Why have four people updooted my deleted comment 😂 It must be an inter-instance syncing issue.

deleted by creator

Depending on how old you are, eventually that choice may no longer be up to you.

From a practical standpoint I’m really not qualified recommend one over the other, but the licensing is different. Podman also seems to be more “open source-y,” but I’m going on vibes here; perhaps someone more knowledgeable can elucidate.

I think the very long-term goal is for it to be the universal virtual machine, for all front-ends and all back-ends, and for all popular programming languages. And given that its status on the browser has already been secured, I don’t think it’s impossible for the long-term vision to be reached, eventually.

If you’re thinking in terms of JavaScript, then you must not be aware that WASM/WASI is a vastly more ambitious project than you know.

Missing a comma: “Stop, use Docker.” But actually, use Podman.

Relatedly, a 2019 tweet from Solomon Hykes, the creator of Docker: https://x.com/solomonstre/status/1111004913222324225

If WASM+WASI existed in 2008, we wouldn’t have needed to created Docker. That’s how important it is. Webassembly on the server is the future of computing. A standardized system interface was the missing link. Let’s hope WASI is up to the task!

I think WASM/WASI still has a ways to go before that’s realistic, but I’d keep an eye on them for the future.

TikTok is Hamas!

If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Palestinians, then you ain’t black. — Dark Brandon

Homoiconicity is the shit.

You spelled donations wrong.

This comment is triggering and it should have a NSFW spoiler.

You don’t understand: these comment footers are the only thing between us and Roko’s basilisk.

~ NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE ~ PRIVATE MODE OF COMMUNICATION ~ NO STEP ON SNEK ~

Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Spam/misinformation: Not an anti-AI licence.

This person may be confused, but still your tagline is a waste of mods’ time. And just speaking as a user I find it to be annoying visual pollution, especially since I think it’s ineffectual, unless your only goal is to “raise awareness.” Beyond that I think any effectiveness is about as plausible as that of sovereign citizenship.

For Universal Basic Income (UBI) to work, the state would have to control the prices of universal basic needs, otherwise the capitalist class would raise prices to absorb it. But state-provided goods & services and state-imposed prices are antithetical to our current hyper-privatized, hyper-financialized neoliberal capitalism.

How Bankers Became the Top Exploiters of the Economy

Adam Simpson: […] You write about rent as it relates to land. […] I’ve seen, for instance, Thomas Paine associated with ground rent and its obvious inequality, the notion that someone has a right to a piece of land that obviously no one can really “own.” He argues for distributing that to everyone in the form of a universal basic income. That seems to be a popular idea now, particularly in Silicon Valley as well as other places. I wanted to know your perspective on universal basic income.

Michael Hudson: I think it’s a misnomer. There’s no problem with giving more people enough income to live. Even archaic societies operated on the mutual-aid principle. There’s a lot of pressure for the Federal Reserve to create a trillion dollars by giving everybody an extra $500. Why are they willing to do that? Because most people would use the $500 to pay the banks – so the banks wouldn’t have to lose money and default as a result of their reckless and unproductive lending. The problem’s not only income, but what people have to spend it on. Paine didn’t talk about universal income, he talked about everybody should have the right to a place to live, a means of their own self-support. That’s independent from income. Once you economize and financialize it, you put in a distortion.

You don’t want to give people income to buy what really should be public goods and services outside of the market. You don’t want to give people more income simply to pay monopolistic public utilities for extortionate charges for water, sewer, electricity, cable TV and education. These are things that should be removed from the marketplace, not giving people the income to buy overpriced and monopolized real estate and infrastructure services that should be public in the first place.

Adam Simpson: I completely agree. That’s my criticism of this ongoing universal basic income debate. It might be a good idea if we solve a lot of other things first. One of them being financial parasites, because in my mind people talk about a trickle-down economy. I get a sense right now that we have what more or less amounts to a trickle-up economy. At the end of the day the rich are going to get theirs. The idea of providing universal basic income or a stimulus, eventually it’s going to work their way up to the top of the system.

