a driving license ($$$), food ($$$$), and a place to stay while there ($$$$$$).

So why would I ever do any of that, when I could just stay in and watch a movie with my gf, all of which is free (as in - no additional expenses), and then next month I might be able to pay down bills, or worry less about paying down rent? It’s the same as having Netflix or any subscription service - yes the value might actually be good, but why spend if you could do without, and need the money?

Idk about the US but there are definitely both online and evening lectures schedules available at university. At my CompSci BSc it was more common to just not go and watch the lectures later.

Bear in mind our higher ed doesn’t have any “general” education classes, only ones related to the degree, and we don’t really have the same system of a wider selection of courses and it’s the name of the institution that matters, like it seems to be the case in the US, in the UK, if you have a degree, you have the degree, there’s no explicit difference between one at QMUL and UoW.

And you reckon asking why something is true isn’t in effect the same as asking if something is true, but with an invitation for speculation, rather than pure anecdotes which I’d be limited to otherwise?

No, that’s not what I asked. I get bored as well, but I don’t seek out explicitly this content, they seem to - why?

You’re being downvoted because I think they think you’re a Tankie - but as a Russian - you’re 100% correct about the ideology bit.

This image is from 2023. Everyone who has a brain and some grasp on historical truth should immediately find this deeply absurd, so let me explain.

Imperial Russia and RSFSR (Russian Country in USSR) are two opposed entities who would sooner let Germans make gains on their territory than take men away from fighting each other, and if you think about it - it makes perfect sense, and is also quite literally what happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War

So why are the three flags together?

Well, imo - Putler’s Fascist Russia is nationalist first and foremost, which is inherently very right-wing, but of course a lot of their glory days were at least under the pretense of leftism, and plenty of Russian nationalists wish for Soviet revival, when in reality they’d be first in the gulags for being rightoids, or if for nothing else - optics.

So putler has a choice, just memoryhole Russia at its most successful as RSFSR both in evil (imperialism, authoritarianism) and good ways (science, technology, welfare) and embrace Romanov lineage Revanchism, or attempt to work in the optics of the soviet union into the national imperial image.

Unfortunately for everyone, Surkov, Dugin and the lot chose post-truth. The Russian “Federation” has no ideology, other than power and maintaining the economic and political capital of its oligarchs and their ability to steal from the Russian people and anyone else unfortunate enough to get in the way.

It’s an observation, not a conclusion ya nitwit.

The absence of scientifically rigorous, high sample size experimentally proven, well substantiated, documented reproducible conclusions does not render the observation wrong in and of itself because they’re just not in the same category.

Observation is the first step to formulating a theory, which leads to a hypothesis, which can be experimentally tested.

Yes I understand.

But what I don’t get, is why are neurotypicals so inclined to look for “something mindless to distract them, thus the emphasis on mindless scrolling over guided or curated content.”?

That’s like the entire question no one has answered ITT.