I spent some time creating a server library and updating my client library for a certain protocol in FreeBASIC.
I really wanted to set it up so it's very simple and straightforward, but you could also use it for more if you wanted to.
One thing i did which is probably normal process for software developers but I'm just a retard from the sticks is I created a validation file that starts a server and a client and tests both end to end by testing each routine against itself and then also testing failure scenarios to prove it fails successfully.
Sped up development a lot, since I could use the client to prove the server and the server to prove the client and I could develop both at once to meet in the middle in the validation program.
Obviously I had to test against a reference implementation (and did), but it's like going through your own books before an audit -- It was easy to find problems before they became an issue I had to troubleshoot against a server or client I didn't write.
I really wanted to set it up so it's very simple and straightforward, but you could also use it for more if you wanted to.
One thing i did which is probably normal process for software developers but I'm just a retard from the sticks is I created a validation file that starts a server and a client and tests both end to end by testing each routine against itself and then also testing failure scenarios to prove it fails successfully.
Sped up development a lot, since I could use the client to prove the server and the server to prove the client and I could develop both at once to meet in the middle in the validation program.
Obviously I had to test against a reference implementation (and did), but it's like going through your own books before an audit -- It was easy to find problems before they became an issue I had to troubleshoot against a server or client I didn't write.
I bought it knowing someday it would be a hit, and dinosaurs in cool vehicles hit like a nuclear bomb a couple weeks ago. Hope you saw tons of real success from it.
The "aha" moment for me was running nextcloud.
Under Google, they've always been chill, but you know in your heart of hearts that if they wanted to they could get pissy if you had something copyrighted or something they politically disagree with or something inconvenient for them on your google drive.
But I was sitting there, and it's like 'Wait, I can just keep all my stuff on here, and literally nobody cares because I'm copying my files from my hard drive to my hard drive'
It feels like moving from a rental to a house you own.
Under Google, they've always been chill, but you know in your heart of hearts that if they wanted to they could get pissy if you had something copyrighted or something they politically disagree with or something inconvenient for them on your google drive.
But I was sitting there, and it's like 'Wait, I can just keep all my stuff on here, and literally nobody cares because I'm copying my files from my hard drive to my hard drive'
It feels like moving from a rental to a house you own.
To be fair, all of the white nationalists that they hire to do Twitter campaigns look exactly like that.
Saved a cheap dollar store toy from the trash bin for at least another day.
3d printed wheels aren't the best wheels out there or anything, but this isn't the first time I spent 30 seconds with a micrometer building a part for a toy that would have just gone in the trash without it. I like what it tells the little guy about our things, that even a dollar store remote control car is worth trying to maintain and nothing is just disposable.
3d printed wheels aren't the best wheels out there or anything, but this isn't the first time I spent 30 seconds with a micrometer building a part for a toy that would have just gone in the trash without it. I like what it tells the little guy about our things, that even a dollar store remote control car is worth trying to maintain and nothing is just disposable.
@Mepplo welcome to the instance but be advised this is a no woodchipper enthusiast zone.
The easiest way to not have to worry about threads is to not be highly moderated HR approved drivel.
None of us are allowed to see threads posts. As God intended.
All these lefties who are terrified of threads ought to think a bit harder as to why the corpos want to take over their fediverse and not ours.
None of us are allowed to see threads posts. As God intended.
All these lefties who are terrified of threads ought to think a bit harder as to why the corpos want to take over their fediverse and not ours.
"I will do anything to win!"
Will you inject acid into your penis?
"I will do almost anything to win!"
Will you inject acid into your penis?
"I will do almost anything to win!"
"As long as I walk in righteousness and have God at my side I will be fine."
Well that's the rub though, aint' it? They're saying you didn't walk in righteousness.
Well that's the rub though, aint' it? They're saying you didn't walk in righteousness.
some of the books I've picked up from freeside folks, I wanted to give a shout-out.
The Most Extreme Dinosaur coloring book is a really cool coloring book with dinosaurs doing cool things by @Wormwood
A world with no saddness, baby is a physical copy I bought that was apparently written by @vriska
Literally is the one physical book I bought, but there were a few ebooks as well, associated with @thomasroiloup
The blade of the betrayer series was written by @Tactical and I wrote a significant review of it here on fedi a while back.
I've picked up a few podcasts and rss feeds as well, but that's what I've found of physical books and ebooks. If anyone else has any interesting they've made, shoot it in the replies and I'll take a look.
The Most Extreme Dinosaur coloring book is a really cool coloring book with dinosaurs doing cool things by @Wormwood
A world with no saddness, baby is a physical copy I bought that was apparently written by @vriska
Literally is the one physical book I bought, but there were a few ebooks as well, associated with @thomasroiloup
The blade of the betrayer series was written by @Tactical and I wrote a significant review of it here on fedi a while back.
I've picked up a few podcasts and rss feeds as well, but that's what I've found of physical books and ebooks. If anyone else has any interesting they've made, shoot it in the replies and I'll take a look.
As I said a moment ago in another post, nationalism ultimately does -- and successfully did -- homogenize us. Pre-modern France or Germany were fundamentally different things than modern France or Germany. The way they measured things changed. The language they spoke change. The stories they told to their children changed. Control was centralized, and local culture was replaced with the capitol. It embraces group distinction insofar as there is another thing, but in practice flattens it within the thing "we" are.
Internationalism then just takes this to a different scale. Instead of standardizing based on the in-group being national to a region, it expands it to the planet. If we met aliens, the internationalist might still see them the way the nationalist French saw the nationalist Germans, as an other to be opposed.
Internationalism then just takes this to a different scale. Instead of standardizing based on the in-group being national to a region, it expands it to the planet. If we met aliens, the internationalist might still see them the way the nationalist French saw the nationalist Germans, as an other to be opposed.
