No, I think that's approaching a strawman. Speaking as somebody that doesn't give a shit about cryptocurrency.
It's all tradeoffs. The same power that grants the ability to reverse transactions also grants the ability to reverse a transaction in bad faith and commit fraud. Will the system correct that? Would it surprise you to know that it doesn't have to? That same power also grants the ability to lock an entity out of any kind of monetary transaction, and things like debanking. Usable for good? Sure. I don't think it's controversial to say that it being leveraged against Hunter Biden was at all justified, however. Would you like to be on the receiving end of that? Would you like to see a world where an LLM gets to decide that kind of thing based on your presence in the surveillance panopticon?
To that sense, it's really just a disagreement on what tradeoffs are acceptable. People who have a utopian view of cryptocurrency are looking at some tradeoffs as preferable to others, it's a different failure mode. To be clear, I don't necessarily agree with it myself, but you shouldn't be so uncharitable to people to assume disagreement is always a matter of delusional ignorance.
> To that sense, it's really just a disagreement on what tradeoffs are acceptable. People who have a utopian view of cryptocurrency are looking at some tradeoffs as preferable to others, it's a different failure mode.
Another way to restate my comment is: cryptocurrency is technically interesting but the tradeoffs it made to focus on certain edge cases mean that for pretty much every use-case, the preexisting technologies are superior and/or cryptocurrency is practically unworkable.
The reason for seeing overcomplexity in systemd components is usually that you never considered the use cases of other people or proper server management - mostly because in the days of olde, everyone cobbled together their shell script Jenga towers in seclusion.
If they don't have the problems that other people are having...maybe they don't need that complexity. Different use cases can use different solutions.
An Army unit crossing rocky and muddy terrain might want tracked vehicles and tanks. I don't need that in a vehicle I drive 10 minutes to the office in the city.
This. I can see the utility of systemd and probably would have liked to have it when my team was riding herd on a DC full of Sun E15Ks and HP Superdomes. But for basically everything else that I use Linux for, every time someone says "systemd does this", at least 50% of the time I don't need that, and most of the rest I could do with with other tools with vastly less complexity.
Not "this". By that logic most people do not need backups too. Rebuilding working service state after config change is non-trivial, requires using admin-only kernel interfaces, and said kernel does not care about these types of problems. Meaning average user ends up simply rebooting rather than trying to figure why enabling wifi makes printer stop working (and such). We cannot have network stuff controlled by multiple programs, because linux kernel is broken like that. This thing is the userspace part of the monolith.
Those jenga towers were terrible, many didn't work very well. Very few had good monitoring, ops, reliability, least-privleges.
It's unbelievable to me to hear people advocating for not having good broadly usable systems, to advocate that sysadmins really should spent their time and energy building bespoke custom cut weird poorly invested in little things to suit their own fancies. It's not helping the company to do this. And to me it's such a weird antisocial vibe, that is radically vocal, that shows up all the time to proclaim everyone everyone else is doing the wrong thing by working together and making tools that fit together, have cohesion. Theres never any suggestions for how or what that looks like either, just the image of not working with others is the only thing presented to sell itself. This is din. This is havoc. This is hell. Don't do it people. And alas, we have to endure this attitude every single time. The forces against cooperation are doggedly persistent and vocal. The forces for just build your own thing, this unreasonableness, is radically overrepresented.
This is why I was so hopeful this submission was going to be a nice new post kind of re-selling where we are today with systemd. Because the pro-social forces are weirdly not bothering to get the social / cultural victory. And those driving us apart telling us to each do our own thing, figure it all out yourself: they are endemic, dime a dozen on social media.
Analogies only go so far. Driving an actual tank with a cannon to the grocery store 10 minutes away is ludicrous, but my smartphone has gigabytes of both ram and storage and a CPU that runs at gigahertz frequency, but weighs about the same as a dumb phone that does far less. It's not the 1970's anymore. We can be inefficient and stop counting every single little bit where it doesn't count. Yes, where it counts, we still want to be efficient and mean and lean, like in transcoding, but for starting up services on a laptop with gobs of ram and CPU cycles to spare, the added expense of the tracked vehicle to the grocery store is what, an extra 100 milliseconds of loading data from nvme storage to RAM? Yeah, don't port kubernetes to a microcontroller. Focus on the interface you have with it and let the complexity just sit there, being harmless.
> The reason for seeing overcomplexity in systemd components is usually that you never considered the use cases of other people or proper server management
What use cases of "proper server management" does fucking with my resolv.conf(5) solve?