Michael Hudson: The key to any such analysis is circular flow. If you give people income, what do they spend it on? As I said, people have to spend 75% of their income on things other than the goods and services they produce. You don’t want to give them services to bloat this [Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE)] sector that is sucking income upward to the 5%. You don’t want to give more people income just to pay higher rents and bank loans to the 5% at the top. You want to do the opposite.

I wouldn’t call this the power of Israel. That puts way to much of this on the Israeli state alone.

Israel is a settler-colonial, vassal state of the US. It’s our unsinkable aircraft carrier in West Asia. As Biden has been saying for decades, “Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region..”

Also, much of the lobbying money comes not from Israel but from our own gentile Zionists, particularly our Christian Zionists. The great majority of Zionists are not Jewish.

They wouldn’t necessarily be anti-Sino, they’d just be wrong, which would be pretty embarrassing at this point, given that they’re seeing an actual genocide now.

The Cold War had only a brief pause before the pivot to Asia. The US tried to foment unrest in China by funding and organizing terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and when those efforts failed it concocted and promoted a genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop, just last week.

• The Xinjiang Genocide Allegations Are Unjustified
• The Uyghur Human Rights Project is a product of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is the American government’s main regime change NGO.
• Uyghur genocide allegations
• American Debunks All Major Western Propaganda on Uyghurs and Xinjiang
• US-Funded Uyghur Activists Train as Soldiers of Empire
• A Reddit AMA Claiming To Be A Uyghur Quickly Exposes A CIA Asset Slandering China
• The blueprint of regime change operations

We see here for example the evolution of public opinion in regards to China. In 2019, the ‘Uyghur genocide’ was broken by the media (Buzzfeed, of all outlets). In this story, we saw the machine I described up until now move in real time. Suddenly, newspapers, TV, websites were all flooded with stories about the ‘genocide’, all day, every day. People whom we’d never heard of before were brought in as experts — Adrian Zenz, to name just one; a man who does not even speak a word of Chinese.

Organizations were suddenly becoming very active and important. The World Uyghur Congress, a very serious-sounding NGO, is actually an NED Front operating out of Germany […]. From their official website, they declare themselves to be the sole legitimate representative of all Uyghurs — presumably not having asked Uyghurs in Xinjiang what they thought about that.

The WUC also has ties to the Grey Wolves, a fascist paramilitary group in Turkey, through the father of their founder, Isa Yusuf Alptekin.

Documents came out from NGOs to further legitimize the media reporting. This is how a report from the very professional-sounding China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) came to exist. They claimed ‘up to 1.3 million’ Uyghurs were imprisoned in camps. What they didn’t say was how they got this number: they interviewed a total of 10 people from rural Xinjiang and asked them to estimate how many people might have been taken away. They then extrapolated the guesstimates they got and arrived at the 1.3 million figure.

Sanctions were enacted against China — Xinjiang cotton for example had trouble finding buyers after Western companies were pressured into boycotting it. Instead of helping fight against the purported genocide, this act actually made life more difficult for the people of Xinjiang who depend on this trade for their livelihood (as we all do depend on our skills to make a livelihood).

Any attempt China made to defend itself was met with more suspicion. They invited a UN delegation which was blocked by the US. The delegation eventually made it there, but three years later. The Arab League also visited Xinjiang and actually commended China on their policies — aimed at reducing terrorism through education and social integration, not through bombing like we tend to do in the West.

@Pluto@hexbear.net, you’re being a pain in the ass for mods and admins by blasting posts across a dozen comms, because it results in us getting reports from users. Lemmy is not Reddit. Many people read Lemmy by “All” or “Local,” and they don’t appreciate having their homepage filled up with the exact same post. I tried to tell you this yesterday, but you don’t seem to be listening.

Fascist punks fuck off!