7,479 karma · joined March 14, 2016
I think if it was "anti-communist"/"anti-marxist" it would be equally not appropriate for an OS.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)
[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/desi...
Yes, and positions against encryption or censorship could be considered political. But I don't want my OS to take a stance on wars, gender, and anything else not related to the code.
AntiX looks like a cool project, but the one place I don't want to see any kind of politics is in my OS [1]. I don't want my distro taking a stance on Israel vs Palestine, or Ukraine vs Russia, for example.
To do everything onboard, maybe, just maybe, you could parse basic HTML/CSS and images. But the majority of pages would of course fail anyway without full support for every modern feature.
This seems like it could be useful: https://limpet.net/mbrubeck/2014/08/08/toy-layout-engine-1.h...
Voting will continue until the correct result is achieved [1].
> And after accusing the brexiters of just being anti immigration, still nothing was done about immigration, because fuck what people want if its not what better people want.
This is exactly it, they simply hold the public in contempt and believe they know better. The public has been extremely clear about it's voting intentions post-Blair.
> Now we have constant riots, pork pie patriots in their hundreds of thousands gathering in London, and useless promises after 20 years of lies and broken promises now that the demographics have changed massively creating a situation where one has to either do nothing or do something unsettling to revert any of this.
If only something was done 20 years ago when people originally aired their concerns. This situation was entirely foreseeable and avoidable.
I think "pork pie patriots" is a very unfair characterisation, and it's that sort of denigration of them and their opinions that has led to where we are. They have legitimate concerns about the direction the UK has gone in.
> Its like fascism for cowards.
Are you talking about the government or the people opposing the government?
[1] https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/235138
Then you should be able to easily find sources for that point?
Bare in mind that UKIP, Reform and the right-wing in the UK hold the likes of Churchill and the UK's efforts in WWII against the Nazis as a point of national pride. The UK sacrificed almost everything to save Europe, and those people would do it all over again.
I think that Reform attract a variety of views, the party is formed by the politically homeless. The Mayor of London being anti-Trump for example does not represent Labour's official position, which is one with open arms for Trump.
> The UK will never be a leader again, we were once but threw it all away to privatisation and stripping of industries. You're only the leader when you actually produce, we rarely do that anymore.
It could be a leader again, but it will require large political will. Part of being a leader is for the UK to not have rules dictated to it. The EU is really struggling with economic productivity itself, largely due to the red tape that the UK is now well positioned to remove.
The UK should produce more. From a climate and tariff perspective, it should not be cheaper to get something made with few/little environmental standards in China and then shipped across the world. It is also mad that the climate activists do not jump on this point more.
> Besides "cheap reliable" is an oxymoron. Anything cheap is not reliable, anything reliable isn't cheap. Nuclear = Reliable but expensive, Renewable = Cheap but unreliable (in comparison).
The UK had a hybrid just going back a few years that was more reliable and cheaper, and even that could have been better optimised. The UK should not have higher energy costs than the EU, for example.
> Why isn't there focus on national citizens, or can we do no harm?
National citizens are a problem, but they are a problem the UK is stuck with. The UK should not be importing the economically unproductive from elsewhere too. At the same time, a great focus will need to be applied to national citizens that are economically unproductive. Some 3 million 16-64 are apparently permanently sick and unable to work [1].
> That primary focus is bogus. I don't rule out that immigrants are not committing crimes, I don't have time to source the stats so I'll play the devils advocate and say maybe. Maybe it's more, maybe it's less but crime is crime.
Foreign nationals make up 12% of UK prisons [2], and the argument is that is should be ~0%.
> If it is truly immigrants, then why have we not been tackling immigration laws? Why is it suddenly a concern now when crimes have been reported and ignored for decades? The government(s) have documented cases of these gang-crimes for years.
The UK seems to have failed to introduce any real barrier to immigration into the UK since Tony Blair. The concern has been there for a long time, there was just no political will to deal with it. Immigration levels have continued to increase and the average person sees HMOs dispersed throughout the UK and on their doorstep.
> We will however go for the innocent folk who have really done nothing wrong though. I want privacy as the next person, "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is as like "when the fun stops, stop!" a sponsored gambling anti-gambling advertisement campaign. When your an addict, there is no fun to stop.
Being innocent is not an argument to stay in the UK. The UK will need to figure out how to keep immigrants that are productive and integrated.
