I think I need to go to bed. I didn't read the "in", and I was like "eating your car is degenerate? I guess so, but why bring that up?"
#nextcloud So I played a bit more with external samba shares on my nextcloud, but I found that there were some real issues with it. Unfortunately, in my application trying to access the smb share killed php! Can't explain it, but once I got a few levels deep, the game was over and I couldn't even access the instance anymore until I either rebooted the computer or later figured out I could reboot php-fpm.
I tried webdav next and it worked a bit better but I couldn't pull any files. Finally, I moved to ftp and while it wasn't happy at first, but after restarting php-fpm one more time, everything clicked and I was able to navigate the share and more importantly pull files from the share.
I tried webdav next and it worked a bit better but I couldn't pull any files. Finally, I moved to ftp and while it wasn't happy at first, but after restarting php-fpm one more time, everything clicked and I was able to navigate the share and more importantly pull files from the share.
dangit. I was hoping to avoid that, the point of the planter box was to not have to get down on my hands and knees to do some gardening.
One thing that a lot of studies do with respect to who is feeding the planet is they conflate a "small farm" and a "family farm". The study I found showed that the two are definitely not the same. Defining a "family farm" as a farm owned by one individual or group of individuals and a "small farm" as a farm that has less than two hectares of land, the study I found said that 85% of food was produced by "family farms", but only 35% of food was produced by "small farms". This is due to the fact that the majority of land is operated by family farms of all sizes and a minority of agricultural land is operated by small farms.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X2100067X
Historically, this reality that some families end up with massive and quite productive farms is one of the truths that led to the massacres of the kulaks in the soviet union, since some of the former serfs were more successful than the others.
According to one analysis, organic farming methods were generally between 20 and 50% less productive per acre for food crops.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/283996769/The-Yield-Gap-For-Organic-Farming
That's really bad. 20-50% reduced global productivity would put a lot of places that are ok today in bad shape.
On the topic of biofuels, my mind is actually changed -- you're right, we shouldn't be wasting like that. I didn't think they were that bad, but looking at just how much food they're using up, it's a vanity project we're spending overwhelming amounts of energy wastefully on, especially when there's questions about where regular people are getting their next meal from.
https://www.ifpri.org/blog/food-versus-fuel-v20-biofuel-policies-and-current-food-crisis
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X2100067X
Historically, this reality that some families end up with massive and quite productive farms is one of the truths that led to the massacres of the kulaks in the soviet union, since some of the former serfs were more successful than the others.
According to one analysis, organic farming methods were generally between 20 and 50% less productive per acre for food crops.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/283996769/The-Yield-Gap-For-Organic-Farming
That's really bad. 20-50% reduced global productivity would put a lot of places that are ok today in bad shape.
On the topic of biofuels, my mind is actually changed -- you're right, we shouldn't be wasting like that. I didn't think they were that bad, but looking at just how much food they're using up, it's a vanity project we're spending overwhelming amounts of energy wastefully on, especially when there's questions about where regular people are getting their next meal from.
https://www.ifpri.org/blog/food-versus-fuel-v20-biofuel-policies-and-current-food-crisis
I have a problem with statements like that, because I've lived my entire life listening to people tell us what's going to work and then it doesn't work. Rubber needs to hit road and a thing needs to work.
Whether we like it or not, there's entire countries that weren't able to previously feed their own people with their farmland that are now exporting food because they started chemical fertilizer on what was previously sustenance farming. You can say it's wrong, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating -- and ammonium nitrate fertilizer helps feed the globe.
That's why I'm so much about proven technologies like hydroelectric and streetcars, because we know they can work because they did work, they are working, and they can continue to work.
Whether we like it or not, there's entire countries that weren't able to previously feed their own people with their farmland that are now exporting food because they started chemical fertilizer on what was previously sustenance farming. You can say it's wrong, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating -- and ammonium nitrate fertilizer helps feed the globe.
