Let's adapt your own prose to your statement: maybe you claim this because you are "native", and yet at the bottom of the intellectual scale because you are overeducated, who decided his only joy in life is to punch what you consider to be 'down'
What is being "overeducated"? What is exactly your belief that knowing as much stuff as possible is a "bad" thing? And what are you doing on Hacker News then?
And could you point where I do "punch what I consider being down" by wanting to strip them from citizenship and getting rid of them?
"Overeducated" is a tongue-in-cheek reference to your claim that those who disagree with your desired narrative are 'undereducated'. Well, if those people are 'undereducated' it must be that you yourself are 'overeducated' because you clearly 'know' more than is good for you. I had hoped that you would understand this but clearly I was mistaken, a sad thing.
Also, where is the 'hate' you refer to? You might want to be a bit more careful with words, they do have meaning you know. I clearly disagree with most of what you say and you clearly disagree with most of what I say but in contrast to you I do not claim you spout 'hate' - just nonsense. The mere fact that people disagree with you does not make those people 'bad' or 'undereducated' or 'hateful', it might actually mean you simply are wrong. In this case it actually does mean you are wrong, especially with your ludicrous claims about 'brown people are banned from living in France' which also happened to be the claim which made me react to your bout of silliness.
> But I find it flabbergasting that in 2026 someone in the management thought it'd be okay to tell female staff to hide, just because some delegation demanded it
You're looking at the results of years of indoctrination related to the intersectional pyramid of oppression. On that pyramid you'll quickly find that people of colour practising an exotic religion end up above female employees so (most likely white, male) management thought it better to risk giving in to the former's request out of fear of being called 'racist' or something related. Sad, stupid, silly and totally not fitting Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité but that's what this type of thinking leads to.
As to the answer given by any 'AI' that depends on whether it has been trained to follow the dictats of intersectionality. Unfortunately this seems to be the case [1,2,3] in at least some western models which claim that a woman using violence against a man to prevent a nuclear apocalypse is fine but disagree with a man using violence against a woman for the same purpose, which also refuse to 'misgender' someone to stop the apocalypse, etc. This is not the natural result of ingesting training data but points at a direct effort to instil these values into the model leading to rather crude and easily dismissed results.
A rose by any other name etc. The moniker may change once every few years - even A. Occasional Cortex recently agreed that 'Woke 1.0 was craaaazy' [1] - but the beast never loses its stripes. Maybe the next term will be 'Woke 2.0', maybe something else but seeing how as this terminology comes from inside the narrative generator it can not be denied that it describes something real and as such claiming that those who use such terms that have fallen by the wayside '[are] not worth listening to' is the equivalent of loudly saying NA NA NA I DON'T HEAR YOU NA NA NA.
Woke 1.0 was 'crazy' indeed, good that this can now be said. The successor will probably be just as crazy but in some different way. It most likely will be some throwback to classical marxist tropes instead of the intersectional mess which best describes 'Woke 1.0' because younger generations never experienced the reality of the Soviet bloc, never were taught the reality of life under communism in school and as such are easy targets for socialist propaganda, viz. the success of the DSA. This time it will surely work, people, real socialism has never been tried after all...
If you insist on believing the story she told of that being said by 'a political friend', sure. Did you listen to the interview she gave? I did. It sounded very much like the 'politician friend' was made up from thin air to enable her to bring this quote into the conversation. It was she who produced the quote, the 'politician friend' has not been heard from. In other words, believe what you want but first listen to that interview?
it's funny you can't stop claiming to understand everything from politics but still can't imagine that there actually are other politicians (Chi Ossé's comments made the rounds before AOC repeated it) out there than your favorite target
We're talking politics here so that bit about 'claiming to understand everything from politics' is misplaced.
Call it what you want, everything needs to be turned into a meme after all. I call it 'observations' and go by those, not by narrative or attempts at memecasting.
