I see that none of these people including Roberts said anything about the Dems going full uncle ruckus on Justice Thomas.
This isn't news at all. Everyone already knew he'd flown on Epstein's jet for years. It wasn't secret.
I used to use thrift shops a lot because I'm a cheap fuck, but eventually they priced stuff higher than new and it's like "well why don't I just buy a new one then?"
Yeah, in that case you're getting an objectively better experience by stealing. Which happens more than you'd expect...
[admin mode] we were down for the night to try migrating to the new server, but the migration failed. We're on the new reverse proxy, but after dumping the database and reloading on the new server, I couldn't start.
We're limping along for the moment, and you'll probably see some server errors because of it, but unless something changes, we're up and running in at least some state.
Sucks when you do a big thing like that and it fails!
We're limping along for the moment, and you'll probably see some server errors because of it, but unless something changes, we're up and running in at least some state.
Sucks when you do a big thing like that and it fails!
[admin mode] So I went to my data center, and swapped out the ssds for the new ssds that I'm replacing them with, and then I decided to go in and spend some time working on the main server that serves everything.
After changing a couple settings, I noticed that I was stuck in a reboot loop on startup. I figured that the cause was the USB hard drive I use for Mass storage, so I fiddled around with that for a bit but eventually I came to realize the issue was that I turned on hyperthreading.
I started playing with the idea that maybe the CPU is getting starved of power by having the extra load. And you know what? Once I disabled turbo, I was able to complete a task that previously caused the server to crash (systemwide rsync backup). I guess the 13-year-old processor just doesn't want a turbo like it used to. Thanks Obama!
There's good news for everyone but me. The good news is that the site is stable again, and the othe good news is that my servers are both set up for proxmox and I'm starting to work on clustering and the like so fbxl social is rock solid stable. And the downside is that I'll have to set up matrix again which is just a pain in the butt.
With everything working properly again for now, I can slow down and make sure I do this right with proper separation of roles and functions to ensure I'm using better practices as well as doing High Availability properly. Pretty interested in seeing how QUIC support plays out.
I'll keep everyone posted either way.
After changing a couple settings, I noticed that I was stuck in a reboot loop on startup. I figured that the cause was the USB hard drive I use for Mass storage, so I fiddled around with that for a bit but eventually I came to realize the issue was that I turned on hyperthreading.
I started playing with the idea that maybe the CPU is getting starved of power by having the extra load. And you know what? Once I disabled turbo, I was able to complete a task that previously caused the server to crash (systemwide rsync backup). I guess the 13-year-old processor just doesn't want a turbo like it used to. Thanks Obama!
There's good news for everyone but me. The good news is that the site is stable again, and the othe good news is that my servers are both set up for proxmox and I'm starting to work on clustering and the like so fbxl social is rock solid stable. And the downside is that I'll have to set up matrix again which is just a pain in the butt.
With everything working properly again for now, I can slow down and make sure I do this right with proper separation of roles and functions to ensure I'm using better practices as well as doing High Availability properly. Pretty interested in seeing how QUIC support plays out.
I'll keep everyone posted either way.
[admin mode] sites been up and down like a yoyo lately, time to migrate to New hardware and a new platform. This afternoon we'll be down for a while for sure but it should be solid afterwards.
I don't think that you are exactly on point, but you're pretty close.
Physical media really doesn't matter, what really matters is DRM free. You don't need original physical media if you can make as many copies as you want, and then it doesn't matter if you lose the original disc, because you have 10 others.
For a lot of these games, they will give you a CD but who cares -- you can't start a single player game without contacting an external server anyway!
Physical media really doesn't matter, what really matters is DRM free. You don't need original physical media if you can make as many copies as you want, and then it doesn't matter if you lose the original disc, because you have 10 others.
For a lot of these games, they will give you a CD but who cares -- you can't start a single player game without contacting an external server anyway!
You have to admit, it's pretty funny that two of the confirmations of the Democrats are freaking out about the most are former ranking Democrats.
🤔
🤔
Given the reality of life in Hell Joseon, apparently late stage capitalism isn't an issue either.
I think that modernists are epistemologically stupid.
That doesn't mean they're unintelligent or not good people, but modernity (including postmodernity which is treated as a modernist totalizing ideology by most, although it can be used as a non-modernist tool) is a simplifying and narrowing lens that requires massive blind spots to actually use.
That makes it incredibly useful and powerful in narrow ways, but it also means that stuff that's outside your framework basically doesn't exist. That's why the story of the modern age turned into the great battle between grand ideologies.
