eh, sorry, I’m sometimes starting to get a feeling most people in the English-speaking interwebs are from the US, and I’m a fool playing in the wrong sandbox

a good reminder that no

The jerk has his own Wikipedia page.

Basically an ideologist of what you get if you remove NAP and common property of unmade resources from ancap. Would be a funny thought experiment if there weren’t crowds of people, working in those big companies, thinking his ideology is good and right.

Thanks for what? I’m not knowledgeable, it’s just poking with my finger into the sky

Translation is the only task that seems to make sense for it.

The is a genuine question that I don’t have the answer to.

I would say that because nobody can muster the consensus on any real policy. There’s plenty of legacy, with many different people and teams responsible, knowledge lost and so on.

And then this requires some sort of unified vision. Despite, eh, all the downsides, Apple can do that. MS can’t.

They’d honestly have to make a separate “neowin” subsystem with new GUI and everything, and make win32 and win64 and all the old tooling optional and parallel. Because their approach to backward compatibility means keeping everything around. They can’t fix the mess maintaining that.

If that “AI” is getting feedback from fixes they make, then it makes sense. They are basically training it all the time. Except training it on their own devs seems to be pissing against the wind.

They know that they know nothing. They do what they must and let be what comes. An enlightened monopolist corporation.

One lesson they took from RedHat, is it not?

A funny idea, but not always. Some of the “ruling class” are genuinely racist.

It’s a logical continuation of them being on top. Some people are better than others, in their opinion. They are better than those not of their group and set of opinions, their country (sometimes of residence and not where they rule) is better than other countries, their ethnicity is better than other ethnicities, and their race is better than other races. The reason they want to impress these hierarchical divisions is they want to impress their worldview, not to create division.

So, again about USA. You guys have that crap in everything. That’s why motivational letters by American students to European universities are a comedy genre. You don’t even see it, but your official tone (and even much of the political discussions and social one) is half bullshit, half markers of identity (that kind of neighborhood, that kind of ancestry, that kind of some other tribal classification, all clear cut and exclusive). Well, there are also markers of connections thrown here and there. And your discussions are usually not discussions, they are like playing cards with those markers instead, where one marker beats another, there can be no discussion after that.

Sigh. I have relatives in the USA who moved there long enough ago to be carriers of that and other things too, so when my uncle was helping me with writing a CV, for the initial variant I just followed his advice and I’m not ever showing that pretentious crap to anyone. Despite him being a tremendous help with my executive dysfunction (and unfortunately impediment where he conditioned one project on me finishing uni, I still haven’t finished uni, it’s indefinitely paused).

Sockets are an operating system abstraction and have nothing to do with this conversation.

Of course.

That’s the second Indochina war, and American bombing was mostly done against Vietnamese targets in the jungle in the neighboring countries, so mostly it was still Vietnam. But yes, they regularly hit civilian targets in the neighboring countries.

The first Indochina war was France testing its contemporary new and shiny western military doctrines in the wild and finding them lacking.

In general this seems to be a pattern, western nations indeed value lives of their soldiers very much. I doubt it’s because of humanism (they don’t value enemy civilian population’s), rather because of inherent racism. But it shows in the doctrines, they are always looking for a way to create a situation where they can hit their enemy, but their enemy can’t hit them, and where they are moving so much faster than their enemy, that their enemy could as well be a sitting duck. To create a baby beating disposition. That’s harmful for military’s experience and esprit de corps, but appeals to the western nations’ feel of superiority. Long term harm, short term impressions.

So - it didn’t work. They were using air logistics and supply depots in a system all over the place and small expert mobile forces and all that stuff the western public still considers proper way of fighting a war. In other words, they tried to cheat. And Viet Minh just did their work honestly, in many small steps, over long enough time.

Of course the French logistics were conditioned by fighting on the other side of the globe from metropoly, and Viet Minh fought at home. But honestly it seems to be a pattern in all wars for any European nation, ideas of superiority and quick spectacular solution are always replaced for more classical understanding once actually tried. It’s a cliche that USSR’s approach was mass assault with no regard for lives, but, ahem, Tukhachevsky is one of the creators of the ideas that became Wehrmacht’s doctrine in the beginning.

