My main language is french, and yet i prefer the type-name order. Maybe its because i first learned C, but i guess its also because it goes from general to particular, whereas name-type feels like going backward (being detailed with name, then vague with type, then more detailed with value assignment). Anyway, i guess you’re right, it’s probably not a lot about language.

I just started using Fossify Keyboard and it’s great, but unless i’m mistaken, it does not have support for dictionnaries / word suggestions. While it’s perfectly fine for me, i guess it can be a dealbreaker for a lot of people.

Some simple patterns code can be very quick to do, and not much different from a slide up, while still keeping most people out.

First sentence still true, it’s just used by france to (badly attempt to) hide their continued colonialism.

many reasons, already told by others, but the one that made me jump was that it does not install apps without me telling it to.

I know i’m fully nitpicking in bad faith here, but which are the countries not doing evil shit ? There probably are a few that are mostly good, but even those are quite rare, aren’t they ?

From what i understand, it is very easy to get the content of a Peertube instance from anywhere on the Fediverse, as a viewer. For example, i could subscribe to Peertube channels from this Piefed account and have their videos pop up in my feed, and i can subscribe to Peertube channels from instances that are not federated with the Peertube instance where i have an account (i’m on makertube.net, and even though they do not federate with video.blast-info.fr, i can still subscribe to channels there and have their videos pop up in my Suscribings feed in Peertube).

The federation point some people pointed out is about discoverability, not accessibility. If two instances do not federate, you cannot see the other instance content on discover pages, but you can still access it if you know the video or the channel URL. If you stumble upon another Peertube instance, you can use a neat functionnality to “Subscribe with a distant account”, where you enter your handle ([email protected]) and it will enable you to get access to this Peertube instance on your home account.

There is also the problem that you cannot create an account on a lot of Peertube instances, that are only there to display content (like the Blender instance) and not host users. You’d first have to find one that will let you create an account, most times manually (you fill a form and after a bit of time (hours or days) an admin validates it).

Now, for hosting video, it’s a lot more complex, most times you have to get approval from admins to host things, to avoid having too much video stored on their servers, and yes most instances are quite niche. If you’re a creator of anykind, makertube.net may interest you.

One and still with them :D though i’m far from puritan and really into sexual freedom, in some way i’m weirdly proud of or attached to that.

Okay, thanks a lot for this neatly detailed reply! I’ll sleep less dumb tonight

I have a near 0 expertise on this, but could it be a difference between storage format ? Like difference between NFTS and exFAT ?

Wow, that’s wonderfully crafted to have a mix of pertinent points and bended facts to get a tight leninist propaganda. You’re completely occulting the fact that anarchists integrated the red army only because they were outnumbered, fought the red army itself when able to, that even anarchists truly loyal to bolshevik power were arrested and disbanded, and nicely playing along the underlying assumption that it’s weird anarchists joined soviets : it’s not, they were pro-soviets, they fought for soviets free of bolshevik control. Yes to left unity, no to rewriting history.

Well, in this case it seems really out of place to defederate. But otherwise i like to think that defederation is something that you could use more than in last resort : yes it breaks the network, but the network should also work as broken, that’s one of the strenght of federation to me. I’m not a technical person and still a newbie, so i might be missing important bits, don’t hesitate to correct me if this is the case, but i felt like sharing another point of view.

Thanks for the tip, i had to try it out because i didn’t knew that. It seems in this case the -9 option does the same as default (delete the AntiMicroX process but not the AppRun one). I also tried with killall and its -g option to include all processes in the same group, but they probably are not in a common group since it behaved the same. Anyway, TIL about these options so thank you !

Yup, very clever, I think this will avoid any problem with other potential AppImage processes. Thank you very much <3

For more details : this AppRun.wrapped process is mounted in a partially randomized folder each time, something like /tmp/.mount_AntiMiXXXXXX/AppRun.wrapped, where the Xs are a bunch of random characters. So using pkill with regex can both include all versions this full command line can take, while excluding processes created by other apps (which, I suppose , won’t have ‘AntiMi’ in their folder name) : pkill -f /tmp/.mount_AntiMi.*/AppRun.wrapped

Most people here have insightful answers to your question, viewed from a US perspective. As [email protected] pointed out, the notion of libertarianism is quite different between Europe and USA. It originated in Europe (i believe the first use was to criticize Proudhon’s misogyny, so a dispute between some of the first anarchists). It was then used as a synonym to anarchism, due to laws criminalizing anarchism.

Then some (relatively) anti-State american conservatives used the word for themselves, and successfully made it so that it now defines their philosophy rather than anarchism in US. In Europe (at least in France), both ideas coexist (here we have two words, libertaire for libertarian socialisms and libertarien for libertarian capitalism). As people pointed out, the main difference is seeing economical hierarchies as good or bad.

Nowadays in french, libertaire is not a strict synonym for anarchist, it’s rather a wide umbrella term to gather all anti-authoritarian leftist.

I mostly agree with this, especially the fact that anarchy may lead to implicit charisma-based hierarchies, whereas current systems relies on explicit hierarchies filled with implicit hierarchies.

I say may because, while you’re right to point out that this has realistic chances to happen, anarchism is also the best tool to point out and attack those hierarchies, even implicit. History of left libertarian groups (at least in France) is mostly a drama of constant scissions and mergings of little groups : while some mock it as a proof of militant puritanism and useless bickering, I see it as a sign that anarchists have a sane tendency to oppose situations where a group could impose onto others, even in most implicit/vague situations.