Modernist design tended to remove extraneous elements. Modernist writing strove to cut words and try to streamline sentences. Modernist furniture is sleek and lacks adornment. Modernist architecture's height was brutalist cement towers.
Modernist ideologies do the same. They try to remove all extraneous elements and focus on one concept. Classical liberalism contends that freedom is the totalizing element. Socialism contends that equality is the totalizing element. National socialism contends that racial brotherhood is the totalizing element. Fascism contends that the state is the totalizing element. They're all stupid ideologies, but that makes them powerful too.
I saw a video where the host asked why people can't agree with basic facts. At first glance it looks like there's a sinister reason, but I think it all fits into this framework. Of course people only see one set of facts or another, because where facts are contradictory, modernist epistemology naturally suggests that you "pick a side" and only acknowledge facts that fit with their worldview, because anything else is an extraneous element.
Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it, and rhetorical and logical footwork that would have previously looked very impressive just looks like the special olympics in boxing. "Oh yeah? Well you're ignoring THIS fact!" "Oh yeah? Well you're ignoring THIS fact!" and in the end you have people pointing out the obvious, that their universalized and highly rational ideology relies on ignoring most of reality to make it work that way.
Proper discussion ought to actually admit the things the other side is right about, as well as trying to see any other truths that perhaps both sides are missing. The problem is that this results in nuance, and you can't destroy your opponent with nuance -- you can only develop accurate understandings of the world that might help you actually succeed in the long-term. In seeing the other side's points, you might not come to their way of thinking. However, you might come to a new understanding of the overall picture that changes your overall view. The other fact is that you may not weigh truths in superposition the same as other people, so perhaps one thing is more important to them, and another thing is important to you. At least you can accept the things that are true and recognise that you agree on the facts but disagree on the weighting, and no amount of screaming facts you both agree with at each other is going to change that.
As much as so-called "centrism" thinks it's above it all, it's just another modernist ideology, selecting pieces of different modernist ideologies a la carte, but not actually holding all the truths in superposition but choosing which grand narratives to follow in a vacuum. Truly independent thought would not be constrained by whatever you're putting at different poles to get a "center". If one group wants to kill Bob and the other group wants to kill Jim, the enlightened centrist position might be to only half kill Bob and Jim, when maybe you don't need to kill anyone at all and the question is wrong?
Something like Beyesian reasoning is also ultimately used in a modernist way. While it is true that within a narrowly defined system there is a single truth one can work towards, once the scope broadens, truth becomes more multi-layered, and trying to collapse into one truth using Beyesian reasoning actually leads to false confidence in a simple result. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's modernist per se -- some things are just objectively true and it isn't a unique thing to find that truth -- but how it's used can oversimplify complex reality.
The fact that there are multiple truths at first glance looks like the relativism of postmodernity, but in practice it's more like driving your car through an obstacle course -- you're trying to navigate in between the different contradictory things dynamically rather than collapsing them into one truth -- because there isn't one truth, there's multiple and you need to navigate them or you're going to hit a pylon.
I think the accusation of "whataboutism" is a fantastic modernist deflection. Instead of having to start engaging with truth that there's more than one true thing you have to navigate, you just go "you're just trying to justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior!" -- well maybe, but if the alternative data points change the view of the one data point they want you to pay attention to, then that matters regardless of what you're trying to do.
To close out this discussion, it isn't to say that modernism is useless or that it should be totally ignored. It is self-evidently useful in the fact that modernists took over the globe. The problem is that it isn't the only useful tool, and it isn't a sustainable totalizing ideology for everything. The more accurate our models of the world, the more likely we are to create plans that are going to work in the long-term. Modernism itself was always fairly unstable, and really didn't last that long in the grand scheme of things, the modernist era's end beginning around the beginning of World War 1 which has a direct causal line to the French Revolution which some historians generally consider the beginning of the modernist age.
That doesn't mean they're unintelligent or not good people, but modernity (including postmodernity which is treated as a modernist totalizing ideology by most, although it can be used as a non-modernist tool) is a simplifying and narrowing lens that requires massive blind spots to actually use.
That makes it incredibly useful and powerful in narrow ways, but it also means that stuff that's outside your framework basically doesn't exist. That's why the story of the modern age turned into the great battle between grand ideologies.
Modernist design tended to remove extraneous elements. Modernist writing strove to cut words and try to streamline sentences. Modernist furniture is sleek and lacks adornment. Modernist architecture's height was brutalist cement towers.
Modernist ideologies do the same. They try to remove all extraneous elements and focus on one concept. Classical liberalism contends that freedom is the totalizing element. Socialism contends that equality is the totalizing element. National socialism contends that racial brotherhood is the totalizing element. Fascism contends that the state is the totalizing element. They're all stupid ideologies, but that makes them powerful too.
