Finally got the 5th proxmox server set up, gonna install it tomorrow.
I don't want anyone to misunderstand: I have absolutely no use for 5 proxmox servers. Especially since two of them are just intel atoms.
One of the two atom boxes is idling to run nostr, the other one I'm hoping to set up to do software defined radio.
I don't want anyone to misunderstand: I have absolutely no use for 5 proxmox servers. Especially since two of them are just intel atoms.
One of the two atom boxes is idling to run nostr, the other one I'm hoping to set up to do software defined radio.
If anyone goes "hey you should kidnap Gretchen Whitmer!" Or "you should go commit violence against schools!" That's a sign that they might be a fed and you should block them.
And if they turn out not to be a fed, well you know it's like that a girl that you dated that one time who turned out to be actual pants on head insane. And doesn't matter how great her memes were, sometimes the juice just isn't worth the squeeze
And if they turn out not to be a fed, well you know it's like that a girl that you dated that one time who turned out to be actual pants on head insane. And doesn't matter how great her memes were, sometimes the juice just isn't worth the squeeze
You mean whether one wants to use their speech to express their personal opinions about an individual's personal choices in a private conversation or to publicly support and organization whose goal is the genocide of the Jews.
The discussion here is about a Palestinian who was deported for supporting Hamas under a law which says it's illegal to support terrorist organizations on a student visa. Canada has a law, most European countries have the same law. This isn't new.
You know, the website you're on is hosted in Germany. Supporting Hamas is fully illegal there too. Are you sure you want to support a regional authority which committed numerous acts of terrorism? You'll get to find out exactly how much free speech there is in Germany if you're not careful.
Germany can and does arrest people for social media posts: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/berlin-police-arrest-pro-palestinian-woman-for-writing-from-the-river-to-the-sea-on-social-media/3165593?utm_source=chatgpt.com
In fact, Germany deported a bunch of people for the exact same thing.
https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/four-foreign-activists-face-deportation-from-germany-after-berlin-university-sit-in
There has also been discussion in the UK of doing the same thing under similar laws.
I'd also like you to consider that there are two examples of heinous invasions by horrible states recently -- if Russians were going out to different countries to protest against Ukraine's handling of the war in Ukraine, would you be opposed to deporting them? I'd be perfectly OK with sending them back to Russia if they love it there so much. If you're here on a student visa, you should be studying and not protesting. Ironically, Russia's was far less of a war crime than that of Hamas, but nobody seems to care about the red line war crimes Hamas has committed and continues to commit by holding civilian hostages.
If you think that supporting a terrorist organization in public on a student visa is actually better than expressing sincere concern to ostensibly a friend in private, then I think you need to reconsider your moral frameworks.
The discussion here is about a Palestinian who was deported for supporting Hamas under a law which says it's illegal to support terrorist organizations on a student visa. Canada has a law, most European countries have the same law. This isn't new.
You know, the website you're on is hosted in Germany. Supporting Hamas is fully illegal there too. Are you sure you want to support a regional authority which committed numerous acts of terrorism? You'll get to find out exactly how much free speech there is in Germany if you're not careful.
Germany can and does arrest people for social media posts: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/berlin-police-arrest-pro-palestinian-woman-for-writing-from-the-river-to-the-sea-on-social-media/3165593?utm_source=chatgpt.com
In fact, Germany deported a bunch of people for the exact same thing.
https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/four-foreign-activists-face-deportation-from-germany-after-berlin-university-sit-in
There has also been discussion in the UK of doing the same thing under similar laws.
I'd also like you to consider that there are two examples of heinous invasions by horrible states recently -- if Russians were going out to different countries to protest against Ukraine's handling of the war in Ukraine, would you be opposed to deporting them? I'd be perfectly OK with sending them back to Russia if they love it there so much. If you're here on a student visa, you should be studying and not protesting. Ironically, Russia's was far less of a war crime than that of Hamas, but nobody seems to care about the red line war crimes Hamas has committed and continues to commit by holding civilian hostages.
If you think that supporting a terrorist organization in public on a student visa is actually better than expressing sincere concern to ostensibly a friend in private, then I think you need to reconsider your moral frameworks.
[admin mode] had a power bump or something that messed up all kinds of equipment. Then the VMs weren't set to auto-restart, then pleroma wasn't set to enabled.
I guess it shows how solid things have been that it's only come up now.
I guess it shows how solid things have been that it's only come up now.
That's more than I paid for all the major hardware upgrades I implemented this year, and I really went to town upgrading all my hardware!
Trump is obviously a complex and multifaceted figure but I can't see this as anything but total win.
Maybe we should tell the kids they're evil Nazi rapists some more. That should help!
