you can use a combination of ‘Always Open Site in Container’ ‘Limit to Designated Sites’ and temporary containers for that.

i was very lucky that my introduction to software engineering came from a mentor who cared intensely about their work. but i dropped out of the IT industry after i never met someone like that again.

i never even went to secondary, but across several jobs i was having to teach my colleagues (compsci degrees) basic computer literacy skills. the moment they had to leave their IDE, they were lost. they had not even a basic understanding of version control systems. zero curiosity. they frequently broke their git repos and couldn’t fix it. they didn’t give a single fuck about the theory of what they were doing for 72 hours a week; what they were voluntarily choosing to do for 72 hours a week on 30 hour contracts. they hardly even cared about the practise.

LLMs completely ruined these people. they started using it for everything: responding to Slack messages, writing emails, writing code, doing code review… and when it was found out at my last company that i was the only one stubbornly refusing to use LLMs for anything, i was put on a fucking PIP and told it was company policy to use ‘labour saving technology.’ despite the fact that my code had the fewest defects, ignoring how frequently i was misled into doing something i wasn’t even supposed to do because the fucking task requirements were ALSO WRITTEN WITH AN LLM [THAT MADE SHIT UP]. but it was my fault for ‘not checking first’ (???).

i will never touch a computer for money ever fucking again.

aside: reading this while listening to clipping. was an experience

i’m not a fan of the privacy report…

https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.bashsoftware.boycott/latest/

i mean there’s basic input validation yeah, but the number of unique valid signatures isn’t known for all countries till after the collection period.

i didn’t have a strong opinion on the matter. just sharing my thoughts re: promoter463’s suggestion.

do we take the ideological route of dismissing him for reformist that he is

no, probably not. i think he’s already doing good work; he’s becoming walking agitprop. he ruptured the liberal obsession with (manufactured) polling data. he’s now even an official enemy of the state, so he’s got that going for him.

i don’t know what it means exactly to ‘endorse’ him (letalone in the context of this comm). share memes and articles about him? raise awareness? sure, why not? let’s watch what he does.

signatures aren’t immediately validated; the identification you provide is just ticking boxes. verification happens after the signing period, when the signatures are sent to their respective states to confirm and tally.

i have two minimums: the socialist minimum (the broad front; groups i’d act together with), and the libertarian socialist minimum (groups i’d organise with).

the socialist minimum is:

1. social ownership
2. internationalism
3. critical theory

if you aren’t for the negation of capitalism, private property, nationalism, imperialism and false consciousness: you’re not a socialist; you’re not a comrade.

the libertarian socialist minimum is:

1. horizontalism
2. self-determination
3. prefiguration

if you aren’t for direct action and free association, or your means don’t match your ends: you’re not an anarchist; you’re not a friend.

i identify with social anarchism because it describes my approach to life, but i’ll broadly advocate for anything matching my libertarian minimum, and more broadly lend (critical) support for anything matching my socialist minimum.

within this frame, i feel that Zohran is a socialist (public utilities, social housing, city-owned grocers, BDS; a focus on improving the material conditions), but the focus on state-mediation (ex. rent control) over dual-power (tenant unions) makes me feel — aside from tugging the Overton window — that he’s more focused on relieving people than empowering them.

Also the sight of a so-called “socialist” or “radical” government managing capitalism, imposing cuts, breaking strikes and generally attacking its supporters will damage the credibility of any form of socialism and discredit all socialist and radical ideas in the eyes of the population. If the experience of the Labour Government in Britain during the 1970s and New Labour after 1997 are anything to go by, it may result in the rise of the far-right who will capitalise on this disillusionment.

• see also: the Italian general election of 1921, and the weak liberalism it brought, which led to the Fascist March in 1922, which led to Mussolini.
• see also: most governments in Europe right now.

from my experience dealing with nosy wouldbe-employers and being on an immigrant watchlist:

they don’t believe for a second you don’t use social media; and if you don’t, then you did at some point, and they’ll find it; and if they don’t find it, then that’s suspicious, because obviously everyone uses social media, so you must be a criminal, using some dark web social media. and then you get credit checked forty times, only for them to find you have no debt and thus no credit score, and then they just assume you’re not a real person and call the cops.

why can liberals never criticise something without misogynistic/homophobic sexual metaphor?

for fucks sake i wish i could go one day without the triggering imagery of sexual violence being repurposed for your moralistic magical thinking exercises.

it seems to have happened again

@Five@slrpnk.net: something for !abc@slrpnk.net?

EDIT: →https://slrpnk.net/post/19234160

i like this. i think for now as a workaround: one could lock the topic and leave a comment asking the OP to crosspost it elsewhere, with grace for posts which have high engagement (as ladfrombrad suggested).

i don’t agree that crossposting works to ‘move’ posts. as far as i know: the OP is not notified when their topic is crossposted by someone else, and in that case they also won’t be ‘subscribed’ to comment notifications.

🎵 cathy don’t go to the supermarket today. cause there’s a very strange man at the checkout stand,

they’re referring to anarchist federalism, which scales in principle from neighbourhoods and work groups up to nations.

And if decisions are at rhe lowest possible levels then it seems like thats a hierarchy, which is more horizontal rather than not being a hierarchy.’