That's why I'm so much about proven technologies like hydroelectric and streetcars, because we know they can work because they did work, they are working, and they can continue to work.
And tbh, not even the people in charge of the world are fully in charge of the world. You control your generals maybe 90%, and they control their lieutenants maybe 80%, and through layers and layers eventually even authoritarians only exert so much control over the masses of people.
2023 is the year of permaculture. 4 plants that are good for an extremely cold ecosystem year after year: a strawberry plant, two blueberry plants (the hardiest plants of the bunch) and a raspberry plant.
The wire is because I know we have some critters I absolutely expect to try to escape with my plants. The plastic is because it turns out I didn't have as much wire as I thought I did. We'll see how it holds up, but I strongly suspect I'll need to get more wire.
I'm really excited to see how they grow this summer, but I'm more interested in seeing how they manage over the winter.
I also planted some green onions, but they're already looking pretty dire. We'll see how they do.
The wire is because I know we have some critters I absolutely expect to try to escape with my plants. The plastic is because it turns out I didn't have as much wire as I thought I did. We'll see how it holds up, but I strongly suspect I'll need to get more wire.
I'm really excited to see how they grow this summer, but I'm more interested in seeing how they manage over the winter.
I also planted some green onions, but they're already looking pretty dire. We'll see how they do.
I feel for the people who will be hurt by the upcoming financial crisis, but in the meantime it's amusing watching the thing the powers that be promised would never happen occurring like clockwork.
It really depends on the role of the operator in the system.
If the operator is just a brainless and powerless widget, then by all means they can never be the root cause of a problem.
If the operator is empowered and used as an integral part of the brains of the operation, then you must accept that they will sometimes be the root cause of a problem.
Smart phones are increasingly putting their operator in the former role, so if something happens it really isn't the operator's fault because it's supposed to be a padded room where consumers of content are never able to do anything that can hurt anything.
On the other hand, something like a piece of heavy duty construction equipment is on the other side of the spectrum. If the bulldozer operator, empowered with the operation of the equipment, is supposed to level out a piece of dirt but some neurons misfire and instead decides to drive through the mayor's house, the operator is the root cause of the problem.
I see it personally, where companies spend ten or hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to engineer operator error out of a system where operators are empowered and relied upon as an integral part of the operation, and the company is always fighting the last war because incompetent operators are always finding new ways to screw up.
If the operator is just a brainless and powerless widget, then by all means they can never be the root cause of a problem.
If the operator is empowered and used as an integral part of the brains of the operation, then you must accept that they will sometimes be the root cause of a problem.
Smart phones are increasingly putting their operator in the former role, so if something happens it really isn't the operator's fault because it's supposed to be a padded room where consumers of content are never able to do anything that can hurt anything.
On the other hand, something like a piece of heavy duty construction equipment is on the other side of the spectrum. If the bulldozer operator, empowered with the operation of the equipment, is supposed to level out a piece of dirt but some neurons misfire and instead decides to drive through the mayor's house, the operator is the root cause of the problem.
I see it personally, where companies spend ten or hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to engineer operator error out of a system where operators are empowered and relied upon as an integral part of the operation, and the company is always fighting the last war because incompetent operators are always finding new ways to screw up.
Full Clearing Another World under a Goddess with Zero Believers.
I like the series because like Hell Mode the characters actually do start out on the bottom.
I like the series because like Hell Mode the characters actually do start out on the bottom.
For people running #nextcloud on a home server that's exposed to the outside world, I found out something really neat.
You can mount local smb shares as folders in your nextcloud. This means you can set up your nextcloud so you can access all kinds of local fileshares remotely through a firewall.
I've got a nas for archival purposes, but it's always a pain to get files off of it. Now I can use it just like any other nextcloud folder, and without something silly like exposing a samba share to the outside world.
You can mount local smb shares as folders in your nextcloud. This means you can set up your nextcloud so you can access all kinds of local fileshares remotely through a firewall.
