ok dear agent, you cannot admit losing the discussion so you'll just resort to namecalling, so vice versa 💅

Once again, your idea that violence leads to a “system where the strong kill the weak” is ironic because it perfectly describes capitalism. Under capitalism, the strong (the wealthy) already exploit and oppress the weak (workers and marginalized groups). Capitalism is a system of structural violence: people die of preventable diseases, starvation, imperialist wars and workplace accidents because profit is prioritized over human life. The strong kill the weak daily, but they often do it quietly, through markets and laws, not just the rifles and bayonets. And bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends.

I'll reiterate with hope that you cease your baseless fearmongering: revolutionary forms of social organization, when properly rooted in democratic proletarian control, aim to abolish the conditions under which “the strong” exploit “the weak.” The dictatorship of the proletariat, as articulated by Marx and Engels, is not a tyranny of individuals but a transitional state where the working class wields power collectively to dismantle class hierarchies.

It is capitalism, not socialism, where the strong exploit the weak. In the present system, billionaires exploit the workers, devastate the planet, and use their power to crush resistance. What you fear is the inversion of this state of affairs: a society where the oppressed assert their collective strength to abolish oppression altogether.

Your apparent appeals to moralistic platitudes ignore the material realities of class society. Under capitalism, it is the ruling class that pits the poor against one another through systemic inequality, wage suppression, and imperialist wars. Revolutionary movements aim to unite the working class against their true enemies: the capitalist class.

To denounce revolutionary struggle while ignoring the daily violence of capitalism—poverty, police brutality, environmental destruction—is to tacitly side with the oppressors. Revolutionary action is not about chaos or "killing each other" but about dismantling the systems that perpetuate such violence.

Somewhat useful with (neo)vim, where it's (however tiny af) context window spans every open buffer

yeah sysctl > regedit

'tis a meme... ;)

I'd like to interject

I mean I get it might be because of being afraid of it being used to train LLMs. But I doubt that it would work, either because they won't be used regardless or because of how federation works, i.e. literally it'd be more efficient if all of the known network instances' operators somehow agreed to include/Lemmy, kbin and all of the microblogging platforms that can federate with Lemmy shipped a robots.txt that blocks known AI crawlers. Probably what would be more useful would be something that e.g. Akkoma and some other AP implementers offer, i.e. message autodeletion.

Also terrible if you want to retain any anonymity even if more people did it, because of stylometry.

oh the bubble's gonna burst sooner than some may think

you can also use libsixel for that. Contour is a pretty good term that supports that.

also microservices in my experience worsen this sort of bitrot where the amount of usual duplication it involves means that even if you manage not to have poorly documented spaghetti magic that gets updated once in an eon in one service or two it still might be elsewhere and this

1. discourages refactoring due to the duplication
2. harms consistency
3. encourages lousiness because your stuff might mostly work on a surface level with the rest of your system because you only expose APIs and don't need to worry that much about how your methods will be called. Which might seem convenient to use and implement in an ideal scenario, but could easily become troublesome to debug if anything goes wrong.

syntax is pretty neat but if OP wants something with similar syntax that performs better instead of type checking unit tests alone taking more time to complete than compiling a C++ AAA game, then Elixir might be a better choice. Also it's functional approach could really provide a fun challenge. I mean, you can even see that by comparing the performance and resource consumption of akkoma/pleroma vs mastodon. Above 10k users or so you have to either scale your instance horizontally or shut it down.

Rust's memory safety is much different (ownership, lifetimes, immutability). Also Rust has null safety while Go doesn't. Go has some uninitialized variable use protection, but you can still screw up if you do stuff like accessing a struct field that hasn't been assigned a value. In C there's much higher chance of segfaults, use-after-free precisely due to manual memory management (malloc and free, which do not exist in Go). For example earlier versions of Java and most interpreted languages of the past whilst offering memory safety, consumed a lot of system resources, making them unsuitable for performance critical things like games, drivers etc.

Then innovations in memory management and the resulting safety improvements and easier development these new languages offer allowed using them for writing performance critical code. Hope that answers your question.

gitui