And i dont know what you meam by “the position” or “temporal” or “at the start” and that it “changes everything”.

horizontalism does not create a hierarchy, because a hierarchy (from Greek, for ‘rule of priests’) is a structure which creates superiors and subordinates.

say there’s a community — a geographical neighbourhood, a nongeographical group with shared interests, a workgroup… — that holds meetings on their own self-management and needs. when their needs concern more than themselves, then they delegate someone to communicate their concern to a larger (‘higher’) group — a city, a region, an industry — on a mandate: that they are temporary (till the concern is resolved, till the end of a project, or for an arbitrary time decided by the group); that they represent the group consensus; and that they can be recalled for any reason, more specifically in the event that they aren’t fulfilling their obligations to the group they represent.

proposals go up a chain, and revisions/changes are sent back down the chain. this cycle continues until the smallest (‘lowest’) groups are in agreement, with that agreement communicated by the delegates up to the largest relevant group. with a population like the US, these rounds of consensing can be done in the span of a month: https://participatoryeconomy.org/project/computer-simulations-of-participatory-planning/.

this structure can take infinite forms, but those structures remain fundamentally similar and therefore compatible.

there are examples like anarchist Spain, the Zapatistas, and — aspirationally — Rojava, mostly in in the Rojavan restorative justice system. to be fair to Rojava: they have been under siege for a decade.

for some thought experiments: Can This Book Save Us From Dystopia? (43m), The Future of Socialism (15m).

when the GP says ‘this changes everything’, they mean that the temporary and recallable nature of holding a special role in society flips the current paradigm: where politicians can promise whatever they want and then fail to deliver, because other (economically-)viable candidates are few and they already have their position. there’s nothing in the current system that gives constituents the ability to immediately remove a representative who isn’t representing the people who elected them, or who uses their position to further personal agenda.

a system where the people directly involved in their work and their lives are also participants in their own work and their own life creates people who are invested in the world around them.

good post. since i’m here, i want to expand on a few things:

But effectively, it boils down to the difference between authority as in power over people, and authority as in knowledge.

i recommend using expertise to refer to authority as in knowledge — like you did later in your comment, as Andrewism does — to avoid confusion.

They don’t have the unilateral ability to fire someone (nor does any individual)

no criticism, just expanding:

i think it’s important that someone who is given by a role or responsibility should have a mandate: the role should be specific, and it should be temporary (for an arbitrary amount of time, or till the end of a project) or recallable by a vote.

Graeber notes in something i’ll link below: ‘If something has to be done, then it’s okay to say all right, for the next three hours she’s in charge. There’s nothing wrong with that if everybody agrees to it. Or you improvise.’

Crowdsourced decision making is meant to be for the bigger aspects, stuff like what the end goal of a project should be. Smaller, extremely specialized aspects should get handled by those best equipped for it, that’s not a hierarchy.

in Kurdistan, this is the difference between technical decisions and the political (‘moral’) decisions[1]. it’s the difference between ‘when should we have our next meeting?’ and ‘should we be nonviolent?’.

• technical decisions are low-impact; operational or logistical.
• political decisions are high-impact, with broad social implications.

the political decisions are consensus decisions, of at least 1/3 of the group. these are vetoäble by anyone affected who wasn’t present for the vote.

the technical decisions are 2/3 or 3/4 majority votes, of the minimum affected people.

tho, as Graeber notes:

And then of course, obviously the question is who gets to decide what’s a moral question and what’s the technical one? So somebody might say, “Well, the question of [when to meet] bears on disabled people, and that’s a moral question.” So that becomes a little bit of a political football. There’s always things to debate and points of tension.

only partially related, but this discusssion reminded me of an essay on the myth that management == efficiency: David Harvey, anarchism, and tightly-coupled systems

you are probably fine without learning Swedish in a meaningful manner, but if you are planning to become a citizen it is not unreasonable a requirement.

i had a rant all prepared for this comment, along the lines of ‘yeah but they’re not doing anything to make learning the language or integrating any easier; they’re just adding further alientation and precarity into their lives’… but i realise all those words would be wasted because that’s the point.

the rightwing government doesn’t want people to integrate. they want to give every migrant such an acute case of Ulysses syndrome that they burn out and fail.

i have heard from people there that they just completely broke down after receiving their citizenship. they spent the years on a residency permit in unfurnished apartments with no lasting or heavy investments in society. they didn’t get medical or psychological treatment when they needed it, and they didn’t participate politically and stayed in their lane, living in effective peonage to their employers and trying to be model migrants and manage their energy levels so as not to draw any attention to themselves. they were too afraid to make any longlasting commitments in case it would all just be taken away from them on three-month’s notice. such a weight lifted from their shoulders that all the stress came barreling out and they crashed hard. this news — that their citizenship can be taken away on vagueties of ‘national security’ (most of the people i know there are activists), or because of ‘crimes’ committed long ago in their home countries, or that the rules could apply retroäctively — have brought back their stress right when they were just recovering and finally felt safe digging into their new permanent life.

it doesn’t matter that these policies are ‘targeted’ at ‘terrorists’ and gangs. these changes affect everyone who migrates to Sweden for any reason. the government’s habit of wildly changing the rules every 6 months isn’t helping.

I don’t like unions strongarming companies

‘i don’t like it when the people who produce value for the capitalists have a say in their working conditions’

‘i don’t like it when corporations are forced to comply with the rule of law’

‘i don’t like it when neoliberals have to comply with local labour market practises in foreign markets’

‘i don’t like it when other people pull the boot out of my mouth’

It’s crazy and it’s tragic.

take a drink every time a narc parent uses the words ‘weird’ or ‘crazy’ to describe being treated like the horrible person that they are.

… and how exactly will Trudeau’s resignation help?