Sorry, book broke

  • 4 Posts
  • 138 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • Normally I’d say fuck Nintendo but palworld obviously stole the designs and artistic direction for many of their characters.

    Most of the pals I saw at first were modified versions of an already existant pokemon with little to seperate it from fan art of that pokemon. This is particularly agregoous as they clashed against the rest of this games aesthetic. Nothing that was original fit with the design of the pokemon rip offs.

    Many other games have a pokemon esque aesthetic without direct copying. It looking similar is not my issue. My issue is that while playing I could easily name most pals to a pokemon. Seriously, look up comparisons. It’s blatant.

    They’ve moved away from thisbrecently but fuck man if it ain’t obvious. If they did the same to some small project I’d assume people would be much more up in arms, rightfully so.

    Still though, I won’t cry if Nintendo loses. I hope they pay an insane amount in lawyers fees either way and never see a dime out of the case



  • Edit: these suggestions are last resort type stuff tbf, hope the guys in the other thread are more help. Looks like someone suggested session restore w/ kde which makes alot of sense.

    Ok that’s increadibly weird. Here’s some places I’d look.

    I’d start looking in environment files such as ~/.bash_profile, .~/.profile, /etc/environment, /etc/profile and a few others. Maybe there’s a call to the application in one of these files?

    Secondly, I’d attempt to write a bash script to walk a directory tree, cat out files, pipe it through grep and get every instance where VirtualBox is mentioned in a file. Trying the name of proccess, or of the executable too.

    I have a snippet that may help, by replacing that bash script:
    grep -Rinw '~/path/to/start/' -e 'VirtualBoxOrSmthngElse'

    all credit to this answer on SO:
    https://stackoverflow.com/a/16957078/11534230

    Head there to see how to try and wittle down the matches. I’d start in a etc, ignore binary files with grep, and try everywere systematically

    This is likely overkill lol. If you’re on xorg maybe there’s something in the file xorg uses for init? Can’t remember the name personally but I used it to start up some processes before on system boot quite a while ago


  • You do make some good points on it being terminalside, you’ve partially changed my mind there. I see the value now.

    Also, you would be correct anything that allowed collapsing commands would be trivial to implement some sort of action per command and it’s output. Along with collapsing being easiest to do terminalside.

    What I would love to see is a terminal that builds it’s own shell from scratch too rejecting the ancient ideas we have with bash. I still love bash but I’m curious what could come of it.

    As for their luddite status their reply to my previous comment seems to show them to be a bit more open

    Seriously though thanks for the good conversation and thought excersize


  • Konsole can display images, as can kitty, alacritty, western, iterm2, etc. There’s quite a few formats to do so dating back decades. This isn’t new.

    As for collapsing a command and it’s output that’s nice, but it’s not exactly game changing.

    Lastly, searching explicitly your last command for a term with context would be much better suited to the shell to solve as it’d be terminal independent. Wouldn’t surprise me if under the hood it’s a bash script that takes whatever input you pass to bash, execs it, pipes stdout to tee, which passes it to a text file storing output and the console’s output too. Of course, you can always pipe it to fzf for a live grep with context if you have it set up right and remember to do so

    I would agree just denying any advancements in favor of the “good ole way” is idiotic but nothing I’ve seen or that you’ve listed convinces me these are major advancements. Nor are these anything that couldn’t be solved at the shells level or with supplementary applications. Nice to have, if it weren’t electron or closed I would switch, but nothing groundbreaking

    I doubt they’re outright rejecting any idea of progress. They’re likely just not convinced by what the fancy options offer











  • I think you’re having some issues separating your specific ideas and ideology from definitions and history here. I’ll, much like you, start with your last statement. But not before thanking you for a well thought out response.

    There are multiple forms of syndicalism that have existed throughout the years and though you may see them as building towards a noble goal of anarchism, that’s objectively not every instances goal nor is it needed for the definition. Sure, syndicalism is incredibly helpful to build an anarchist future, but it can also end up simply building a better future inside another system. It’s not about convincing you it’s about describing historic acts. Once more syndicalism is descriptive of a collection of similar movements. It is not something designed by a person or group. It’s descriptive, not proscriptive. Many, yes, are anarchist, but not all. Look at Canadian and American efforts who at the time were not called syndicalist but now are correctly classified as such. Look at the original french movements. This is not a calling out. Syndicalism is a fantastic method which brings out quite a lot of good. As for platformism, I’d agree, it’s a form of syndicalism.