> I enjoy walking around my apartment naked when I wake up which is why I own curtains. The government can't watch me apart from my WiFi signal. McAdverts can't advertise to me boxer briefs and Doritos for breakfest; we did have window tax once, I'm sure curtain tax will be a thing too soon.
Well, privacy is valued, and maybe privacy is a lucrative new source of tax revenue. Yes you may have your curtains and your encrypted messages, but it's going to cost you.
[1] https://wecovr.com/guides/uk-sickness-crisis-1-in-5-britons-...
[2] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04...
A compromise might be to send the traffic via a proxy that pre-resizes images, renders content and chops it up into a manageable format for a resource constrained device.
> I think that I want a 5G tty qwerty terminal..? :-)
> aka https://github.com/rastapasta/mapscii for maps, etc.
For resource constrained devices, it's probably easier to render the vector graphics. There's a few open end points out there that could make it feasible for basic navigation.
> Sorry, what do you mean by that? In the sense of 4G not being that supported vs 3G? As in the chips aren't available? Or 4G service is hard to find..?
You can get them, but they are harder to interface with than the existing 2G/3G chips. Whoever takes on the challenge might have to do some work reverse engineering how to correctly speak to the modem, for example.
It happens to us all.
> Someone who pushed for Brexit, supports Hard Euroscepticism, (yet has an European wife) [..]
I think the largest push was for sovereignty of the nation, which is a huge win for democracy. The UK shouldn't have people making important decisions that cannot be unelected.
I don't think that Brexit was driven by a hatred of Europeans or European nation states.
> [..] and runs a party promoting that human-made climate change isn't a thing, [..]
Not sure that this is the case, I think the case being made is that net-zero is being chased religiously at the cost of economic growth. If the UK want to be a leader in AI for example, then the UK needs access to cheap reliable energy.
> [..] wants immigrants thrown out of the UK is a party I don't want to imagine being in power.
I think to be clear, they want economically unproductive immigrants and criminals out of the UK. This seems to be the policy of all the major parties currently.
> With regards to my online activities, I'm already a terrorist for using Tor.
As they say whilst taking your privacy away: "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear".
I would like to remind you that many of the idiots pushing for this enjoy the use of iPhones and their encrypted services. I think that if the UI were to regularly remind the user that their data is no longer properly protected, that some of those idiots may be under more political pressure.
Sincerely, UK person
A browser would be quite tough on such an embedded system, you would need to really think outside of the box. The issue is that a browser could easily need more space to render than is available, have tonnes of images, require JS, etc.
On my machine. the lightweight browser dillo is 852kB, and that doesn't include the shared libraries (I could 26 on my machine). It's not going to be easy to get a similar experience running.
> Feel free to pile on and tell me which devices I've missed..! :-) I'm sure there must be some out there, considering that "cell phone in a chip" is pretty much a whole category now ie the qualcomm snapdragon chips, mediatek, etc.
I'm hoping to add to the list of devices myself maybe next year. It's a very difficult space to operate in.
> ... (reading more about it) actually, is it true that design/certification of a small device that boasts a cellular module is a lot harder than an esp32/wifi-only board? which explains why there isn't a plethora of cell-internet-enabled devices?
For the most part you can get already certified modules, where the ESP32 is itself largely one of these modules (the small ones with the metal body on a thin PCB). I think cellular is mostly avoided due to the increase in BOM, and you're not easily going to get 4G/5G support.
I think this device is begging for an IRC client though.
Your private DMs being unencrypted means that they are semi-private DMs. E2E should be enforced everywhere.
In theory this could be used to share torrent links by a different reference (ideally you could also add an anchor too). Somebody else could have a page that takes keywords and points you to pages hosted on the site.
Since being forced into globalisation and the concept of a border being essentially abolished (of course unless you talk about Ukraine, in which case billions can be spent on enforcing it), everything is flipped on its head. The terrorism act means that you have no right to silence, no right to legal representation and you are compelled to provide your passwords. The government now gets further and further involved with private matters, such as what content you engage with online (online safety act) and have plans to force ID to be linked to social media.
In my area, you cannot walk into a GP and request an appointment, they tell you to go away. You have to install an app, link it to your details, provide evidence of who you are, go on video, wait a few days, and then you are allowed to request an appointment (in a few weeks time). Bare in mind that healthcare is denied to nobody in the UK.
