You know that repeating what you’re being told verbatim isn’t an argument, right? I have a hunch you’re not really clear on the meaning of the word “substance”… Parroting concepts defined in books, without the actual substance from the book, or without your own interpretation, is about as useful as a page number without a title…

So far, aside from vague conceptual buzzwords, you have contributed nothing else than “I know you are, but what am I?”.

So, again, let’s cut short, this ain’t Mario, I don’t have several lives to try again. Thanks.

I only downvoted you because I very honestly find your rhetoric dangerously wrong.

I have nothing personal against you, but you unfortunately answered nothing of substance, so I will elect to agree to disagree, and stop wasting each other’s time. 🙂

deleted by creator

There are 2781 billionaires. That’s it. 2781. Saying they are a subset of the bourgeoisie is like saying that saying that a blade of grass is a subset of a forest.

Technically, one could argue that a single molecule in a forest is a subset of the forest, but by any rational standard, a subset of something needs to exhibit similar properties. It needs to be relatable.

And compared to billionaires, the bourgeoisie isn’t different from any of us. They are pawns, they are poor, and they are negligible.

The actual bourgeoisie, as in the texts you probably have read, and take this concept from, is a thing of the past. It is gone. In our modern world, their wealth has to be extracted differently, but it has to be extracted too.

The discrepancy between billionaires and the rest, in wealth (US$14.2 trillion out of US$110 trillion - the Gross World Product, GWP - (or 12.91%); or out of US$184 trillion - the world’s GDP in terms of PPP - (or 7.72%)), or in demographics (2781 people among 8100000000 (or, 0.000034%)) is making them a glitch.

To illustrate my point better (or at least try to), if we were to divide the entire planet according to that monetary value, each of those billionaires would own between 0.02‰ (GDP) and 0.05‰ (GWP) of the entire planet, on average. That’s equivalent to slices of the planet of 36 arcseconds (GDP) or 1 arcminute (GWP), on its entire latitude, and up to its rotation axle, per billionaire. Those would respectively correspond to slices 1.11km or 1.86km wide at the equator, or 789m or 1.31km wide at 45° latitude.

So, they are not part of our system, of the stupid LARP we all decided to play. They are on the side of it, exploiting it and making friends with the admins. They are not different from 14 year olds who found an infinite money glitch in an online game and keep pressing the fucking button over an over as if it would stop their parent’s divorce.

Eliminating class distinctions will not eliminate the existence of the billionaires. They will still have the same wealth, and so, the same power, because their wealth, or power, does not come from their status, as it used to; or as it does in the literature you are very likely (given the Marxist Leninist roots of this corner of the internet) basing yourself upon. It comes a psychotic abuse of systemic glitches.

Almost none of the literature you can find on the subject of classes will account for this. It is all so outdated it is irrelevant.

More than irrelevant, it is critically dangerous. Saying that “eliminating classes distinctions eliminates the existence of billionaires” is not just wrong: it is giving billionaires an opportunity to gaslight us further by pretending not to be the problem.

The bourgeoisie is bad.

But the real problem are the billionaires.

Don’t mix the two, killing all the bourgeois will not help us now. I’m not saying it should be off the table, I’m saying it would be a red herring the billionaires would likely employ to save their asses.

#killallbillionaires.

Alternatively, tax all worth beyond 1 billion at a 100% rate, and kill no one.

Let’s see which happens first…

If you need to provide tools that cross security boundaries then […] a small web app is better [than sudo].

A web app? Effin really!!? 🤨

But use the widows version and the proton layer. The Linux version is horribly coded.

And Docker initially used Ubuntu. They explicitly and specifically switched to Alpine in 2016 for performance, to minimise the overhead.

Note: this comment is long, because it is important and the idea that “systemd is always better, no matter the situation” is absolutely dangerous for the entire FOSS ecosystem: both diversity and rationality are essential.

Systemd can get more efficient than running hundreds of poorly integrated scripts

In theory yes. In practice, systemd is a huge monolithic single-point-of-failure system, with several bottlenecks and reinventing-the-wheel galore. And openrc is a far cry from “hundreds of poorly integrated scripts”.

I think it is crucial we stop having dogmatic “arguments” with argumentum ad populum or arguments of authority, or we will end up recreating a Microsoft-like environment in free software.

Let’s stop trying to shoehorn popular solutions into ill suited use cases, just because they are used elsewhere with different limitations.

Systemd might make sense for most people on desktop targets (CPUs with several cores, and several GB of RAM), because convenience and comfort (which systemd excels at, let’s be honest) but as we approach “embedded” targets, simpler and smaller is always better.

And no matter how much optimisation you cram into the bigger software, it will just not perform like the simpler software, especially with limited resources.

Now, I take OpenRC as an example here, because it is AFAIR the default in devuan, but it also supports runit, sinit, s6 and shepherd.

And using s6, you just can’t say “systemd is flat out better in all cases”, that would be simply stupid.

Devuan + xfce.

Larger might be acceptable too, not sure

It should.

Also, work off of the copy. Never touch the source.

Love how nuanced this is 🙃

Better lzma performance with xz. 🤪

In that case, your second and subsequent points should have no text, since the source material has no text for them. And the last point can’t arguably have text at all either way. 😉

More seriously, the source material has both texts and images, and it was your choice to only represent half of that. You could have easily written:

Technically, “without text nor image”. Your list is implying otherwise.

This is actually the reason. Because there is no such thing as “natural intelligence”. Not more than there is “natural strength”. There are natural predispositions, yes, but what you get is function of what training effort you put in. Whether you realise, and/or like, putting effort into training your intelligence, is is another thing. So people who are “above average” were in a favorable environment that fostered their development without it feeling forced, or unnatural. And then, when the environment was replaced by the school’s, it sadly didn’t foster personal development anymore. I would argue we would need to redesign education, now that we have internet. We don’t have to design courses around physical limits.