I've got a nas for archival purposes, but it's always a pain to get files off of it. Now I can use it just like any other nextcloud folder, and without something silly like exposing a samba share to the outside world.
One of the main characters in an Isekai series I like is a snek girl. She learned how to pretend how to have legs though. Fewer questions that way.
Spent more mobile data this month on the fediverse than on YouTube. I feel like that's some sort of win.
Some anthropologists think that one of the early traumas of the human race's high level of cognition is the realization that every individual will die. An individual realizing that they are inevitably moving towards death and there's nothing to be done about it is deeply traumatic, but there's a deeper trauma I think, and that'll be when humanity realizes that the survival of the human race or even the planet earth won't be universal. I think it's in that process right now, and that's where we're seeing some really childish ideologies come out of it -- civilization is grieving the realization that some day everything we ever were is going to disappear, and some people are in the denial stage and other people are in the bargaining stage, but ultimately it'll be something we have to accept and find ways to move on from.
Finding ways to survive and thrive as a species understanding that we're going to be destroyed someday whatever we do is going to be quite a bit more complicated than just saying "drill baby drill" or "stop all technology now and return to monkey life". Mindlessly consuming the earth to our premature end is bad, but so is trying to become an acetic monk trying to live off a glass of algae and a gallon of solar desalinated oceanwater and in the process killing billions because that's not doable on a large enough scale.
There are definitely ideologies which, if implemented, would immediately cause billions of deaths. For example, there are a lot of people claiming we need to stop using fossil fuels "RIGHT NOW". that's a call for the deaths of billions of people. You could end up with the worst of both possible worlds: First an immediate wave of death because people can't get food or heat. Then as people fight back against the genocidal governments and implement something in reaction, so climate change is ultimately accelerated anyway.
My viewpoint is that if we want to transition away from carbon (and no matter what we think it's a resource that is non-renewable and won't be renewed by the same processes again -- the carboniferous period is a geologic period and system of the Paleozoic that spans 60 million years from the end of the Devonian Period 358.9 million years ago (Mya), to the beginning of the Permian Period, 298.9 million years ago. It was the era after trees evolved but before fungi evolved the ability to rot wood, and massive forests built up and created coal beds), we need to kill some sacred cows. Particularly in Canada, we need to be going all-in on hydroelectric -- the one form of electricity that has been proven to be practical in Canada in cold weather. If Canada went all-in on hydroelectric, then not only would electricity be inexpensive and plentiful such that people could heat their homes and operate transportation using electricity, but they could sell massive amounts of electricity to the United States, replacing fossil fuels for many residential, commercial, and industrial uses in those regions.
There would be a cost. We will need to build things people don't want built in places people don't want to build things. We would massively damage the environment. The question becomes: Do you want to stop using fossil fuels or not? We have solutions that will work, but there will be a cost. There is no solution without an environmental cost, period.
Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, and I think Newfoundland are almost entirely hydroelectric. Most of that work happened before power dams became NIMBY.
Finding ways to survive and thrive as a species understanding that we're going to be destroyed someday whatever we do is going to be quite a bit more complicated than just saying "drill baby drill" or "stop all technology now and return to monkey life". Mindlessly consuming the earth to our premature end is bad, but so is trying to become an acetic monk trying to live off a glass of algae and a gallon of solar desalinated oceanwater and in the process killing billions because that's not doable on a large enough scale.
There are definitely ideologies which, if implemented, would immediately cause billions of deaths. For example, there are a lot of people claiming we need to stop using fossil fuels "RIGHT NOW". that's a call for the deaths of billions of people. You could end up with the worst of both possible worlds: First an immediate wave of death because people can't get food or heat. Then as people fight back against the genocidal governments and implement something in reaction, so climate change is ultimately accelerated anyway.
