Good sir, cut that fellow some slack - they’re clearly venting some steam, and in doing so they’re not saying anything particularly harmful or wrong.
The part about disabling conscience feels like a huge stretch (I don’t see it there, not explicitly for sure), given how the article is just some personal rant about task and goal management.
> I want freedom, money, affection, play, power, validation, fulfillment, etc.
Of course I already have these things, but enough never seems enough.
> My brain came pre-installed with Human OS; loss aversion will squander CPU until I install security patches (e.g. Taoism, Zen, stocism).
> But I think I'm allergic to enlightenment. Meditation is difficult, quiet is boring, courage is scary, desire is addicting, etc.
This is just sociopathic. More more more. Turn off my loss aversion with stocism, etc.
Sociopathic how? I re-read the article a few times, as initially I haven’t got much sense out of it. Yet, all I see for sure is personal rant how a person is(was?) unhappy about their self-image and they’re reframing it differently to get at peace with themselves.
It’s one thing if one’s being a shitty person to others, and does some mental gymnastics to not feel bad about it. Plenty of examples out there, but author doesn’t strike me as such. I don’t see any of this here, unless maybe if author’s game or Mandarin skills are beyond atrocious, lol. Just kidding, of course.
It’s a whole other thing to be at peace with yourself about your own stuff. Not doing that is a potential way to become a sociopath, because if one constantly feels shitty about themselves all chances are they’ll start to voluntarily exclude themselves from society (to avoid feeling bad) and get out of touch with it.
And wanting good things is… normal, isn’t it? I would be rather concerned if someone doesn’t want anything - ahedonia is not a good state to be in.
The only social thing I’ve seen there, is author’s admission they want to impose imagination (whatever that means), but in my perception that’s just some random thought that wasn’t followed on.
I have an impression that’s the only thing it actually does, right there in the last paragraph (but sure, it’s quite vaguely defined just by this single example).
It doesn’t really say much else, though - just a bunch of commonplace realizations that most of ideas never get done, and then some jump to “metaprojects”, possibly to reframe the frustrations so they feel less stressful, but I don’t get that part.
Nothing changed since ’87. Machines still can’t be accountable and still shouldn’t make managerial decisions. Acceptance control is one of those decisions, and all the technical knowledge still matters to form a well-informed one. It may change, of course, but I have an impression that those who try otherwise seem to not fare well after the initial vibecoding honeymoon period. Of course, it varies from case to case - sometimes machines get things right, but long-term luck seems to eventually run out.
I think that “one by one” part allows different interpretations of what guessmyname possibly meant.
But I fail to make sense of it either way. Either the nuance of lack of consent is missing, or Google is blamed for not doing what they just did from the very first version.
It’s easy to solve concentration of power, just distribute it more. Nowadays we can have quite large distributed systems.
It’s nigh impossible to invent a system that truly formalizes collective will with the goal of optimizing for everyone’s best long-term interests, minimizing unhappiness.
100% agree, and I think that's sort of what was intended with a lot of democratic government setups. What we fail to realize though (or maybe just remember) is that these systems will ALWAYS be under attack by those who want more power always looking for attack surfaces. (We seem to be under attack by almost all, if not all, current billionaires!)
For example in the US, the executive order is a massive problem. Citizens united as well. And for all democracies the natural appeal of strongman politics is a huge problem.
Every attempt at government overreach really needs to be questioned. I don't say rejected, just questioned. How will it be used by future powers? Is the tradeoff worth it? Can it be temporary? Do we even have a way to claw it back if it turns out to be detrimental? Is it too subtle and nuanced that the majority will miss seeing it? etc.
> these systems will ALWAYS be under attack by those who want more power
I think this is an inherent human problem that prevents us from overcoming it... history has proven that the more equal everyone is, and the less individual ownership they have, the lazier and more bored they get.
Look at the previous attempts at socialism... people stop caring when there's no goal to work towards, they can't all be doing the same thing and just be happy, because humans are naturally competitive. We desire things other people don't have, like possessions, money, or power.
People don't become "lazy". They're lazy from the beginning. Laziness is something they overcome for personal gain. And if the system promises fewer personal gains for overcoming laziness, then why bother?
But of course success is relative to some cultural values. We could just as well wonder about success and failure in implementation of any political system.
The most remarkable trait of humans is cognitive plasticity, so determining any natural tendency that would be more inate than acquired is just a game of pretending there are hypothetical humans living out of any cultural influence that would still exhibit predominent behavioral traits.
Competition is a social construct. There are people out there whose biggest concern is keeping focus on enjoying what they are, freeing their attention from the illusion of possession, avoiding any financial/material bounds they can and staying away of contingent hierarchical servitudes.
They are also many people who holds desires for both of these perspectives, or any interpolation/extrapolation that they can suggest.