This year the Legal Aid Agency had a large cyber security breach [1]. People's names, financial information, and the fact that they apply for legal aid was breached. One of the few reasons you can get Legal Aid is being a domestic abuse victim.
> This data may have included contact details and addresses of applicants, their dates of birth, national ID numbers, criminal history, employment status and financial data such as contribution amounts, debts and payments. In some instances, information about the partners of legal aid applicants may be included in the compromised data.
This same government wants to collect and centralise the private details of all citizens in the UK. It makes me sick.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/legal-aid-agency-data-bre...
It's war, this is the unfortunate truth and why we try to avoid war. Nobody really ends up winning in this.
> This doesn't justify killing civilians, but what do you do when civilians kill you?
Then point at which a civilian picks up a weapon to operate alongside Hamas, they have become Hamas and are no longer civilians.
> It's a nasty situation no matter which side you look at it from.
Yes. But a peaceful solution was almost impossible once Hamas performed their October 7 attack. The other day the UN members agreed to recognise Palestine as a state, and now the only thing left on Hamas' manifesto is the complete destruction of Israel [1]. I suspect Israel is not inclined to negotiate on that demand.
This is incorrect. Wolf packs, apes, cats and many other social animals have methods to address social conflict and wrongdoing. What they saw was a resource to be conquered, and then retroactively justified it with with societal infrastructure. An argument could be made that they are better off with these things, but the way it was done was of course wrong.
> In Western culture, we are socialized to believe that the desire to inflict counterviolence upon or retaliate against someone who has hurt us or a loved one is innate and that justice has always been done and will always be done in this way. In fact, far from universal or natural, this adversarial vision of justice is a relatively recent cultural and historical construction, arising around AD 1200 with the dawning of the nation-state and racial capitalism.
Again, wrong. Matthew 5:39: Jesus tells his followers, "If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also". There was recognition, likely far longer than Jesus, that escalating retaliatory violence is not good. And in common times in Western culture, we do not inflict upon criminals what they themselves did to others. If a man stabs another man to death, he is not sentenced to death by stabbing.
> Though restorative justice is new to Western jurisprudence, it is not at all new in the broader sweep of human history. For most of human history, reconciliation and restitution to victims and their kin took precedence over vengeance. This is because restoring social peace and avoiding blood feuds were paramount social concerns. Restitution and reconciliation, not punishment, were overarching aspirations.
Again, no. Restorative justice takes place all of the time. It's precisely how we have been "avoiding blood feuds" in the West. "Restitution and reconciliation" is not always an option. You and I mostly follow reason, but we do not live in a world of universal humans, and not everyone is born equal. Some people have inherited exceptional anger, spite, vengeance, etc. Some people have an ideology so ingrained into their very being, that they would strap explosives to themselves and kills hundreds of people. The world is not sunshine and rainbows, there is some real evil out there.
> Punishment, the equivalent of officially sanctioned vengeance, is a mere variant of the original harm, replicating and reproducing it, resulting in the destruction of community safety nets and social breakdown.
Wrong. Punishment in a just system is not decided by the victim, and therefore vengeance is not considered. What does result in the destructions of society, though, is when some people believe there is not going to be a consequence to their actions. Then, to destroy a society, just a small group of bad actors have the ability to do whatever they want. In African indigenous societies, the village chief and the warriors/hunters would have punished a bad actor - you are insane to think otherwise.
> It locks us into the past and tethers us to disabling definitions of ourselves and an overidentification with the pain, mistaking it for who we truly are.
Would the person writing this tell this to a person that has been raped? As part of their restorative justice, the victim is forced to reconcile with their attacker. The attacker walks freely without punishment, whilst the victim is told to stop living in the past and to stop identifying with the pain.
Let's see how well that holds up.
> Imprisoned by the pain and the past, the harmed party experiences victimization a second time, but this time, it is self-inflicted. It is scientifically documented that hatred and anger eat away at our well-being, on physical and emotional levels.
"scientifically documented" - proceeds to not cite the science
Hatred and anger are normally present when there is a feeling that justice is not done correctly and quickly.
In which case, is it prudent to remove the IDF's ability to successfully target the correct people? Precise military intelligence is absolutely necessary for minimising civilian casualties.