The international globalist is still a sort of nationalist, because he still imagines the people can be standardized and controlled so you can bring anyone into your physical region and still maintain control. If you're wrong and to change the people is to relinquish control over them because they are a different thing you cannot standardize, then to change the people is to change your relationship to power, and ultimately to remove it. The only difference is that instead of France being controlled from Paris, the world is controlled from Brussels, or New York, or Davos, and instead of the people being the french, the people are humanity.
Sorry, I'm trying to compress ideas that I've now spent two full books going into into a post on the internet, and because I think it's quite a different way of thinking, it needs room to stretch its legs.
What you are talking about in the initial post doesn't necessarily have to involve nationalism, but nationalism revolves about the standardization and centralization of control, and that directly relates to what you're talking about -- a standardization of the people requires a standardization of what is considered to be the good.
As I have previously written, nationalism is not the existence of the nation state. It is about the centralization of the conception of the people as Central to the nation state. The nationalist revolutions that we saw in the modern era came about because the peoples in various regions felt like they ought to have self-determination as Nations rather than their previous status as parts of larger empires. A consequence of this idea is that a lot of the previous relationships that were fuzzier and thicker were sanded off to justify the concept. After all, if the people weren't a leligible thing, how could the people be a central justification for central office seizing power?
As an example, after the French revolution, one of the first things that revolutionary France did was start standardizing France. The metric system came about because different regions had their own individual measurement systems before that, and even the language people spoke was standardized, so even though a region might have spoken a regional dialect for centuries, those people would be pushed towards speaking the same language that they spoke in the capital.
Pre-modern Nations were a lot fuzzier, you might have loyalty to your village, to your region, to your lord, to your church, to your family, and to your guild all at the same time, in a big part of pre-modern life was juggling all of these competing loyalties. The standardization of modernization in revolutionary France and elsewhere was in part intended to eliminate the need to be embedded in all of these different relationships and to replace them all with loyalty and identification with the state.
From there, it becomes clear why I brought it up because it represents this sort of centralized picking of what is good, and an attempt at setting a universal form of what is good that everyone has to follow.
That's been one of the tragedies of this historical moment. People don't realize how thoroughly modernism succeeded, and so even people who think that they are rejecting modernism are often just part of a different revolutionary faction espousing the same fundamental ideological framework and epistemology. Even people who believe that they are being traditionalist and had their traditions so badly wiped out that they still believe in this centralization and standardization of the people.
What you are talking about in the initial post doesn't necessarily have to involve nationalism, but nationalism revolves about the standardization and centralization of control, and that directly relates to what you're talking about -- a standardization of the people requires a standardization of what is considered to be the good.
As I have previously written, nationalism is not the existence of the nation state. It is about the centralization of the conception of the people as Central to the nation state. The nationalist revolutions that we saw in the modern era came about because the peoples in various regions felt like they ought to have self-determination as Nations rather than their previous status as parts of larger empires. A consequence of this idea is that a lot of the previous relationships that were fuzzier and thicker were sanded off to justify the concept. After all, if the people weren't a leligible thing, how could the people be a central justification for central office seizing power?
As an example, after the French revolution, one of the first things that revolutionary France did was start standardizing France. The metric system came about because different regions had their own individual measurement systems before that, and even the language people spoke was standardized, so even though a region might have spoken a regional dialect for centuries, those people would be pushed towards speaking the same language that they spoke in the capital.
Pre-modern Nations were a lot fuzzier, you might have loyalty to your village, to your region, to your lord, to your church, to your family, and to your guild all at the same time, in a big part of pre-modern life was juggling all of these competing loyalties. The standardization of modernization in revolutionary France and elsewhere was in part intended to eliminate the need to be embedded in all of these different relationships and to replace them all with loyalty and identification with the state.
From there, it becomes clear why I brought it up because it represents this sort of centralized picking of what is good, and an attempt at setting a universal form of what is good that everyone has to follow.
That's been one of the tragedies of this historical moment. People don't realize how thoroughly modernism succeeded, and so even people who think that they are rejecting modernism are often just part of a different revolutionary faction espousing the same fundamental ideological framework and epistemology. Even people who believe that they are being traditionalist and had their traditions so badly wiped out that they still believe in this centralization and standardization of the people.
And part of the reason of that is any attempt to coordinate what being good means will necessarily end up with bad actors who want to inject their little things, and suddenly what it is to be good has a bunch of little strings attached that bad actors can use to justify evil.
The solution probably isn't scalable, it's that people just need to be trying to do what they think is best without letting themselves get too caught up in the hubbub of trying to standardize it all. Historically, the best that anyone could do would be coming up with a set of common standards for the people immediately around you that were the ones that mattered. Universal standardization is ultimately an invention of modern nationalism. People didn't used to have to be that standardized, even stuff that you would think of as standardized like religion would be somewhat relational, and depending on your local church.
That didn't mean that those local decisions would necessarily be even better than the universalized ones, but at least people could choose where they wanted to be, whereas under the more nationalist view, everywhere has to be the same thing.
The solution probably isn't scalable, it's that people just need to be trying to do what they think is best without letting themselves get too caught up in the hubbub of trying to standardize it all. Historically, the best that anyone could do would be coming up with a set of common standards for the people immediately around you that were the ones that mattered. Universal standardization is ultimately an invention of modern nationalism. People didn't used to have to be that standardized, even stuff that you would think of as standardized like religion would be somewhat relational, and depending on your local church.
That didn't mean that those local decisions would necessarily be even better than the universalized ones, but at least people could choose where they wanted to be, whereas under the more nationalist view, everywhere has to be the same thing.