Nice. Real nice.
Nice. Real nice.
At least it’ll put the GOPers on record rejecting it.
Ignore the noise and use Ubuntu LTS. Subscribe for the free Ubuntu Pro service. This is something you do not get on Debian. Enjoy boring, trouble-free operation.
If you’re hell bent on not using Ubuntu, use Debian. Enjoy boring, trouble-free operation.
In either case, use Docker. I don’t know what the version of Docker is in Debian but in Ubuntu 22.04 LTS, it’s recent enough so you don’t have to f around with third party repos.
I recently read that Kyriakos Mitsotakis has done quite a bit of damage to Greek labor over the years. I don’t see this ending positively long term.
Yeah propping up the organ isn’t ideal. At least paying Hungarian workers benefits the EU economy.
I see this parroted now and then. Often the people I’ve heard it from are the type of folks who would drastically underestimate the complexity and effort needed to make things. I’ve also seen and worked on codebases made by such folks and usually it ain’t pretty, or maintainable, or extensible, or secure, or [insert fav cut corners here].
I find Windows significantly less convenient than Linux. It took a few years for my mindset to flip but there’s just no going back. Whenever something requires me to use Windows, I reach for a Windows virtual machine. Whenever I’ve been forced to use a Windows or a Mac machine for work, I’ve reached for a Linux virtual machine.
Recall, to VAG’s major shareholders, it doesn’t matter where a VW is made since they would always collect and distribute the profit from its sale. To auto workers and their local communities on the other hand, it makes dramatic difference whether the VWs on their streets were made close by, or a continent away.
The program for rolling back hard fought union victories is going full steam ahead.
I suppose the American worker could wake up to the reality that the protection against utter abuse for no pay didn’t just appear out of thin air and that only their fellow worker can be relied upon to stick for them.
That actually makes the most sense. So similar to how Linux was started.
And between every dollar being backed by a bushel of potatoes or a dentist appointment and hyperinflation, lies a vast gap of other possibilities. For example dollars backed by future productivity that people believe will materialise which doesn’t exist today. If you factor in debt and look at fiat as a form of debt it should become more obvious why you can create money today that enables people to do work which they otherwise wouldn’t, without causing inflation, let alone hyperinflation, under the assumption of available real resources (labor, tools, metal, land, knowledge, etc).
I think it was a general “when you leave Canada” policy.
I guess Chromium isn’t fully BSD. This could be the reason. Although I’d think reimplementing the non-BSD bits in Chromium would be less work than reimplementing all the bits, including the BSD ones.
Why are open source software monocultures bad? The vast majority of non-Windows OSes are Linux based. Teams who don’t like certain decisions of the mainline Linux team maintain their forks with the needed changes.
Manifest V3 is a great example of this. You can only backport for so long, especially when upstream is being adversarial to your changes. We need an unaffiliated engine that corrects the mistakes we made with KHTML/Webkit.
And we could get a functional one today by forking Chromium and never accepting a single upstream patch thereafter. I find it really hard to believe that starting a browser engine from scratch would require less labor. This is why I’m looking for an alternative motive. Someone mentioned licensing.
Perhaps some folks just want to do more work to write a new browser engine. After all Linus did just that, instead of forking the BSD kernel.
Any intuition on why we’d expect opening the same page on a newly implemented browser engine that implements all equivalent standards and functions will consume less resources?
In fiat economies financial capital isn’t a limiting factor since it can be and is created out of thin air as needed. The need for private citizens’ money to grow the economy is often repeated idea but it doesn’t hold water when you consider how their money was created in the first place. Specifically, currency issuing governments spend money into existence before being able to tax it. Therefore they don’t need to tax in order to spend. If there are the real resources needed for certain economic activity to occur but the limiting factor is the lack of money, a competent government will spend the required money into that sector and the activity will materialize. There’s no need to wait for private individuals to accumulate it over time in order to spend it to enable this economic activity. Crucially, even if you wait, the money is still going to come from a government’s “printing press.”
Other types of capital such as human, intellectual, can limit growth since they’re not as easily replaceable. That’s why I think your second point about who those people are is important. It is possible that they’re knowledgeable workers in different domains. It is also possible that they’re people skilled in exploiting others. If we assume the former, losing them isn’t ideal. If we assume the latter, then it’s a social value judgement of whether you want to have more or fewer of these types in your society, but they’re not essential for economic growth.
Even if they exfiltrate the money, China as every other fiat economy can replace it using a keyboard.
If these folks are indeed knowledgeable and experienced workers, then having them leave isn’t ideal. But whether they’re such people or not is an open question. They might also be people who are good at exploiting others’ labor for profit, just like their western many-multi-mil counterparts.
I do not understand the urge to start from scratch instead of forking an existing, mature codebase. This is typically a rookie instinct, but they aren’t rookie so there’s perhaps an alternative motive of some sort.
China saw the world’s biggest outflow of high-net-worth individuals last year and is expected to see a record exodus of 15,200 in 2024, dealing a further blow to its economy, a new report says.
It’s interesting how through the neoliberal lens this looks like “a blow” to their economy. But from a Keynesian or MMT lens, China doesn’t need high net worth individuals to drive the economy. Public investment can and has done this in China as well as many other parts of the world.
From another angle, letting high net worth individuals flee, could reduce apparent wealth inequality in China.
Interesting. I’m curious to hear critique on the author’s arguments if anyone’s got the time for it. Most of what they say sounds somewhat substantiated but I don’t know enough to judge whether there are any glaring omissions. One thing that’s obvious is that the share of state-owned enterprises has steadily decreased over time even if it’s still a quarter of the economy.