There's been a lot of talk about the recent drop in stocks due to the tariffs in the US.
Whoever won the election everyone should have been positioned as if something catastrophic would happen. Figures such as Jamie Dimon have been sounding alarm bells for a while now, and Berkshire Hathaway had been selling off securities at an unprecedented rate, having more cash in the bank than ever before.
Most indexes are double what they were in 2019. Does anyone seriously think businesses are twice as healthy as they were pre-pandemic?
Obviously Trump implementing global tariffs was the match that set the field on fire, but it is burning because it's filled with dead dry grass.
We've already seen something similar during a Trump presidency: in 2018, Trump implemented high tariffs on China amount many other things and it led the markets down 20% for the year, but the year after that saw markets rise nearly 30%. Now that's not going to happen this time because that was the largest stock market rise in history, but it shows that volatility in the short term doesn't mean low growth in the long term.
So two truths that contradict each other are about the effect of a market crash. On one hand, a shrinking stock market is generally good for inequality. The rent collectors in the stock market are affected more by a stock market drop than people who sell their labor. On the other hand, people who aligned themselves properly probably haven't seen a huge loss in wealth over this -- The Federal Reserve has given us a once in a lifetime opportunity to just park money at the fed and get 5-6% returns with absolutely 0 risk because the fed is the money printer, so if you want to sit out a fairly high risk moment in the market, you're still able to roughly match or beat inflation. Anyone holding such assets when things hit bottom can become immediately liquid and pick up some bargains.
As for why Trump set the field on fire, it should be obvious: he's a mercantilist who thinks America can't succeed without having a current account surplus. In the short term he's totally wrong about that, but in the longer term he's correct, and the increasing overwhelming debt both the American state and the American people find themselves in are evidence of that. You can't keep borrowing money to buy stuff from the third world forever.
The left and the right both are of two minds on the outcomes of merchantilism. On one hand, the left has become pretty anti-borders and pro-free trade, and the business right obviously wants a nice calm environment where they can export their businesses to low cost jurisdictions. On the other hand, they recognize the potential exploitation from rich countries outsourcing work to other countries including not paying workers domestic rates despite domestic profits and avoiding things like environmental regulations by jurisdiction shopping, and the populist right obviously wants the jobs to be in the country because it isn't some 1950s distant memory that America used to have lots of factories.
Agree or disagree with his mercantilist attitude (and most establishment economists would consider it outdated and wrong), he's acting more like a Chinese emperor than an American president -- instead of thinking in terms of quarters or even terms, he's positioning the US over decades. A drop in the short term probably isn't that important through that view, because it's looking at a longer term future.
Consider this parallel. JC Penney is considered a textbook failure for something they did: They stopped lying about "sales" that were always going on and just focused on low prices every day. When they did that, business dropped massively, and quickly they switched back. That was considered evidence that companies shouldn't change strategies like that -- but the rest of the story is that JC Penney went bankrupt after changing back to their own business model. Changing strategies like that was going to hurt in the short term, but low prices every day is how companies much bigger and more successful operate so if they stuck with it they may have survived. Instead they returned to business as usual and had short term success at the expense of long term success.
Whoever won the election everyone should have been positioned as if something catastrophic would happen. Figures such as Jamie Dimon have been sounding alarm bells for a while now, and Berkshire Hathaway had been selling off securities at an unprecedented rate, having more cash in the bank than ever before.
Most indexes are double what they were in 2019. Does anyone seriously think businesses are twice as healthy as they were pre-pandemic?
Obviously Trump implementing global tariffs was the match that set the field on fire, but it is burning because it's filled with dead dry grass.
We've already seen something similar during a Trump presidency: in 2018, Trump implemented high tariffs on China amount many other things and it led the markets down 20% for the year, but the year after that saw markets rise nearly 30%. Now that's not going to happen this time because that was the largest stock market rise in history, but it shows that volatility in the short term doesn't mean low growth in the long term.
So two truths that contradict each other are about the effect of a market crash. On one hand, a shrinking stock market is generally good for inequality. The rent collectors in the stock market are affected more by a stock market drop than people who sell their labor. On the other hand, people who aligned themselves properly probably haven't seen a huge loss in wealth over this -- The Federal Reserve has given us a once in a lifetime opportunity to just park money at the fed and get 5-6% returns with absolutely 0 risk because the fed is the money printer, so if you want to sit out a fairly high risk moment in the market, you're still able to roughly match or beat inflation. Anyone holding such assets when things hit bottom can become immediately liquid and pick up some bargains.
