Michael

You can think it’s funny all you like. Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but you misunderstood my grammar. I was detailing two distinct types of people, with different views. The latter (after the or) are more on the side of purity testing other Communists because they see what would unfold after many, many years of Communism as de-facto Communism and proof that others are not true Communists (hence the slash ideological purists part).

I currently choose to engage with emergent (and divergent) thought, not snapshots and echoes of the past - but I’m not trying to devalue it - I’m just very interested in modern Marxist-Leninist discourse and thought. I have previously engaged with the theory and understand the history that surrounded it and level of technology that we had in the 1900s.

What if the answer to all of our worldwide problems is finding a balance between decentralized and centralized structures, balancing technology and the environment, finding a balance between currency and a moneyless society, and achieving balance between authority and liberty (with the goal of individual and societal sovereignty), and so forth?

In this thread, I see Anarcho-Communists (or final stage Communists/ideological purists) taking bat at Marxist-Leninists (who espouse mostly outdated theory, but not always) and Liberals who fail to understand really any ideology that differs from their own because of how thick the propaganda is (and who espouse ideals like Democratic Socialism while failing to realize that their social support is still enabled by modern slavery - such as the exploitation of third world countries).

I think a direct democracy, with authoritative and libertarian elements (such as enforcing liberty/a universal bill of rights for individuals) would be ideal.

It could have an economic system with built-in social supports (each according to their need) that emulates cash and all the best parts of blockchain (that isn’t hoardable or worth hoarding, that also doesn’t enable slavery/other forms of parasitism, and is generally private at the transactional stage - yet is auditable at a larger-scale), with centralized control of natural resources that still respects decentralized development and balance with the environment. And also does not have debt or parasitism of any form, instead encouraging diplomacy - such as contracts/agreements taking the place of debt to better the planet and encourage societal responsibility and stewardship (e.g. contracts that result in the stabilization of the society incurring the would-be debt).

Instead of total anarchy or various forms of authoritative control/dictatorship, we could simply combine direct democracy and hierarchy by electing leaders based solely on merit in the areas that are most needed, with strong controls so we get the best out of leadership and hierarchy and the resultant clarity and direction, without letting leaders and other experts become drunk on power. While also preventing the corruption of the individuals in power and the various forms of stagnation that result from entrenched power not conceding to new developments or advances.

I know I’m an idealist, but I’d like everybody to turn the chapter and realize that we are in 2025, not the 1900s. Technology and science have advanced every area of our society. We are so beyond scarcity that we are producing well beyond our needs with conditions and methods that are not even close to ideal (with ideal and emergent solutions and methods ready to take the place of those unsustainable methods).

We also have a global communication network - we can understand foreign languages without any human intervention in some cases, we can bridge cultural gaps, we can seek understanding and truth with our fingertips, and also we can push past the propaganda we are served on a platter, etc.

We can achieve something better than anything that has ever been conceived of previously, and it starts by crumpling up all of the things that no longer serve us. Concepts like racism, nationalism, really all of the isms that promote superiority over others. Bridging gaps, joining hands, while also countering disinformation (not misunderstanding) and bad faith.

We truly are not facing the same limitations that we did in the 1900s, although we may be facing new challenges like the rise of AI and the misuse of it by those currently in power.

There really is no more room in society for mucking about and fighting others while everything is in such disrepair, with so much needless suffering happening.

I don’t think the R4L project is for naught or is impeding progress. I see their good faith and their efforts. A split codebase can just be chopped off at the base and business can move on as usual at any point.

If Linux kernel maintainers are against potential improvements being found to the existing C code as a result of parallel development, then perhaps they should require the Rust developers to suggest what the added/changed code could look like in C (if possible) and their reasons for changing the implementation in Rust before they can push their implementation (forcing R4L to shoulder the brunt of the work) - or force R4L to stick to close-approximations and working within the existing system to properly change existing functionality through established processes.

I apologize that I misrepresented his arguments, I of course meant to say that his problem was a split codebase and I understood as much, I just misspoke. Other comments have enlightened me to better understand his arguments and concerns since I posted, as well.

You: […] have been generally trying to jam their code everywhere

I suppose your earlier statement was just stuck in my head, and I was wondering to what extent they have “infected” the codebase with Rust.