My viewpoint is that if we want to transition away from carbon (and no matter what we think it's a resource that is non-renewable and won't be renewed by the same processes again -- the carboniferous period is a geologic period and system of the Paleozoic that spans 60 million years from the end of the Devonian Period 358.9 million years ago (Mya), to the beginning of the Permian Period, 298.9 million years ago. It was the era after trees evolved but before fungi evolved the ability to rot wood, and massive forests built up and created coal beds), we need to kill some sacred cows. Particularly in Canada, we need to be going all-in on hydroelectric -- the one form of electricity that has been proven to be practical in Canada in cold weather. If Canada went all-in on hydroelectric, then not only would electricity be inexpensive and plentiful such that people could heat their homes and operate transportation using electricity, but they could sell massive amounts of electricity to the United States, replacing fossil fuels for many residential, commercial, and industrial uses in those regions.
There would be a cost. We will need to build things people don't want built in places people don't want to build things. We would massively damage the environment. The question becomes: Do you want to stop using fossil fuels or not? We have solutions that will work, but there will be a cost. There is no solution without an environmental cost, period.
Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, and I think Newfoundland are almost entirely hydroelectric. Most of that work happened before power dams became NIMBY.
But you don't understand! Someone on the internet might disagree with me! That's dangerous to our democracy. We need to crack down on dangerous words.
Back around 2009, I did a -- we'll say a study for lack of a better term of what it was. People end up focusing on transportation, and that is important, but the modern world is made up of industrial processes that are mandatory. We need to have ammonia. If we don't, humanity starves. We need steel. We need concrete. Those three things are the very base minimum of what we need just to continue living anything remotely like a modern place.
Ammonia in particular is an interesting case because it uses 2% of the world's natural gas production, and to replace that we'd need to replace the hydrogen created through catalytic cracking. To do that, we would have needed to use 1/3 of the entire planets non carbon-based power generation to generate massive amounts of hydrogen. In order to accomplish that, you would need to take away that energy for the purposes of heating homes or lighting homes or operating transportation.
Ammonia in particular is an interesting case because it uses 2% of the world's natural gas production, and to replace that we'd need to replace the hydrogen created through catalytic cracking. To do that, we would have needed to use 1/3 of the entire planets non carbon-based power generation to generate massive amounts of hydrogen. In order to accomplish that, you would need to take away that energy for the purposes of heating homes or lighting homes or operating transportation.
Trudeau has spent more debt than every other prime minister in history combined, most of it during the pandemic. By definition that's an unprecedented amount of debt, and it also happens to be an unprecedented amount of money. Canada spent more money than most per capita, but it wasn't alone in spending unprecedented amounts of money. https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/trudeau-to-pile-on-record-debt-steering-canada-out-of-pandemic-1.1591899
During this time, the middle class shrank and the rich got 40% richer during the pandemic. The sheer amount of wealth transferred to them represents an unprecedented growth in the wealth of the rich. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/oct/05/richest-americans-became-richer-during-pandemic
So saying my statement that it was an unprecedented money grab was overblown is categorically false. It was an unprecedented global money grab from all corners (except the poor and middle class)
Governments around the world seized powers they never used before. They directly intervened in private communications on social media. https://reason.com/2023/01/19/facebook-files-emails-cdc-covid-vaccines-censorship/
Governments around the world colluded and implemented policies that had never been put in place before. They shut down the entire planet. They put a billion people out of work. https://news.gallup.com/poll/348722/covid-put-billion-work.aspx
Trudeau used a law that had never been used before to seize the bank accounts of people for participating in a peaceful protest. That's unprecedented (and horrifying). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
So saying my statement that it was an unprecedented power grab was overblown is categorically false. It was an unprecedented global power grab.
None of the facts I've cited are in question. They were reported by all news organizations, and I've specifically picked organizations hostile to my viewpoint.
So the only thing left is whether we should trust studies out of Nature as trustworthy.