Who is my favourite target by the way? As far as I can remember this is the first time I mentioned this politico on this - or any other - forum. Also, could you maybe say something about the actual subject here which is the grand-grand-grand-grandparent post stating that 'anyone who thinks "woke" is a valid counterpoint is not worth listening to'? You seem to be trying to do the same when it comes to what you're trying to call 'hagbardisms'. You haven't actually touched the original subject yet, what about it?
Does that include those like the mentioned politica who espouses the virtues of the next iteration of 'woke' because the first version was craaaazy? If so I do applaud you, it is indeed and best left to the historians for dissection. If not, why not?
I cannot help but notice that you did not answer my question. What about is?
Also it isn't me who refers to ${whatever} as the next generation of woke, it is implied by those who refer to the past madness as woke 1.0. Where there is a 1.0 there is soon to be a 2.0, or maybe a 1.1, who knows.
> It's still Open Source, but only a self-selected group of maintainers gets to write and merge code, at least for the time being.
That is the way the BSDs are developed and they're free software. If you want to you can pull the code and modify whatever you want. Let them get the thing up and running first, then see how the project handles external contributions. If they somehow fail to see the brilliance of some external contribution a fork will soon take over from where they dug themselves in, something which has happened many times over in free software land: Firefox (took over from the Mozilla Suite), Libreoffice (took over from Openoffice), Nextcloud (took over from Owncloud), egcs (took over from gcc, later became the main gcc branch), etc.
Ladybird [0]: "We will no longer accept public pull requests. From now on, code changes to the Ladybird codebase will only be introduced by project maintainers. [...] There will not be a separate process for submitting patches by other means."
FreeBSD [1]: "So you want to contribute to FreeBSD? That is great! FreeBSD relies on the contributions of its user base to survive. Your contributions are not only appreciated, they are vital to FreeBSD’s continued growth. [...] If you are submitting a simple patch to the src repo, please consider submitting it to the project’s GitHub mirror as a pull request."
Don't BSDs accept new contributors and patches tho? A long time ago I worked in the freebsd documentation project (translating th handbook) and it was pretty easy to join the core group. And ooenbsd pioneered anoncvs didn't it?
For ladybird it seems the group is closed to outsiders.
That's not really relevant. "anoncvs" was just the ability to retrieve source code from the project's repository without an account, as opposed to being forced to download a tarball. It didn't do anything more than ladybird's public github-hosted repository[1] to facilitate contributions.
Think of ladybird's github issues like the openbsd mailing lists. If you start submitting good issues with patches there, and you do it often enough that they would rather let you merge your patches yourself, there's a high likelihood you'll no longer be an outsider. (I don't know this from personal experience with ladybird, but it's the vibe I get from their posts about the matter.)
- Mamdani, who in contrast to Musk does mingle quite a lot in anti-Semite cirles
- Bernie Sanders, a Jew himself but that has never kept anyone from being called a nazi
- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also often seen in anti-Semite circles
- Kamala Harris
- Elizabeth Warren, who later also supported nazi-tattoo candidate Graham Platner whom she called 'my type of man'
- Hillary Clinton
- ...and many others
Of course the legacy press has excuses for all these nazi-saluting individuals except for Musk, calling these photo's 'coincidental' or 'taken out of context'. The truth is that none of these individuals, Musk included, made nazi salutes but that is not what the narrative pushes and with that unfortunately also not what this here site - HN - accepts.
Any externalized cost that you tolerate as regulator is already an indirect form of subsidy in my view. E.g. allowing a mining company to dump tailings in the next river is exactly the same as paying for proper disposal with tax money (from a company finances point of view).
So any untaxed air polluter/CO2 emitter enjoys an indirect subsidy already.
But in the french case, farmers and fishermen got paid 15-30 cents per liter on top (removing all ambiguity).
You must have been living under a comfy rock the last few years since there are several communists - real ones, by their own say - in the running for positions in the "democratic" party. The coming elections will show whether they gain traction, if they do there is a real danger of communism forming in the USA.