And I learned about the manual when a creator I was linked was talking about how there are parallels between the manual and the decline/failure of the U.S. education system, but I similarly disagreed with them that the issues of the U.S. education system are due to internal or external sabotage (through any methods described in the manual, whether intentional sabotage or not) or anything close to it. This was before Trump.

laymen who are not involved in the process in any way (on either side) acting like armchair experts and passing harsh judgement.

It doesn’t matter what laymen say, so how can they be the problem?

This is why people like Martin feel justified going on social media to publicly complain, because they know they’ll get a bunch of yesmen with no credible arguments to mindlessly harrass the developers they disagree with.

Did Hector call people to action to harass the developers that “they disagree with”? Or did they try to promote awareness on the issue that is clearly causing them frustration? They certainly questioned whether or not there was another way besides shaming people on social media and it shows potential growth from my perspective.

If the project fails, it will be because of this behavior, not because of the “old guys” being stubborn.

Social media is another medium to express yourself and communicate ideas - it is neither good nor bad. If a project that is already developed pretty openly cannot address the criticism by social media/the public of their statements and behaviors, then perhaps they should privatize their communications. Or perhaps just address the criticisms in good faith and explain themselves in the spirit of open source.

From my understanding, it’s not Hellwig’s job to maintain the Rust side of the code. They can find multi-language codebases a pain all they want and throw a gigantic tantrum focused towards the R4L project - it doesn’t affect the code that they are responsible for. I don’t see why the whole R4L project couldn’t just be removed if R4L is not maintained by those who develop and support it.

but I will do everything I can do to stop this.

Is an open admission of Hellwig to sabotaging the R4L project.

Seeing the R4L folks as saboteurs or anything close is not in evidence. This isn’t the '90s, we have the means to be a lot more productive in regards to coding and managing codebases, and historical maintenance problems are irrelevant. If the R4L team is truly sabotaging the codebase by adding too much complexity or overhead, there are levers that can be pulled to change their direction without blindly rejecting or hindering their efforts.

Again, I am aware of the manual. I was recently exposed to it, as well, so it’s very fresh in my mind. I understand why you mentioned it and understand what you are saying, but I disagree, I don’t see the parallels.

I think Linus just wants the drama to stop and the progress to flow, but I’ll let him speak for his emotions towards the R4L project and avoid speculating about him.

I’m just openly speculating that there are vulnerabilities in the code, and that the R4L project will uncover those as a natural product of its evolution. I don’t think a CIA sabotage manual is apt to describe the R4L project, largely because I see it as progress. From my perspective, maintaining old C code is not something they are sabotaging.

As opposed to the R4L members, there are those who are openly admitting to sabotaging the progress of the R4L project. If you’ve seen the past public clashes between the R4L project and the Linux kernel community, you’d also be able to garner that from those interactions as well.

Yes, from my understanding as an outsider and layman, of course. From my perspective, the observation and insights developed from the R4L project will make Linux much stronger project overall moving forwards.

Social media is virtual town hall and a place for many to vent and deal with their emotions - not everybody is perfect and uses the internet the way you approve of. It’s truly no different in essence than the LKML or other public-facing communication platforms - it just has more voices and more free engagement. We can be big people who express ourselves any way we’d like as long as we respect others the way we’d like to be respected.

I don’t advocate for shaming because I wouldn’t want it done to me, but I don’t see Hector acting in bad faith, and their actions are questionably hostile because Hector clearly wavered in their approach. They are under a lot of stress and are obviously motivated by the feelings of the other R4L maintainers and their issues - Hector’s good faith and empathy is plain to see. They are very upset that others are being disrespected, that their work is being unnecessarily questioned, and that their efforts overall are likened to a “cancer” while people openly stand in their way.

Did Hector disrespect the maintainer in question? Did Hector call people to action in order to shame the maintainer in question? Their initial intention did matter, of course, and I was not able to read the drama in question on social media because it appears to be removed. Hector certainly wanted the maintainer removed, which I don’t personally agree is ideal or fair, but it’s not their decision and it’s not social media’s decision.

On the flip-side in this instance, I similarly see somebody who brings up valid issues with splitting the codebase accompanied by a lot of emotions spilling out (like seeing Rust as a cancer, and vowing to stop it from spreading in the codebase further), but I personally fail to see how that is their problem if the code isn’t going to involve them. It’s up to Linus and the larger LKML community to discuss the form in which Rust will take in the Linux kernel.