Interesting, thanks for sharing ! I didnt know much about db0 system, i get from this post that db0 themselves consider it not to be a perfect system (both for the fact that they are the sysadmin and it is still based on their goodwill and the fact that they have to restrict to people donating to prevent manipulation from fake accounts). So to my eyes, there still is bigger problems than just the fact that mods and admins are vocal about their opinions, but I admit that i was too quick to judge that “physical servers = no possibility for anarchy”, there probably is a way to have far closer to anarchism organization than i thought. How does quokk.au works about that ?

Ah yes, their efficiency is very questionable. I still prefer an army less likely to murder civilians over a classic army, but I have to admit the latter are more likely to survive, precisely because of their violence. (SDF may be a more nuanced thing, i’ve read reports of bad civilians and prisoners treatments. But you’re right to say “Anarchist” with quotes, it’s effectively close without being strictly anarchism).

On people giving without taking : Someone taking without giving would be someone sitting around without doing anything. It does not exist, people do things, and most of them are useful to the community. But let’s admit some people just sleep and eat, or let’s admit that you consider people that give less than they take a problem (which it isn’t in anarchy, it is not a meritocratic system) : if that’s just a few (closest to reality), probably not a problem. If it is more than the community can support, then it’s a problem the community has to solve with anarchic means : try talking to get some of them to do stuff, try getting help from other communities,etc. If in a very weird world, it does not change anything, then you just have the possibility to provide help and resources for participative people first.

Anarchism relies on self-interest magically aligning with collective good. No, that’s precisely the point i’m trying to make. You are not helping selflessly : you are helping each others, so that they are able to help you. You can be selfish in an anarchist community : just do the bare minimum, and not help for collective actions. It does not break the system. Even if everyone does it, as long as everyone do the minimum, everyone get the minimum. This is something that works out of the box for everyone : whenever you do stuff with friends, family, neighbours, be it playing football, repairing something, preparing a party, in an informal manner, then people organize by themselves. Some do more, some do less, almost everyone does something. Unless there is a strict hierarchy in the group, when the popular friend or patriarch might then do nothing.

On preventing power : Your point is that armed struggle is necessary to prevent power, and you then equate prevent power to make the system work. Again, preventing power is not about how the system works, it’s about how the system survives. The difference between current systems and anarchy is that coercion is not needed to make the system work day to day, it is needed in its most primitive force when the system is threatened. Also, you directly skipped all the solutions to try beforehand (educating the people to what power is and how and why to prevent it, watching out symptoms of power, etc.) to just sum it up to “violence”, which is the last resort option. Another difference from the current systems.

On capitalism : it’s all good, i get your point of “it’s the more likely regime to survive, so be it”, and i’m fine with it, it’s a valid point of view, especially nowadays. I’m just struggling with why you need to establish that anarchy has to fail on its own (rather than against power/capitalism) to prove it.

On “pure” anarchism : You could be right to call out “purity” behaviours, they are common in far left movments, i acknowledge that, especially for myself. But here that’s not the case : they are clearly not functioning with anarchist principles, like i explained it’s simply impossible to do because of the concept of server. They are anarchists using non-anarchists means, just like some royalist parties take part in republican systems.

As you are very cautious about what your intentions are, i should be too, my bad if it comes late in the discussion : i’m not saying anarchy is the best system for every one, i’m not saying it’s viable as it is, i’m not saying it is a perfect thing that hurts no one. I think it is the best for me, would be the best for most people weren’t they born under capitalism, and that’s it’s one of the less dangerous form of politics. I understand it has to face powers far more violent and dangerous and therefore far more likely to survive, and i also understand that it has to be conceived from within societies full of capitalist and pro-state assumptions. My main goal is to get you and people to a nuanced take on anarchy, notably that it does not fail inevitably on its own, but is very likely to fail because of capitalism, and is likely to fail on its own if you want (but not inevitably, that’s the absolute i’m trying to fight here).

Well, those armies are not 100% pure anarchist systems, and my phrasing was misleading if you understood that. They were conventional armies, with some anarchist principles included. Most notables principles i knew of were self-discipline (soldiers were expected to watch their behaviours and their officers/comrades too) and election of officers (so they could be revoked and changed when soldiers lost trust).

The efficiency of such armies is very discuted : ukrainian anarchist were quite effective against nationalist armies (a fight in which they were partly helped by bolcheviks armies), but were half-destroyed, half-integrated by the Red Army once Ukraine was freed. Other than that, the military activities of the EZLN show a relative efficiency, but they struggle to prevent cartel violence. And the efficiency of anarchist in Spanish resistance (1936) is quite disputed, some stalinists blaming them for the defeat in the civil war against fascism, while other blame the stalinists who ended up arresting/disbanding anarchists (anyway, the massive help from nazi Germany and fascist Italy and the lack of support from France/UK / weak support of USSR probably was one main reason).

On a purely speculative side, I personnaly feel much safe about armies with some anarchist principles not seizing control of local communities, since the soldiers would be encouraged to disband/oppose in those cases. The anarchist army in Ukraine, the Makhnovchtchina, was known for executing its soldiers caught looting or iniating pogroms. So it shows that those armies had the same problems than the others (giving power to people), but they also had some drastic approach about it (you have to fight abuse of power strictly). Clearly a rather bad thing overall, but a bit better than other armies to my eyes, especially at the time.