    This is like stating that a builder makes homes. Sure, they can make homes, and we can agree they should, but they can also create a company HQ. They’re still builders. One can say since they’re not working towards a goal we agree with they are not builders, but they wouldn’t be correct in a literal sense.

    Now, onto socialism. As a socialist I resent the idea that socialism is synonomous with communism and disagree with it being historically thought of as such. Socialism has been distinctwidely known as distinct from communism since the 1840s, less than 10 years after it’s first usage.

    I believe you to be confused too by what I mean. I do not believe Stalinist russia to be socialist. That fascist authoritarian, much like another, just used that word as a bludgeon and a rallying cry. Socialism is worker control, and ownership, over industry. That is all. Though there was quite alot of worker control under the USSR I would argue under command economics the true owner was the government. The workers still had alot more power over their workplace, thus my description of it being socialistic.

    no, however, stalin did not make these terms different. they’ve been so since the 1840s and both marx and lenin described them as such.

    Socialism has been, will be, and currently is a system where the workers have control and ownership over industry. I see no reason to conflate it with communism, a money-less, classless, stateless system where resources are distributed equitably. That would make the term meaningless.

    Lastly, on anarchism, that is a word with a fairly well defined definition too. Anarchism is simply any anti-hirachical system that is fundamentally against any system of authority. We can agree that an anarcho-capitalist sociaty would quickly devolve into a system with well defined authorities but at that point it would nolonger be anarcho-capitalist. The system as defined is an anarchist solution. It’s just an increadibly stupid one that’ll instantly implode unlike more well thought out forms. I’ll be clear here, though I am not an anarchist I do see reason in the communist form of anarchist movements.

    As for communism differing from anarchism, your example is a-historic. Since you speak on a vanguard party, I assume you mean leninism as marx did not write on this. Leninists, maoists, etc, did not believe it had to pass though capitalism. Quite the opposite they thought a vanguard party could skip this part. What you describe as anarchism, direct action by the prolatariate, is also part of leninism as he thought the same. He simply believed that the prolatariate needed to be spurred to action by increasing their quality of life and education before they overtake the vanguard party in a second, violant revolt. It seems that you do conflate the two ideas of anarchism and communism when it comes to the end goal though differentiate only on methodology. This is not the case however as one can have a system with no authority, no hyrarchy, which still has money as long as that money is evenly distributed and wealth isn’t allowed to accrue. Or, where a state still exists, but only exists through direct democracy on each action. Both would be poor solutions but still anarchist solutions.


  • That which you describe is not socialism. Marx, Lenin, Mao, ho chi min, ect. were communists and their acts were meant to build up to communism. They believed that a command economy with socialistic entities controlling industry were a good tool to do so (save for Marx). Their philosophy was not sincerly socialist however they simply saw it as a means to an ends. A step in the evolution towards their goal.

    Seperatly, communism which can be described as a moneyless, stateless, classless system where resources are distributed according to need first then want and ability to redistribute is an anarchist solution. Sure, they never got there, but this is what they were trying to build towards. They were, fundamentally, anarchists. They simply believed that an authoritarian “vanguard” was needed to get society to a point where it could form this anarchistic solution by overthrowing the vanguard.

    Lastly, syndicalism is arguably not an anarchistic movement as it’s not even really a cohesive idiology. It’s moreso descriptive of common ideas than proscriptive and can work with both a regulated economy with an organized government or without. Thus the term anarch-syndacalist

    As for the naming I tend to agree. Though the reasoning for the name is understandable. Each had a different idea on how communism could be built and each (save for marx) were quite dependant on authoritarian, strong man tactics. On Marx though, he was the prodomenant speaker for the ideas put forward. The more generic idea present, communism, follows your prefered naming scheme.

    Lastly, I’m certain I could find some mutualist variant, or market anarchist variant, named after it’s progenetor. Particularly if I were to look into anarch capitalism I’m sure it’s present



  • This is a massive miss-play on Suse’s part. Essentially all the good will, and recognition I have for Suse is based on OpenSuse. It’s the reason many of the places I’ve worked at now run a Suse product instead of redhat. Seriously, when I think of OpenSuse and Suse as a whole I barely differentiate the toonunlike redhat and fedora. That’s likely the reason for the switch but I cannot see how-this does anything but benefit them.

    From the article too there are some concerns. Suse is, admittedly, trying to cause opensuse to change direction ans managment to further suit it’s buisness at threat of removing support. This is sad to see.