As for why Trump set the field on fire, it should be obvious: he's a mercantilist who thinks America can't succeed without having a current account surplus. In the short term he's totally wrong about that, but in the longer term he's correct, and the increasing overwhelming debt both the American state and the American people find themselves in are evidence of that. You can't keep borrowing money to buy stuff from the third world forever.
The left and the right both are of two minds on the outcomes of merchantilism. On one hand, the left has become pretty anti-borders and pro-free trade, and the business right obviously wants a nice calm environment where they can export their businesses to low cost jurisdictions. On the other hand, they recognize the potential exploitation from rich countries outsourcing work to other countries including not paying workers domestic rates despite domestic profits and avoiding things like environmental regulations by jurisdiction shopping, and the populist right obviously wants the jobs to be in the country because it isn't some 1950s distant memory that America used to have lots of factories.
Agree or disagree with his mercantilist attitude (and most establishment economists would consider it outdated and wrong), he's acting more like a Chinese emperor than an American president -- instead of thinking in terms of quarters or even terms, he's positioning the US over decades. A drop in the short term probably isn't that important through that view, because it's looking at a longer term future.
Consider this parallel. JC Penney is considered a textbook failure for something they did: They stopped lying about "sales" that were always going on and just focused on low prices every day. When they did that, business dropped massively, and quickly they switched back. That was considered evidence that companies shouldn't change strategies like that -- but the rest of the story is that JC Penney went bankrupt after changing back to their own business model. Changing strategies like that was going to hurt in the short term, but low prices every day is how companies much bigger and more successful operate so if they stuck with it they may have survived. Instead they returned to business as usual and had short term success at the expense of long term success.
We did the math on an airplane taking off. Even a relatively small plane during takeoff is something like 3 megawatts of power. That's enough to power a small town. And that's not some fancy jet, that's a prop plane.
That might not be such a big deal if you have a ton of people on the plane, and you are dividing the energy use across all the people on there, but if you have one rich retard on there, that one guy owns every megawatt his jet produces.
And by the way, a car at highway speeds is going to burn about 10 kilowatts.
The engineering types will note that we're not talking about kilowatt hours so total energy utilized isn't really being talked about here, but fuel cost for one flight can easily dwarf a single person's total annual fuel use for transportation.
That might not be such a big deal if you have a ton of people on the plane, and you are dividing the energy use across all the people on there, but if you have one rich retard on there, that one guy owns every megawatt his jet produces.
And by the way, a car at highway speeds is going to burn about 10 kilowatts.
The engineering types will note that we're not talking about kilowatt hours so total energy utilized isn't really being talked about here, but fuel cost for one flight can easily dwarf a single person's total annual fuel use for transportation.
I find that to be an innately hilarious statement. Forget about the politics for a second, it's just very amusing.
"Your cows are weak!"
"Your cows are weak!"
Throw those parents directly into the woodchipper.
Forget the first question, the second! A newborn infant is NON SEXUAL. If you think it has a sexuality, you're a creep!
Forget the first question, the second! A newborn infant is NON SEXUAL. If you think it has a sexuality, you're a creep!
I just set up my nostr relay and satellite instance again after my main web config got kicked to shit due to me restoring broken backups.
Gotta admit, I still miss wolfballs.
Gotta admit, I still miss wolfballs.
I think the first few paragraphs saying news doesn't use narrative paragraphs reek. They're false. They're not true. News is overwhelmingly narrative, and that's not making things less partisan, it's making things more partisan. When reporters report that Donald Trump says "neo Nazis and white supremacists are very fine people" in the same speech where he actually said "white supremacists and neo Nazis should be condemned completely" they're relying entirely on narrative, and just like in the ultimate story of this American life in the article, it's because they have a story they want to tell, a narrative they want to provide, damn the facts and figures. Ironically, if you watch the entire interview, the story isn't about whether Donald Trump said neo-nazis or what white supremacists are very fine people or should be condemned completely.
The real story is that Donald Trump spent the entire press conference bumping heads with the press. He challenged them at every point. He actually agreed with him in a lot of ways, but he didn't trust them to be able or willing to report on enough of reality to give a nuance to viewpoint which ironically is exactly what he was trying to express. He was saying that some of the people who wanted those statues torn down were very fine people because they cared deeply about historical systemic oppression. He was also saying that some of the people who wanted those statues left up were very fine people because they care very deeply about historical preservation regardless of the narrative behind a certain statue, the people who they build statues of are nonetheless notable individuals. One narrative and not the only narrative is that Donald Trump was pushing back against the press for being liars, and so they went out and lied about him proving him right. It's really complicated. Especially since, depending on your point of view many different narratives that are in opposition to each other can still be true.