Clearly a discussion that could be had with Hector included, but there is a lot of hostility towards larger public focus coming from Linus, and he effectively shut the discussion down and accused Hector of being the problem. There certainly are problems all around, from my perspective, but all of that could’ve been resolved, and still can.

trying to jam their code everywhere using methods that rival the cia simple field sabotage manual.

I am aware of the manual, but I fail to see how adding to a codebase is “sabotage” if it’s all generally seen as fine by the project lead - it’s far from a hostile takeover.

Would a CIA saboteur even want memory safety as a rule? Just speculating, but I’d say that’s unlikely.

Edit: I changed the order of the sentences, as it was not intentionally ordered, and slightly clarified my second thought.

Rust seems to be imperative for security. I hope people in the Linux kernel community put aside their differences and find common ground for the benefit of everyone.

From my perspective as an outsider, there is a lot of apparent hostility and seemingly bad faith engagements going on in this space. Hopefully the reasons are innocuous like them just not wanting to learn a new language, to avoid increasing their workload, or to simply avoid working with the Rust team for whatever reasons they might have.

I would argue that anybody standing in the way of progress and increased security should be moved out of the way. No need for shaming or deep dives, just move the ship forward.

I’m asking out of genuine curiosity, what are they doing besides shaming others? What’s done is done - we are here now.

If they had constructive or productive intentions it could apply to the current moment even with Trump in office.

Just curious, if Kamala did the same arms transfer shortly after getting elected; how would you respond or what would you do?

Would you assure others that she is working tirelessly on a ceasefire despite her vow to always give them the ability to defend themselves?

Shh, you must be wracked with guilt because of all of your sins. Think about all the privilege one enjoys in first-world countries because corporations have single-handedly solved all of the world’s problems. /s

I’ll keep an eye out. I have been using this website moderately for nearly a year. I’m sorry your experience has been different - not discounting you.

There are plenty of people on the fediverse that are clearly free and independent thinkers - as in not operating from inside a bubble where they get fed opinions and views from others and them regurgitating those views ad nauseam. On Lemmy, I see a lot of curiosity and a lot of people who were probably censored or effectively buried by downvotes on other platforms, despite their good faith and interesting (and sometimes radical) perspectives.

Discussion flows well, there’s less focus on upvotes/downvotes and there is no karma. There doesn’t seem to be a tradition of dog-piling people who wrong-think according to the group consensus (or whatever neoliberal narrative is prevailing) as there is on Reddit. Moderation is much less heavy-handed and there are no shadowbans/comments that don’t show up for others (but only for yourself). There are significantly less bots and almost zero astroturfed content, as well.

Worry less about the labels, I say. If you want mainstream or conservative opinions, it’s very easy to seek them out - the internet is full of those perspectives. If you’re curious, you could play devil’s advocate and discuss current events or other hot topics from a mainstream perspective and ask others why they think differently to better understand the userbase on the fediverse and how things generally go down here. I’m sure plenty of people would be happy to weigh the pros and cons of different viewpoints and perspectives and entertain a discussion about certain issues in good faith.

Not everybody is filtering everything out from a polarized lens and is focused on being an absolutist or purist with their preferred ideology.

Not going to get into a huge debate, but I disagree that it’s a good thing or even remotely ideal. I don’t there should be such huge separations in society to the point where you can point somebody out as “rich” and “poor” - especially pegging an entire neighborhood as poor or mostly poor.

We can do better to provide quality housing and the ingredients of dignity to everyone.

We need to redefine society if we want to truly unify, and it starts with an universal human bill of rights. Ensuring individual and community-based sovereignty with guiding concepts like direct democracy are important first steps. Dependence on externalities and reliance on impersonal entities like corporations (which largely capture governance, science, and everything else they can) needs to stop if we want to realize a world that is worth living in for ourselves and future generations.

Society is our doom if we continue to allow pollution, waste, and destruction of our environments on levels we have never seen before, while experts and other people in the know stand silently and cover the situation up, or are largely ignored if they are actually crying out. Environmentally-caused disease and chronic illness are rising to levels that we can no longer ignore or cover up.

Modern sewer systems are safe

They produce biosolids which are probably very contaminated and are presently jammed into landfills if they are not (from my understanding) unsafely repurposed. I’d like to see people openly entertain the various uses we could have for our waste. Our systems aren’t good enough quite yet to close the book on.

connect with high speed rail isn’t feasible

From my perspective, high speed rail is very feasible for freight and transportation. Does it make sense to connect to every remote and mostly uninhabited region? Probably not.