While the USA in Vietnam decided to show another thing - that they are not France and can just burn all of the fucking jungle with their power. And they burned much of that, except their population wasn’t ready even for the pretty moderate losses there (like 4x what USSR lost in Afghanistan).

I … suspect it might be more that they are scared of the racial component. Not even “scared”.

Silicon Valley is a burgerhole of Curtis Yarvin, dreams of technofascism with its inhabitants on top, impunity with wages not quite mirroring quality, and a bit - American academic culture. And American academic culture is the fucking opposite of the European one, or so I’ve read.

I’m talking about Briar used over BT.

Something needs to route the PC to the server

I don’t want client-server model. I want sharing model. Like with Briar.

The only kind of “servers” might be relays, like in NOSTR, or machines running 24/7 like Briar mailbox.

IP. How would I go about replacing it? I don’t know, I think Yggdrasil authors have written something about their routing model, but 1) it’s represented as ipv6, so IP, 2) it’s far over my head, 3) read the previous, I don’t really want to replace it as much as not to make it the main common layer.

I’ve personally played with Gemini a few months ago, and now want a new Internet as opposed to a new Web.

Replace IP protocols with something better. With some kind of relative addressing, and delay-tolerant synchronization being preferred to real-time connections between two computers. So that there were no permanent global addresses at all, and no centralized DNS.

With the main “Web” over that being just replicated posts with tags hyperlinked by IDs, with IDs determined by content. Structured, like semantic web, so that a program could easily use such a post as directory of other posts or a source of text or retrieve binary content.

With user identities being a kind of post content, and post authorship being too a kind of post content or maybe tag content, cryptographically signed.

Except that would require to resolve post dependencies and retrieve them too with some depth limit, not just the post one currently opens, because, if it’d be like with bittorrent, half the hyperlinks in found posts would soon become dead, and also user identities would possibly soon become dead, making authorship check impossible.

And posts (suppose even sites of that flatweb) being found by tags, maybe by author tag, maybe by some “channel” tag, maybe by “name” tag, one can imagine plenty of things.

The main thing is to replace “clients connecting to a service” with “persons operating on messages replicated on the network”, with networked computers sharing data like echo or ripples on the water. In what would be the general application layer for such a system.

OK, this is very complex to do and probably stupid.

It’s also not exactly the same level as IP protocols, so this can work over the Internet, just like the Internet worked just fine, for some people, over packet radio and UUCP or FTN email gates and copper landlines. Just for the Internet to be the main layer in terms of which we find services, on the IP protocols, TCP, UDP, ICMP, all that, and various ones and DNS on application layer, - that I consider wrong, it’s too hierarchical. So it’s not a “replacement”.

Honestly every law usable to keep a business working that would fail otherwise is shady. Other than preventing (literal physical) theft, robberies and murders.

Especially if it limits your freedom to do whatever you want that doesn’t involve stealing, robbing, killing, raping, putting stuff on fire …

It’s not feudalism, it’s the usual fascism in making. Maybe with some capitalist mechanisms.

The problem with so much leftist thought is precisely that it denies agency to those it seeks to liberate.

Which is why at some point I decided that I’m fine with explaining my opinions though Trotskyism and not anarcho-capitalism. I didn’t stop being ancap in essence (recently went to an ancap group in TG and was glad to see that the main principles haven’t been lost), but in Russia most people around use communist terms and logic on politics without even realizing it. Even the right-wing and nationalist kind talk like that (the official “communist” party doesn’t, though, it sounds like moderate nazis with weird symbolic). And if I want to find a way to improve something, it very clearly doesn’t lie in conceiving a structure and then trying to make it real through power or deceit.

I think they do understand what they are doing. Just like with modifying a “protected” program locally, a native one. They are making laws about what you can and can’t do, and outlawing tools allowing you to do that.

Honestly until it’s possible to make laws forbidding you to do something that doesn’t violate anyone, such will be made. If you can spend N money if forcing something through markets, and a bit less than N if lobbying for a law, then you’ll do the latter.

Anyway. The problem is in the Internet and the Web as things which encourage this behavior.