I saw a video where the host asked why people can't agree with basic facts. At first glance it looks like there's a sinister reason, but I think it all fits into this framework. Of course people only see one set of facts or another, because where facts are contradictory, modernist epistemology naturally suggests that you "pick a side" and only acknowledge facts that fit with their worldview, because anything else is an extraneous element.
Once you've seen it, you can't unsee it, and rhetorical and logical footwork that would have previously looked very impressive just looks like the special olympics in boxing. "Oh yeah? Well you're ignoring THIS fact!" "Oh yeah? Well you're ignoring THIS fact!" and in the end you have people pointing out the obvious, that their universalized and highly rational ideology relies on ignoring most of reality to make it work that way.
Proper discussion ought to actually admit the things the other side is right about, as well as trying to see any other truths that perhaps both sides are missing. The problem is that this results in nuance, and you can't destroy your opponent with nuance -- you can only develop accurate understandings of the world that might help you actually succeed in the long-term. In seeing the other side's points, you might not come to their way of thinking. However, you might come to a new understanding of the overall picture that changes your overall view. The other fact is that you may not weigh truths in superposition the same as other people, so perhaps one thing is more important to them, and another thing is important to you. At least you can accept the things that are true and recognise that you agree on the facts but disagree on the weighting, and no amount of screaming facts you both agree with at each other is going to change that.
As much as so-called "centrism" thinks it's above it all, it's just another modernist ideology, selecting pieces of different modernist ideologies a la carte, but not actually holding all the truths in superposition but choosing which grand narratives to follow in a vacuum. Truly independent thought would not be constrained by whatever you're putting at different poles to get a "center". If one group wants to kill Bob and the other group wants to kill Jim, the enlightened centrist position might be to only half kill Bob and Jim, when maybe you don't need to kill anyone at all and the question is wrong?
Something like Beyesian reasoning is also ultimately used in a modernist way. While it is true that within a narrowly defined system there is a single truth one can work towards, once the scope broadens, truth becomes more multi-layered, and trying to collapse into one truth using Beyesian reasoning actually leads to false confidence in a simple result. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's modernist per se -- some things are just objectively true and it isn't a unique thing to find that truth -- but how it's used can oversimplify complex reality.
The fact that there are multiple truths at first glance looks like the relativism of postmodernity, but in practice it's more like driving your car through an obstacle course -- you're trying to navigate in between the different contradictory things dynamically rather than collapsing them into one truth -- because there isn't one truth, there's multiple and you need to navigate them or you're going to hit a pylon.
I think the accusation of "whataboutism" is a fantastic modernist deflection. Instead of having to start engaging with truth that there's more than one true thing you have to navigate, you just go "you're just trying to justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior!" -- well maybe, but if the alternative data points change the view of the one data point they want you to pay attention to, then that matters regardless of what you're trying to do.
To close out this discussion, it isn't to say that modernism is useless or that it should be totally ignored. It is self-evidently useful in the fact that modernists took over the globe. The problem is that it isn't the only useful tool, and it isn't a sustainable totalizing ideology for everything. The more accurate our models of the world, the more likely we are to create plans that are going to work in the long-term. Modernism itself was always fairly unstable, and really didn't last that long in the grand scheme of things, the modernist era's end beginning around the beginning of World War 1 which has a direct causal line to the French Revolution which some historians generally consider the beginning of the modernist age.
My original post didn't single out any individual epistemological system, and in fact made a point to look at things through the lenses of many different eras. This fits with the superpositional framework I use for analysis which holds multiple truths in superposition including truths from pre-knowledge, pre-epistemology, pre-modernity, modernity, and postmodernity.
Since the overall theme of my analysis was showing that people need to think for themselves, the mention of strength was included because the common conceptualization of the premodern age was of ideological rigidity and just following the orders of the emperor or the noble or the bishop, but the reality was more nuanced, that ideologies could be rigid, but they weren't totalizing in the same way that modern ideologies were, and so you were expected to listen to the king or the pastor, but you also had expectations to act personally in pursuit of the virtues of the era which meant different forms of strength, and that meant thinking for yourself.
Since the overall theme of my analysis was showing that people need to think for themselves, the mention of strength was included because the common conceptualization of the premodern age was of ideological rigidity and just following the orders of the emperor or the noble or the bishop, but the reality was more nuanced, that ideologies could be rigid, but they weren't totalizing in the same way that modern ideologies were, and so you were expected to listen to the king or the pastor, but you also had expectations to act personally in pursuit of the virtues of the era which meant different forms of strength, and that meant thinking for yourself.