As to fascism that remains to be seen. If by fascism you mean the actual meaning of the term, i.e. (section headings from Britannica [1]) Opposition to Marxism and socialism, Opposition to parliamentary democracy, Opposition to political and cultural liberalism, Totalitarian ambitions, Conservative economic programs and Corporatism I think there is some chance of this taking hold. Let's take these characteristics one at a time:
Opposition to Marxism and socialism: clearly present in the current US government, in my opinion rightly so since these ideologies have been shown to lead to disaster time and time again.
Opposition to parliamentary democracy: not present in the current US government, somewhat present in the current "democratic" party where DSA members want to radically change the way the country is governed by abolishing the Senate, abolishing the presidency, abolishing the supreme court and replace it with something resembling a politburo [2]
Opposition to political and cultural liberalism: clearly present in the current US government, to be expected given that the US two-party system largely comes down to 'political and cultural conservatism' versus 'political and cultural liberalism'
Totalitarian ambitions: some people in the current and previous US governments think and thought they could rule this way, they were and are held back by the courts and other institutions
Conservative economic programs: partly present in the current US government, to be expected given that it is part and parcel of the Republican program. Partly because a large part of the economic program (around 59% of the budget, data from 2025) consists of mandatory spending on social security (~22%), Medicare (14%), Medicaid (10%) and other mandatory programs (13%)
Corporatism (which according to Britannica means 'the theory and practice of organising society into “corporations” subordinate to the state ... workers and employers organised into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and controlling to a large extent the persons and activities within their jurisdiction'): not present in the current US government, partly present in the "democratic" party where the DSA pushes an amalgamation of similar policies
What are your thoughts on this subject now that I made an attempt to put the term 'fascism' in its historical context?
OK, down-voter, be a man and tell me where you think I went wrong in my reasoning about the chances DSA-communists have in gaining a foothold or the danger of fascism gaining ground. Stop knee-jerking that down-vote button, tell us what you think - this is a discussion site after all, not a popularity contest or likes farm.
It's not complicated. The people in power in US are not hiding it. They want to dismatle democracy, take away peoples rights and freedoms. They are openly corrupted. They are laughing in your faces with hailing and nazy propaganda tactics.
While you are here worried about some hypothetical possibility of some socialist getting few seats. You miss that you won't have elections anymore.
I may have been lucky then with my Redmi Note 5 Pro (and a similar one for my daughters), possibly because the first thing I did with these phones was root them, remove all bloatware, remove all Xiaomi-specific apps including the 'Mi account'-related things, remove the Googly bits, add F-Droid and install free software. Never had problems with the things for 8 years, I'm currently running one of them with LineageOS 23.2 (Android 16), the other lost its screen so it is playing Linux server. Good hardware, possibly questionable firmware but that can be mitigated. I was forced to move to a new device with NFC (a Motorola G75) by the same app - Swedish BankID (and this time also Dutch DigiD) - which forced me to move from the Motorola Defy+ to the Redmi Note 5 Pro all those years ago. In another 8 years time they'll probably force me to move yet again for reasons as of yet unknown. Since I also used the Defy+ for about 8 years this seems to be the current practical lifetime of an Android device, at least for me. Those now 16 year old Defy+ devices still work but Android 4.4 has gone out of fashion quite a while ago. They are still usable for other purposes though, as trailer camera, sensor device, music player and more.
Then so do emulators, flash drives instead of 1541's, etc. Nobody forces you to use generative models to get older hardware to do its thing, you're still free to try to get the actual hardware to run, free to build interfaces to get QIC drives connected to whatever you want them connected to, etc.
Personally, I just think that LLMs are an artificial line to draw based on current personal preference.
I'm not an AI maximalist, but I really can't see the issue with using it to preserve this hardware (especially into RTL for FPGA), if it's highly accurate.
These machines are dying in real time, and having cycle and operationally accurate emulation options is more important than the bad taste the Glorified Copymachine leaves in my mouth, to be honest.
Honestly, by quantity alone, I've seen more impressive and quality reverse-engineering and documentation work of these platforms done in the last year than i have in the last 20.
reply