Well, given that the above is indisputable, can we say with certainty that Nature was publishing without any push from government officials?
In fact, we know that Nature was pushed by government officials to publish stories supporting the official narrative: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/email-shows-fauci-prompted-science-paper-casting-doubt-wuhan-lab-leak
We also know that people who disputed the official narrative were made into pariahs, mocked by the government and the media controlled by those governments. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/
We also know that medical doctors who disputed the official narrative were under threat of losing their medical license https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-16/doctors-coronavirus-misinformation-license
We know Nature picked sides in partisan matters, endorsing a presidential candidate during this same time, choosing a certain ideological viewpoint. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02852-x
So there seems to be reason to believe there could be a bias in this particular publication due to pressure from governments. But at least the process of science is sound, right?
Problem: Even prior to the pandemic, the majority of scientists agreed that there was a crisis in science, particularly regarding reproducibility and regarding the known biases from p-hacking and industry funded studies introducing biases. https://theconversation.com/the-science-reproducibility-crisis-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-74198 https://www.npr.org/2016/05/24/477921050/when-great-minds-think-unlike-inside-sciences-replication-crisis https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/why-bad-science-is-plaguing-health-research-rigor-mortis-richard-harris https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1919906117
The science worshippers who blindly followed because a study was published are in fact not scientists nor are they utilizing science because that's not how science works. Believing something blindly because it's written in a book is how religion works.
Which brings me to the most important thing, and it doesn't require any citations. It's an ought, not an is.
You ought not to attempt to micromanage everyone just because you're scared. Their lives don't belong to you, no matter how scared you are.
Let's say you're beyond right about COVID. Let's say it's actually airborne Ebola AIDS, and everyone else is beyond wrong. Well, then protect yourself. You can wear a mask, and quit your job, and go live in a cave, and stop seeing your friends and family, and get vaccinated every 6 weeks. When you're out and about you can wear a space suit and douse it in bleach before you walk back into your cave. Great. Good job.
Maybe you get it so right that you're the Omega man, wandering the land and the master of all you survey because everyone else is dead and you are brilliant. Great. Good job.
That's your choice. And to live otherwise is everyone else's choice. If they're going to choose wrong, that should not be within your power to force, any more than someone should be allowed to force you to take your mask off because they think you're choosing wrong by wearing a mask, or force you to go see your friends and family in person.
You think you're smarter than everyone else. Great news: Everyone thinks they're smarter than everyone else. And in terms of being themselves, they're right. They know how much they value for example not getting COVID, and they can balance that against all the things they'd need to give up to try not getting it. Some people still walk around in masks. Others have given up on all restrictions. That's their choice, it isn't your choice.
And if someone says "I'm willing to take the risk" and dies of COVID? Guess what? That's life. And if someone says "I'm not willing to take the risk" and dies of COVID after their 6th booster shot? Guess what? That's life. Neither one is a gotcha. The moment you're born you're at risk of dying every single moment of every single day, and it's a choice individuals have to make as to what level of risk they're willing to take for the cost of taking the risks and the cost of not taking the risks. Some people smoke and get lung cancer in their 20s, and some people smoke and live to be 114 years old. Between 15 and 20% of people never smoke a day in their lives and still get lung cancer.
Anyway, that wall of text should get blocked from most federated services, eh? 6500 characters?
During this time, the middle class shrank and the rich got 40% richer during the pandemic. The sheer amount of wealth transferred to them represents an unprecedented growth in the wealth of the rich. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/oct/05/richest-americans-became-richer-during-pandemic
So saying my statement that it was an unprecedented money grab was overblown is categorically false. It was an unprecedented global money grab from all corners (except the poor and middle class)
Governments around the world seized powers they never used before. They directly intervened in private communications on social media. https://reason.com/2023/01/19/facebook-files-emails-cdc-covid-vaccines-censorship/
Governments around the world colluded and implemented policies that had never been put in place before. They shut down the entire planet. They put a billion people out of work. https://news.gallup.com/poll/348722/covid-put-billion-work.aspx
Trudeau used a law that had never been used before to seize the bank accounts of people for participating in a peaceful protest. That's unprecedented (and horrifying). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
So saying my statement that it was an unprecedented power grab was overblown is categorically false. It was an unprecedented global power grab.
