You have a common and problematic view of things. You asked if you are doing something wrong, it looks like you probably are. I’d advise you question your worldview a bit and talk honestly with folks you feel you can respect on how they got from where you are to where they are.

Yes, that is absolutely unacceptable. But that has nothing to do with your personal situation and I would say it is unhealthy to relate the two.

Women are not a monolith and not all admiration of physical attributes is misogyny.

If you see it as work or effort to not post online about random peoples physical attributes when you see a picture of them, then yea you should look at yourself a bit. It shouldn’t feel like you deserve a reward for not being like that.

Taking actions to be an Ally has risks for folks in some places. Where I am LBGTQA+ support is the norm and doesn’t really need to be spoken and when it is I’ve never heard anyone in over 10 years say a negative thing.

I have online though seen folks who try to speak up in Allyship of someone else get taken down. Subjected to purity tests by folks in an LGBTQA+ supporting community. It felt like the same bi erasure I’ve experienced and the same transphobia I’ve seen from parts of the LG community in the 2000s. It’s like saying someone isn’t gay if they haven’t come out. All it does is lessen the crew.

LGBTQA+ shouldnt be treated as a club with a rainbow dress code. It should be the future default standpoint of all of humanity.

I think the big difference here is that to the average user they see archive.org or Wikipedia as being a onesided transaction. An Archive where folks store information for you, an encyclopedia where information is stored by folks for you. There is no expectation of engagement of the average user. It is rare for someone to wake up and think “Man I gotta put something up on Wikipedia today or people are going to think I’m not the person I act like I am”.

People go to social events to keep up appearances. People participate on social media to keep up appearances. Maintaining these types of things require you to effectively help people balance their ability to participate in society with their ability to communicate. A Wikipedia contributor is a scholar. A community moderator is a bartender and a bouncer rolled into one. It doesn’t have the stability because the work required to keep things going is high stress for the majority of the people doing the work.

Lemmy’s solution is nice because the smaller instances can just ban whole cloth the larger ones and everyone gets to move forward. It means you never are burdened by having a ton of users, but that then also defies the goal of some of the larger social media platforms.

When it converts to the profit extraction phase the cutting edge folks will move on. Then the content will slowly become dominated by corporate auto created content. And then eventually the average person will look for the next place to go.

This is just the new cool local bar hangout at scale. This is how human socialization works. It has worked like this for hundreds of years.

I get it, and I agree that most people are not in the right job. This is a big part of why folks want things like a higher minimum wage and socialized healthcare. People often are stuck in jobs because they NEED something from that job and are unable to look around. Then on the other side, sometimes folks find their calling but it pays $9 an hour and they feel a need to try to do better.

I work with a lot of folks for example that got into management because they think that is what you do. They hate the job, they miss writing code, they are awful managers. It’s a very backwards way of living your life.

I am just trying to talk to an ideal and real scenario here. The idea that all jobs suck and that is life is exactly what keeps people down. That is the lie folks believe that keeps them from seeking peace and contentment. We gotta fight that even if we also know that it isn’t easy to find a spot and when you do it might not be viable with the rest of your life.

I am saying yes they would, yes I would. You entirely can find a job that is something you want to do and also not your hobby. Most things folks want to do are someone’s job.

The only place I can accomplish the tasks I’d like to accomplish are at my work. Some tasks are so large that they not only require many many people who wouldn’t normally choose to work together, but a regular flow of resources from others.

People are so lost in capitalism they tie it ALL work to just being money. Even if you remove capitalism, even if you remove money, people still need to work together and resources still need to channel from place to place. Your job wouldn’t go away if money went away. If you look at some of the largest most successful open source free programs in the world, most of the top contributors are all from companies that paid that person a salary for contributing to that code.

The oldest profession traded in it so they are arguably the original currency.

We all have happiness, it’s just hard to see it past all the other stuff we got going on in our heads.

This is a patch from the hardware vendor so I am assuming that the ask is not that the hardware vendor take responsibility but that they not release buggy hardware. That is what I mean about the validation issue.

The attack vector is shared in the patch so it isn’t entirely a theory.

There is a comment from Linus about how this patch is only needed for some hardware and doesn’t apply to others but I don’t get his relevance there as different hardware validates against different use cases and their source logic might be entirely disparate.

So my validation talk is simply saying that bugs happen. My concern here is what more should a hardware vendor do beyond submitting a kernel patch? You can’t just not have the bug, and if you recall the part someone else will just keep theirs in the field and take all the market share and roll the dice that their bugs don’t get exploited.

Is this really the hardware vendor’s problem though? It’s the consumers problem.

I bring up full validation because the concern here is putting in a speculative fix. If the ask is, why was the hardware like that in the first place the answer is because it can’t be fully validated. If the ask is why should a speculative fix go into the Kernel it is because the consumers are not on top of tree and if a fix has a chance of never being exploited it needs to be pulled in years ahead so it goes into an LTR that customers migrate to BEFORE the issue comes up.

Fully validating hardware is an insane task that hasn’t been really done in years. It would mean 5 years between chip releases and a 2-5X in cost to produce, and people wouldn’t follow the validated configs anyways. If we followed the validated hardware spec we would have 50 min boot times and not go past a 3.5Ghz clock.

People have the choice today on if they want to run on validated hardware. You can opt in to get a 2.8Ghz part that supports 2666MT/s that is mostly tested and validated, or you can get a 5Ghz part that supports 6000MT/s that is only partially validated. They cost the same price. What do folks think people pick?

Every security feature ever made has basically started by absolutely dumping on S3 recovery. S3 recovery requires every device in the computer to give you a complete understanding of how to bring it up cold without engaging the boot flow. Sometimes devices don’t do this because they are lazy, other times they don’t do this for security reasons.

Every PC will be using AI as we move forward and thinking they won’t seems as head in the sand to me as thinking the Internet would be a fad. Remember how awful the Internet was in the 80s and 90s? AI is in a similar spot today.

Why would I read a manual when I can ask an AI to summarize it and give me pages so I can confirm? If I’m trying to do a task I know a million people have solved like Python code to translate XLSX and CSV to JSON and back, why wouldn’t I use AI for that?

Trusting AI outright and not reviewing the answers is silly, but doing research with AI is soooo much faster. Also the majority of articles and manuals you find online written in the past year used AI and you can have CoPilot spit it out to you WITH the original sources that the website/blog hides.

The idea that AI isn’t trustworthy is silly, because no one is trustworthy. You should always have been double checking things for yourself, but sitting and struggling through something for 2 days is foolish when AI could do 80% of the work for you in seconds.

2060 job posting, Quantum Stability Engineer.

Unwrap them and open it and then put them all back so they look used. Write on the box in sharpie “Backups 1/127”. Delete the critical production system at your work. When someone asks where the backups are, hand them these.