Hi! Great post, good research with sources, great initiative, thank you. 🙏

You know that repeating what you’re being told verbatim isn’t an argument, right? I have a hunch you’re not really clear on the meaning of the word “substance”… Parroting concepts defined in books, without the actual substance from the book, or without your own interpretation, is about as useful as a page number without a title…

So far, aside from vague conceptual buzzwords, you have contributed nothing else than “I know you are, but what am I?”.

So, again, let’s cut short, this ain’t Mario, I don’t have several lives to try again. Thanks.

I only downvoted you because I very honestly find your rhetoric dangerously wrong.

I have nothing personal against you, but you unfortunately answered nothing of substance, so I will elect to agree to disagree, and stop wasting each other’s time. 🙂

deleted by creator

There are 2781 billionaires. That’s it. 2781. Saying they are a subset of the bourgeoisie is like saying that saying that a blade of grass is a subset of a forest.

Technically, one could argue that a single molecule in a forest is a subset of the forest, but by any rational standard, a subset of something needs to exhibit similar properties. It needs to be relatable.

And compared to billionaires, the bourgeoisie isn’t different from any of us. They are pawns, they are poor, and they are negligible.

The actual bourgeoisie, as in the texts you probably have read, and take this concept from, is a thing of the past. It is gone. In our modern world, their wealth has to be extracted differently, but it has to be extracted too.

The discrepancy between billionaires and the rest, in wealth (US$14.2 trillion out of US$110 trillion - the Gross World Product, GWP - (or 12.91%); or out of US$184 trillion - the world’s GDP in terms of PPP - (or 7.72%)), or in demographics (2781 people among 8100000000 (or, 0.000034%)) is making them a glitch.

To illustrate my point better (or at least try to), if we were to divide the entire planet according to that monetary value, each of those billionaires would own between 0.02‰ (GDP) and 0.05‰ (GWP) of the entire planet, on average. That’s equivalent to slices of the planet of 36 arcseconds (GDP) or 1 arcminute (GWP), on its entire latitude, and up to its rotation axle, per billionaire. Those would respectively correspond to slices 1.11km or 1.86km wide at the equator, or 789m or 1.31km wide at 45° latitude.

So, they are not part of our system, of the stupid LARP we all decided to play. They are on the side of it, exploiting it and making friends with the admins. They are not different from 14 year olds who found an infinite money glitch in an online game and keep pressing the fucking button over an over as if it would stop their parent’s divorce.

Eliminating class distinctions will not eliminate the existence of the billionaires. They will still have the same wealth, and so, the same power, because their wealth, or power, does not come from their status, as it used to; or as it does in the literature you are very likely (given the Marxist Leninist roots of this corner of the internet) basing yourself upon. It comes a psychotic abuse of systemic glitches.

Almost none of the literature you can find on the subject of classes will account for this. It is all so outdated it is irrelevant.

More than irrelevant, it is critically dangerous. Saying that “eliminating classes distinctions eliminates the existence of billionaires” is not just wrong: it is giving billionaires an opportunity to gaslight us further by pretending not to be the problem.

It happens to the best of us 🙂

The bourgeoisie is bad.

But the real problem are the billionaires.

Don’t mix the two, killing all the bourgeois will not help us now. I’m not saying it should be off the table, I’m saying it would be a red herring the billionaires would likely employ to save their asses.

#killallbillionaires.

Alternatively, tax all worth beyond 1 billion at a 100% rate, and kill no one.

Let’s see which happens first…

Also, could you please update the title of your fediverse post? The article now says 21k 🙂

“Can’t share item,” was the header. “You cannot share this item because it has been flagged as inappropriate,” read the body text.

FAFO.

We’ve been fanfaring for a decade and a fucking half for people not to see “the cloud” as a miracle solution, and to use it carefully. We’ve been warning that it is a blatant invitation to vendor lock in, that it is singlehandedly creating oligopolies, and that exactly this would happen.

Did people listen? No. Did they aggressively confront (or passive-aggressively ostracise) us? You bet your bottom dollar they did.

And now? Now they come around with surprised_pika.gif faces and whine to whoever listens that they are victims, and that they couldn’t “possibly have seen this coming”.

No. They are enablers of abusers, they themselves abused anyone with even a modicum of common sense, and they brought this upon themselves a thousand times over.

FAFO. And at this point, reading such story fills me with the most powerful schadenfreude I have ever experienced.

Usually people use Hugo.

But I would be very interested in a less contrived alternative.

Thanks for doing this.

It turns out that “Women Who Code Closing - Women Who Code” actually isn’t about Women that code a software called “Closing”, and Women that code in general.

In fact, what they meant to write was:

The End of an Era: “Women Who Code” Closing – Women Who Code.

I know I’m gonna get downvoted for this, but punctuation matters, and sadly, it has to be said. So here I go.

Maybe they mean it in the sense of “forgery”. You know, as in “let people imagine what it is like to have friendships, by letting them make forgeries of their lives, but with friends in it” 🤪

Fuck yea!

With a 52% percent mortality rate, this might well be the last such opportunity. One way or another. 😬

I think we can all agree on that… But without the entire article, one can only parametrise their answer… I was hoping someone with a full version could do an HTML dump. 😅

Or at the very least a markdown dump in here.

https://archive.ph/39CAN

Is it using XLR?

Is it just me, or is everyone here commenting on a half article, the other half being behind a paywall? 😬

I think you’re overstating the compute power […]

I don’t actually think so. A100 GPUs in server chassis have a 400 or 500W TDP depending on the configuration, and even if I’m assuming 400, with 4 per watercooled 1U chassis, a 47U rack with those would consume about 100kW with power supply efficiency and whatnot.

Running those for a day only would be 2.4GWh.

Now, I’m not assuming Amazon would own 100s of those racks at every DC, but they probably would use at least a couple of such racks to train their model (time is money, right?). And training them for a week with just two of those would be 35GWh, and I can only extrapolate from there.

So I don’t think that going to TWh is such an overstatement.

[…] and understating the amount of cardboard Amazon uses

That, very possibly.

I have seldom used Amazon ever, maybe 5 times tops, and I can only remember two times. Those two times, I ordered a smartphone and a bunch of electronics supplies, and I don’t remember the packaging being excessive. But I know from plenty of memes that they regularly overdo it. That, coupled with the insane amount of shit people order online… And yes, I believe you are right on that one.

Even so, as long as it is cardboard, or paper, and not plastic and glue, it isn’t a big ecological issue.

However, that makes no difference to Amazon financially, cost is cost, and they only care about that.

But let’s not pretend they are doing a good thing then. It is a cost effective measure for them, that ends up worsening the situation for everyone else, because the tradeoff is good economically, and terrible ecologically.

If they wanted to do a good thing, they could use machine learning to optimise the combining of deliveries in the same area, to save on petrol, and by extension, pollution from their vehicles, but that would actually worsen the customer experience, and end up costing them more than it would save them, so that’s never gonna happen.

IMHO the issue is two folds:

1. The makefile were never supposed to do more than determine which build tools to call (and how) for a given target. Meaning that in very many cases, makefile are abused to do way too much. I’d argue that you should try to keep your make targets only one line long. Anything bigger and you’re likely doing it wrong (and ought to move it in a shell script, that gets called from the makefile).
2. It is really challenging to write portable makefiles. There’s BSD make and GNU make, and then there are different tools on different systems. Different dependencies. Different libs. Etc. Not easy.