We aren’t inherently competitive, we just want nice things. It takes a very special mindset to want others to have less, and society should actively discourage such lines of thought by countering them with examples of how things never end well.
This said, I wasn’t suggesting socialism or equality or anything like that - only minimizing long-term unhappiness. That’s the only thing that I could not think an argument against - like why would anyone rational ever want others to be long-term unhappy?
Is there a way to accept but also limit greed that is reliable and durable?
Like a pragmatic meritocracy. We accept that there will be cheaters, and we won't catch or stop them all, but we have some hard limits. Do we care if you stop working so hard once you hit $1b? Maybe we'd even prefer that you did stop working (against societies interest!)?
This wouldn't even remotely resemble the communism bugaboo. It's basically saying, yes greed can be good, but at some point it gets ridiculous.
Except it's very easy to "sell" government overreach. Whenever a plane flies into a tower, or flu season is extra scary, people will clamor for strict government authority. With every such event, the government gains capabilities and tendencies that always end up with a few people having outsized power over the masses.
Yes, but I don't think it's so straightforward. I think there are bad actors marketing this overreach. Like the surveillance industry for the Patriot Act (tech, defence, telcom, maybe compliance vendors?). I don't think their goal is to create a distopia, but we should always be looking at incentives for large government programs.
Looks like this is only useful for empty databases. Which severely limits possible use cases.
Schema management is only a small part of the problem, and I don’t think this tool handles data migrations. E.g. if I reshape a JSONB column into something more structured, I don’t think it would be able to handle that. Or if I drop a column the backwards migration it generates ADD COLUMN … NOT NULL, which is obviously unusable if the table has any data in it already.
There are plenty of options: nix-sops, or nix-age, or whatever you would like - past the overall idea the implementation details are purely a matter of taste how you fancy things to be. Key idea is to have encrypted secrets in the store, decrypted at runtime using machine-specific credentials (host SSH keys are a typical option to repurpose, or you can set up something else). For local management you also encrypt to the “developer” keys (under the hood data is symmetrically encrypted with a random key and that key is encrypted to every key you have - machines and humans).
Alternatively, you can set up a secrets service (like a password manager/vault) and source from that. Difference is where the secrets live (encrypted store or networked service, with all the consequences of every approach), commonality is that they’re fetched at runtime, before your programs start.
I’m currently using deploy-rs, but if I’d redo my stuff (and the only reason I don’t is that I’m pretty much overwhelmed by life) I’d probably go with plain vanilla nixos-rebuild --target-host and skip any additional layers (that introduce extra complexity and fragility).
Just a crude and somewhat haphazard summary but hope it helps.
I strongly recommend investing in some lights-out management (IPMI, KVM or alike) solution that doesn’t depend on any OS peculiarities.
Configuration switching and rollback mechanisms aren’t exactly reliable with trickier setups, as it doesn’t account for any ephemeral state (like what’s actually in the routing tables), and that stuff cannot be always preemptively declared upfront. I’m afraid that despite a lot of efforts, the only truly reliable method to ensure system will come back is still to deploy-and-reboot.
True, it's not a full replacement for ipmi-ish tech. There are ways the deployed waiter can fail before it times out and triggers the rollback. Deploy often enough and you will hit all wonderful edge cases. I treat it as a first line of defense that saves me time on scooting the chair over to me server cabinet and yanking the cords.
WRT ephemeral state -- NixOS allows to minimize this. Coupled with impermanence, all non-declared and non-externally-retrievable state is wiped away upon reboot. And if it's not declative and not retrievable, I just don't use it. Homelab allows for a lot of choice in that regard
I have been using nixos-rebuild with target host and it has been totally fine.
The only thing I have not solved is password-protected sudo on the target host. I deploy using a dedicated user, which has passwordless sudo set up to work. Seems like a necessary evil.
> I deploy using a dedicated user, which has passwordless sudo set up to work.
IMO there is no point in doing that over just using root, maybe unless you have multiple administrators and do it for audit purposes.
Anyway, what you can do is have a dedicated deployment key that is only allowed to execute a subset of commands (via the command= option in authorized_keys). I've used it to only allow starting the nixos-upgrade.service (and some other not necessarily required things), which then pulls updates from a predefined location.
How do they even define “social media”? Do they just ban kids from participating in society using electronic communications? Or maintain a stoplist “here’s what we consider to be social media”? Or what?
I mean, sure, prime examples of what is colloquially called “social media” is crapware. I do get the intent.
But I wonder what sort of unintended, unplanned, odd and potentially even socially harmful consequences it would possibly have.
The part about disabling conscience feels like a huge stretch (I don’t see it there, not explicitly for sure), given how the article is just some personal rant about task and goal management.
reply