robtherobber

> Plenty of people don't need many plugins.

And they can also build or order bespoke ones, reducing the risks.

That was a weird list, save for one or two suggestions. Should someone suggest a list of alternatives in this context, they would very likely go with Drupal, Joomla, October CMS etc. WP is a PHP-based free, self-hosted and open source CMS, there is absolutely no reason to suggest a closed SaaS version as an alternative. A Java-based self-hosted open source alternative? Maybe. A .NET one? I guess so.

But what's so tragic about it? All that death, destruction, and the potential impossibility of future human life? Some numbers look great, clearly we're winning here. It's only the doomsayers, the pessimists, the commies, the blue-haired people, the monsters that throw soup on glazed paintings that can't see how good it is.

That was a good read, and my respect for Purism increased a bit. (I say "a bit" because I knew very little about it before.)

There is not a genial bone in that man's body. At most, he's a successful predator.

The point, I argue, is not just the leaving aspect, which is obviously untrue. It's the fact that without taxing them, they tend to meddle in politics and turn a reasonably good society into a social and political chaos. By taxing them we, the society, exert a form of very necessary political control whilst also funding essential services that make life liveable for the individuals.

That was a hilarious read, and the author didn't really bother to add any facts alongside opinionism. I'm sure that there are plenty of Americans who've had a poor experience trying to settle in an European country, as well as many that established themselves there without any major complaints, or at least expecting to find differences, both culturally and materially.

To start, there is a sweeping geographical generalisation in there. You know, "the Europe", that country with baguettes, nuclear warheads, turkey roast, trains, and some version of English spoken, and not a list of countries with radically different economic structures, old cultural differences, political systems, labour markets, languages, transport networks, housing conditions and social norms.

One interviewee says:

> She says she had negative experiences with the NHS maternal care, compared to the smooth experience of her private health insurance in the US, and didn’t expect it to cost her anything: “I pay huge amounts of taxes and an immigration surcharge to access the NHS services—so no, the health care is not free here.”

UK's healthcare system is in a bit of a pickle right now after all the privatisations and neoliberal applications (imported from - or developed in tandem with - the US) of the last 50 years. That said, of course universal healthcare is not free - medical treatment has some kind of economic cost, but that's not what free means in that context. What she talks about is an immigration-specific charge, not the ordinary healthcare payment arrangement for all British residents. If you're not a citizen and if your country doesn't have a treaty with the UK covering that, you'd be daft to believe that you can simply move to or visit a country and get all your healthcare needs sorted out like that.

It compares British public maternity care with American private care, without explaining what that means in practice. If you have the money for private healthcare, you get the same posh experience in the UK in the majority of cases. And UK is not Europe anyway, it's but one system out of quite a few.

> She also expected train travel to be low cost, based on what she’d read about Europe

Clearly, she hasn't read anything about it beforehand.

She also claims that British quality of life is significantly lower than American quality of life, but we're never told how that's measured and what it actually means. She may very well believe that leisure is for schmucks, that personal safety is of zero importance and that cheaper tech is the most important thing to live for; who knows?

Ah, well. We've been presented this nonsense in order to stir shit, and shit has been stirred I suppose.

Very cool project, and I love parts of the idea. But any new social media or public collection platform that I can't exert control over it's big no from me. I'm not putting my preferences, time and creativity into any other platform only to be monetised by the next Zuck dude. This "business" model needs to perish, and soon.

Probably just me, but app.claydash.com doesn't seem to work in FF.

Thanks, will do. I think it's a cool project.

I guess it all depends on specific examples, your question is so broad that seems almost unserious. The "speculative and crazy ideas" is unqualified, so there's a very strong possibility that (1) they're simply unhinged or idiotic or (2) they don't make sufficient business sense to be supported by anyone, regardless of whether those people are "founders" (whatever that means) or employees.

It's also a matter of statistics at play; HN is a social media platform - as opposed to a founders-only platform, and employees make for a significantly larger pool. It would make sense to see that kind of difference in numbers.

A bit too dramatic for my taste, but yes.

For some reason not even archive.li type of tools appear to show this page.

I guess that the answer to that is "because it's news rather than yet another unnecessarily long poorly written essay".

But I take your point though.

No need for the snarky comment - it's a machine translated text from Spanish, as it says on the same page.

But you are right that it should've been "standard" instead of "cost" there. People sometimes conflate "cost of living" with "standard of living", especially if they're not native English speakers. A small issue, I'd say, in a world where English is a minority language.

I was indeed referring to the mole. I find that behaviour reprehensible.

There is always that one person who ruins the game for everyone, metaphorically speaking. Despicable behaviour.

Google kept increasing its profits since then, and it was one of the most successful businesses out there way before they changed the business model to become enshittified. The argument that their business model changed because people wouldn't pay for its services doesn't really stand.

I've always been of two minds about this. I get the pushback against anglicisation - many in the world don't speak or wish to speak English. But, surely, we can all agree that adopting a lingua franca is beneficial for most; this way, people from China, South America, Korea, Sri Lanka, and Germany have a common method to implement interfunctional systems.

Sad state of affairs.

I think we may have different interpretations for makes an individual interesting, or I'm misreading your comment.