We need to work on our communities

Hard yes. I just feel that it’s very difficult to connect when you are so vastly disconnected in current cities.

and make cities safe for people to live in

We’ll have to get very serious to tackle our pollution and polluting practices to do so. I think a large number of cities will have to naturally relocate/rebuild as the situation shifts in the coming decades and that is what I was attempting to touch on.

get rid of cars etc. spreading out isn’t the answer

I’m not explicitly arguing against centralization or arguing for dispersion into rural areas, and I do agree with you largely. I think accessible high speed rail is one way that we can get rid of cars and other vehicles.

I’m talking about centralization. Expecting countless individuals to be able to do something as well as specialists can do it just doesn’t make sense to me.

As far as I know, there is no existing and modern example of centralization that I am aware of that isn’t some form of state authoritarianism with capitalist or other class/status-based elements. So in my mind, the concepts are at least loosely interlinked, unless we are framing this in the context of the world already being at least slightly utopian or having overt socialist elements. Which I’m happy to entertain, or just purely entertain the concept of centralization in a vacuum.

I overall agree that centralization could be made very efficient, but in its current form, people are limited/controlled in a number of ways (such as lacking ownership of their property), and those that control centralization efforts are not designing cities or economies of scale that are even remotely healthy and in the best interest of humanity or the planet.

If we have no meaningful way of getting rid of or utilize biosolids besides landfills and other, more harmful practices, it doesn’t seem like the most amazing thing to do in the tried and true way moving forward.

“Personal responsibility” is a red herring

If I have to give my power away to external entities to meet my needs and tackle all of my problems, and they persistently show a pattern of wanton disregard for my health and safety and of those around me, I’m going to find ways of taking matters into my own hands and show others how easy and inexpensive it is - that you don’t need to be an expert to tackle certain realities of life that are vastly over-complicated by those in power.

Off-gridders are primarily dilettantes who have the money to pretend they’re disconnected from the system.

Of course nobody is truly disconnected, on the contrary, we are all connected. It is, however, disingenuous to imply that you need vast sums of money to accomplish such a lifestyle. The system is also, in my view, not solely responsible for all existing innovation and culture that off-gridders/etc. benefit from.

The modern world is moving along at a very slow pace, and it’s doing so kicking and screaming at every small step of progress because of concepts like “expense” and the diminishing/false quantification of value of people to excuse inaction or the blatant disregard of the health and safety of those that reside in it.

I’m of the view that unless a city/centralized location is able to support its basic needs in the geographic region its occupying (and moving forward), it’s probably in the wrong spot. Am I against centralization or proponents of it? Of course not, but there has to be a valid reason for specific projects and solid grounding for it besides what is best or convenient for capitalists.

From my perspective, there also needs to be guiding principles, a universal bill of human rights that is never eroded, and a commitment to ending/creatively solving polluting practices and actively remediating said pollution.

Cities are more efficient than rural communities.

They can be in some respects, sure. They are also vastly more unhealthy to reside in, will likely fail to meet energy needs and water needs in the face of a shift in climate and in precipitation, and are suffering from vast amounts of pollution in every direction.

Concentration of people is better than spreading everyone out.

I disagree with your opinion, but in a more healthy world I would probably agree with you.

You’d see much more environmental destruction if everyone moved rural.

With today’s world and consumerism, you are probably correct.

Plus it’s much harder to get resources to rural communities.

This country is ripe for high-speed rail infrastructure for freight. I think local communities should be less dependent on the global/national economy to meet their needs. If we can put Walmarts everywhere and stock them to the brim with junk from China (etc.) we can provide people the basic necessities.

Modifications should be made but everyone pooping in the woods in a bucket isn’t a good idea either.

I don’t think we need to poop in buckets and I wasn’t suggesting it. Overall, we need completely new systems that are known to be safe and effective, regulatory bodies that are functioning and on the side of the people (or humanity as a whole), and a mass banning of chemicals like Europe.

I apologize for the quick and perceivably chide responses, I think we both want a better world and we likely agree on a lot of things. I see your good intentions. Thank you for sharing your perspective and I really do appreciate your responses and time - I just don’t personally see the path forward in ultra-capitalist hellscapes like cities. There is too much complexity, mindless dependence on the existing systems, and too much overarching parasitism standing in the way in those areas for meaningful progress unless there are vast shifts occurring which I do not have the foresight or eyes to see.