None of the facts I've cited are in question. They were reported by all news organizations, and I've specifically picked organizations hostile to my viewpoint.
So the only thing left is whether we should trust studies out of Nature as trustworthy.
Well, given that the above is indisputable, can we say with certainty that Nature was publishing without any push from government officials?
In fact, we know that Nature was pushed by government officials to publish stories supporting the official narrative: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/email-shows-fauci-prompted-science-paper-casting-doubt-wuhan-lab-leak
We also know that people who disputed the official narrative were made into pariahs, mocked by the government and the media controlled by those governments. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/
We also know that medical doctors who disputed the official narrative were under threat of losing their medical license https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-16/doctors-coronavirus-misinformation-license
We know Nature picked sides in partisan matters, endorsing a presidential candidate during this same time, choosing a certain ideological viewpoint. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02852-x
So there seems to be reason to believe there could be a bias in this particular publication due to pressure from governments. But at least the process of science is sound, right?
Problem: Even prior to the pandemic, the majority of scientists agreed that there was a crisis in science, particularly regarding reproducibility and regarding the known biases from p-hacking and industry funded studies introducing biases. https://theconversation.com/the-science-reproducibility-crisis-and-what-can-be-done-about-it-74198 https://www.npr.org/2016/05/24/477921050/when-great-minds-think-unlike-inside-sciences-replication-crisis https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/why-bad-science-is-plaguing-health-research-rigor-mortis-richard-harris https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1919906117
The science worshippers who blindly followed because a study was published are in fact not scientists nor are they utilizing science because that's not how science works. Believing something blindly because it's written in a book is how religion works.
Which brings me to the most important thing, and it doesn't require any citations. It's an ought, not an is.
You ought not to attempt to micromanage everyone just because you're scared. Their lives don't belong to you, no matter how scared you are.
Let's say you're beyond right about COVID. Let's say it's actually airborne Ebola AIDS, and everyone else is beyond wrong. Well, then protect yourself. You can wear a mask, and quit your job, and go live in a cave, and stop seeing your friends and family, and get vaccinated every 6 weeks. When you're out and about you can wear a space suit and douse it in bleach before you walk back into your cave. Great. Good job.
Maybe you get it so right that you're the Omega man, wandering the land and the master of all you survey because everyone else is dead and you are brilliant. Great. Good job.
That's your choice. And to live otherwise is everyone else's choice. If they're going to choose wrong, that should not be within your power to force, any more than someone should be allowed to force you to take your mask off because they think you're choosing wrong by wearing a mask, or force you to go see your friends and family in person.
You think you're smarter than everyone else. Great news: Everyone thinks they're smarter than everyone else. And in terms of being themselves, they're right. They know how much they value for example not getting COVID, and they can balance that against all the things they'd need to give up to try not getting it. Some people still walk around in masks. Others have given up on all restrictions. That's their choice, it isn't your choice.
And if someone says "I'm willing to take the risk" and dies of COVID? Guess what? That's life. And if someone says "I'm not willing to take the risk" and dies of COVID after their 6th booster shot? Guess what? That's life. Neither one is a gotcha. The moment you're born you're at risk of dying every single moment of every single day, and it's a choice individuals have to make as to what level of risk they're willing to take for the cost of taking the risks and the cost of not taking the risks. Some people smoke and get lung cancer in their 20s, and some people smoke and live to be 114 years old. Between 15 and 20% of people never smoke a day in their lives and still get lung cancer.
Anyway, that wall of text should get blocked from most federated services, eh? 6500 characters?