This is at the opposite spectrum of interesting to me (on David Heinemeier Hansson):

> He wrote a blog post, “As I remember London”, in which he uses numerous racist, fascist, and ethno-nationalist dog-whistles while calling for the ethnic cleansing via forced removal of non-white people from the UK and other countries. Another of David’s posts, “Wolves, sheep, and gypsies” compares Roma people to wolves and again calls for an ethnic cleansing.

I never paid too much attention to what happens behind the screens, in the OS software realpolitik realm, but for some reason I kept assuming - incorrectly, it seems - that most people who show a deep appreciation to the open source philosophy are leaning more to the left philosophically (i.e. "let's help people", "let's empower them to make their own society and here are some tools", "let's share stuff", "let's open the industries, ideas, and solutions to everyone" etc.) rather than right. But I guess there's no shortage of nuance, variety and surprise in this realm, just like in any other complex one.

It would certainly make me think twice about using some of these solutions.

> CERN engineers had considered moving to CentOS Stream as a more natural pathway but ultimately they say "the straw that broke the camel's back" to abandon Red Hat Enterprise Linux was the "-march=x86-64-v2" compiler flag default as "forced obsolescence" for old hardware.

I think I read recently about another large company or institution that cited the same reason for moving away from a major Linux-based OS.

I suppose you're correct, and it's my frustration speaking there. That said, the internet is absolutely immense in terms of articles to read, an arguably poor source is simply not worth the effort.

Every now and then I'd come across articles from this source and thought that they were decent. Perhaps not the best, but reasonably well researched and argued. But coming across this statement kind of sealed the deal for me in the wrong way:

> Instead of paying more to recycle, we could spend that money far more effectively on other environmental mitigation measures like carbon capture.

Pure unadulterated bollocks, I'm sorry to say. I shall flag this source whenever emerges in my feed.

> Sufficiently well-worn cotton tote bags can beat plastic for environmental cost, but only for the most consistent among us.

We simply don't need to rely on the "most consistent among us", because these things -- and so, so many others -- can be legislated, enforced, stopped, controlled etc. Businesses make and sell plastic bags because no one stops them and they're convenient (as well as a serious environmental problem). Should governments do the job they are supposed to do (or simply step aside and let the society organise in that particular respect), plastic bags would cease to be a problem.

I am somewhat disappointed, I guess.

I initially liked using Monica, even though it was a huge pain to self host it - the installation process in particular. It felt like I was putting together a spatial ship - error after error, warning after warning. A rather frustrating experience. And after I finally managed to install it, I've used it for half a year and it felt like a lot of work to keep it updated, get used to the processes / logic behind the system etc. Furthermore, I realised that it's basically an immense liability - all my contacts and private details about myself and them in one single place.

As such, my rules for a personal CRM are as follows:

1. No server to maintain; it should be an old school piece of software that I can install on my PC/phone etc.

2. I like the idea of being able to update it from different locations and using different devices; the only service acceptable here is for the makers to either offer a paid-for sync service or a method for users to sync the data between devices themselves. Not an essential service to me though.

3. No unencrypted data should be allowed, regardless of whether it stays local or it's synced across devices, or whether it's live or a backup file.

4. Backup, import, and any data handling should be easy as a breeze. Should I open my backup / db export done with version 1.0 with a fresh installation v9999 it should work flawlessly, no errors, no hiccups, no file corruption, no issues whatsoever. That data is the one reason for the software to exist and the only valuable entity in the whole scheme; if it becomes unusable, it's beyond frustrating and not a good solution to even consider.

5. No updates should be forced, ever. If my OS supports version 0.5 until year 3500, the CRM should continue work as expected. Security updates should be entirely separate than feature / bugs etc. I accept security updates within reason, in many cases I would much rather risk my PC to be hacked and data to fall in the wrong hands, than corrupt it or lose it due to some feature update I never requested or needed.

> Trade will muddle through somehow. Where there is a buck to be made people can be innovative and bold.

That's what I believe as well. Once the opportunity arises, another power or group of interest will seize it, as it's always been the case throughout history. It may take a while, that's true, but just like we can't turn back to a world without countries anytime soon, we can't turn back to a world without commerce anytime soon.

In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that we should not want a state like the US to be the guarantor of such a system, if only because it will do everything in its power to keep this planet burning just so it can maintain various leverages of power.

Regardless of what the US does in this particular respect, the current economic philosophy is nothing short of disastrous on some key aspects and it needs changing fast, something that the US is determined to prevent from happening. As such, I suspect that there will be tremendous suffering globally regardless of this particular situation, having a so-called guarantor won't make much of a difference - it may very well be the opposite.

Oh, grow up.

Sorry, but that's AI slop

> That debate is noise. The real questions are technical, not political.

> The core problem isn't that Omarchy is wrong. It's that it limits too much.

> Perhaps I can be blamed for using windows

That would be unreasonable, I argue. No one should have to worry about the security of their devices and data privacy based on which OS they use. Whilst it can be argued that different OSs serve different needs, privacy and security should not be debatable. In fact, most countries have dedicated legislation for this; whether it's just, applied correctly, or serves the public before any other party are indeed discussions to be had.