Now some people might think that I'm engaging in apologia for Trump, and I'm sure that people might say that he was saying his message in a sloppy way, that he didn't get it at a cross very well. I think that once you realize that Trump was actually being nuanced and the media just refused to report on that nuance, I don't see anything to defend. It's simply axiomatic that good guys are good and bad guys are bad. And it's not actually matter but it's very close that some of the good guys are going to disagree with you and some of the bad guys are going to agree with you and vice versa.
I'm not saying narrative isn't important, I'm saying a few things:
1. Narrative cuts through most epistemological frameworks to touch something pre-epistemic, our hearts and souls, our mammalian brain, sometimes our instinctual reptile brain.
2. Just because a big respected news outlet makes a narrative convincing doesn't mean it's true. It just means they were able to make something convincing.
3. Narrative is one of the key tools news uses today. If you listen to NPR, or MSNBC, or Daily Wire, or CNN, or even something like Alex Jones, part of the reason is they're weaving a narrative through selection and juxtaposition of stories over time. People have shockingly long attention spans in some ways, they choose their media sources for the long haul for a reason.
4. Narrative is one of the most important tools of modernism, and it doesn't behave like this story claims. Narrative is why European colonists thought it was ok to displace whenever was there. Narrative is the foundation of national socialism, or fascism, of Marxism. Modernist narrative has created more death through partisanship than any other force in history, though the narrative belonging to groups like the Mongolians certainly had a comparable impact on a much less populated earth centuries prior.
5. Truth is often left on the cutting room floor because narrative is more important than truth. Virtually everyone is doing that.
6. Truth didn't end up on the cutting room floor once in 2013. It's been constantly cut cut cut.
7. Ultimately, the viewer of media must be aware of all these things and be critical of narratives and discerning with multiple often contradictory truths and accept and admit these truths to get a better view of reality.
The real story is that Donald Trump spent the entire press conference bumping heads with the press. He challenged them at every point. He actually agreed with him in a lot of ways, but he didn't trust them to be able or willing to report on enough of reality to give a nuance to viewpoint which ironically is exactly what he was trying to express. He was saying that some of the people who wanted those statues torn down were very fine people because they cared deeply about historical systemic oppression. He was also saying that some of the people who wanted those statues left up were very fine people because they care very deeply about historical preservation regardless of the narrative behind a certain statue, the people who they build statues of are nonetheless notable individuals. One narrative and not the only narrative is that Donald Trump was pushing back against the press for being liars, and so they went out and lied about him proving him right. It's really complicated. Especially since, depending on your point of view many different narratives that are in opposition to each other can still be true.
Now some people might think that I'm engaging in apologia for Trump, and I'm sure that people might say that he was saying his message in a sloppy way, that he didn't get it at a cross very well. I think that once you realize that Trump was actually being nuanced and the media just refused to report on that nuance, I don't see anything to defend. It's simply axiomatic that good guys are good and bad guys are bad. And it's not actually matter but it's very close that some of the good guys are going to disagree with you and some of the bad guys are going to agree with you and vice versa.
I'm not saying narrative isn't important, I'm saying a few things:
1. Narrative cuts through most epistemological frameworks to touch something pre-epistemic, our hearts and souls, our mammalian brain, sometimes our instinctual reptile brain.
2. Just because a big respected news outlet makes a narrative convincing doesn't mean it's true. It just means they were able to make something convincing.
3. Narrative is one of the key tools news uses today. If you listen to NPR, or MSNBC, or Daily Wire, or CNN, or even something like Alex Jones, part of the reason is they're weaving a narrative through selection and juxtaposition of stories over time. People have shockingly long attention spans in some ways, they choose their media sources for the long haul for a reason.
4. Narrative is one of the most important tools of modernism, and it doesn't behave like this story claims. Narrative is why European colonists thought it was ok to displace whenever was there. Narrative is the foundation of national socialism, or fascism, of Marxism. Modernist narrative has created more death through partisanship than any other force in history, though the narrative belonging to groups like the Mongolians certainly had a comparable impact on a much less populated earth centuries prior.
5. Truth is often left on the cutting room floor because narrative is more important than truth. Virtually everyone is doing that.
6. Truth didn't end up on the cutting room floor once in 2013. It's been constantly cut cut cut.
7. Ultimately, the viewer of media must be aware of all these things and be critical of narratives and discerning with multiple often contradictory truths and accept and admit these truths to get a better view of reality.
Leftists are so stupid they're going to vote for a bank executive hedge fund manager to stick it to the banks and hedge funds.
Moving from the United States *to* a country like Canada -- a country where a woman was recently fined 10k for being mean in a private conversation -- because they're hoping to have more freedom of speech?