If I have a laptop I can perhaps see updating values per DHCP or IPv6 RAs, but once I set up a server up why the hell is it a link to /run? (I once had to use chattr +i because of brain dead "cleverness".)
In over thirty years of running Unix-y systems I never needed my resolv.conf "managed", so I have no idea why Ubuntu (for one) defaults to fiddling with it.
> What use cases of "proper server management" does fucking with my resolv.conf(5) solve?
For one, it avoids telling all processes and their mothers the IP of the DNS resolvers they should query, but hands them 127.53 instead. If you then update your resolvers using systemd-resolved, for example because the network changes to a failover line, or because puppet pushes an updated catalog, or you want split DNS for a VPN (like, send *.corp.local to the internal DNS server or something), that is all pretty easy. There are more use cases on servers, but of course you most obviously benefit from this on laptops that roam between WIFIs with different upstream DNS server config.
> For one, it avoids telling all processes and their mothers the IP of the DNS resolvers they should query, but hands them 127.53 instead.
What "all process" are you referring to? What kind of software on Unix-y systems is not using gethostbyname(3) (or similiar)?
(And the context of this sub-thread is "server management", which I'm not sure how often has VPN running on it and doing things like split (horizon) DNS.)
Just one thing: why that resolver work *need to be" in systemd package ? Why we can't have few implementations, as it always have been, that do different jobs, with overlapping funcionalities ? Why we ever need some gigantic codebase guarded by corporations that we can't easily replace ? Codebase that is uncooperative with other implemantations. And developers.
And moust importantly: why they make everything more stupid and windows-like trash ?
And I assure you: what you described as "easy" is not true. I is just few basic usecases they baked in. And when you neeed something a bit more specific in some direction you are not allowed to have that.
Actually I didn't say anything about overcomplexity and I wasn't thinking about systemd as an init system at all. That wild misinterpretation, which you knew to (partially) hedge with that "usually", is more or less the proof in the pudding frankly.
You know it's underdeveloped because everything is described as "basic" or "simple". There's no such thing in any complex design, yet somehow for all his purported seniority, he keeps pumping out designs using the same description.
It's going to make shareholder's lives better. And you better believe we're replacing conductors with lowest-bidder slop, that's the whole point. That's shareholder capitalism's playbook, it hasn't changed for the last 50 years.
What, you don't want to save a few bucks on a train ticket? Come on, you'll love it!
> Kimi K3 is ≈ 1.5 TB and requires multi million dollar hardware to run.
Not that it defeats your point, but an 8x MI355X node is $350k-400k. The only reason you're paying that much is for the VRAM, too. You could run it with much less compute than what you get in a single card.
I'm interpreting this as justification for sysadmins making a comeback, which I would absolutely love. We lost so much as a society when they were taken behind the shed.
Moral relativism is about handling the disparity of moral frameworks in the world, which you acknowledge exists at several points. The inverse of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which is that there exists precisely one set of moral facts. The space between these two is a spectrum, by the way, and usually we choose our position on the spectrum depending on what our purposes are. If we're talking about a disparate cultural collective, moral relativism is structurally necessary. Relativism just means we have a contextual differentiator, just generally in philosophy, not just in moral studies.
The struggle you have with pinning down moral relativism I think betrays the fact that your understanding of it is low quality. A good ear mark is, can you name a single passage from a treatise on moral relativism that you like? If you can't find a single aspect of a philosophical construction to advocate for, that means you don't actually understand it.
You also keep sliding between conflating moral relativism with moral anti-realism and even moral nihilism at one point. These are different axes.
> Realism + Absolutism
All moral facts converge for every single person. As a matter of fact, they aren't facts at all. Morals are a hinge of the Wittgenstein variety.
> Realism + Relativism
Moral facts are derived from frameworks, or contexts, which are themselves grounded facets of reality.
> Anti-Realism + Absolutism
Kantian Constructivism. There are no facts which are coherent without a framework, but moral claims are still necessarily only capable of being universal.
> Anti-Realism + Relativism
Moral reality is constructed by the framework, grounded only to the framework.
It's certainly encouraged a lot of the efficiency innovations that have come out of Chinese labs. The fact you can run a Kimi K3 on a single node is batshit insane.
The mainstream consensus on PRC silicon has been "the gap exists, but is closing" for a long time[1][2]. I think you might be confusing the algorithmically-cast shadows on the cave wall that you're sat in front of for a reasonable and unbiased sample. Can you provide any reason to believe that your data points are actually generalizable? From your tone it sounds more like you're a victim of getting outrage baited into engagement, and mistaking observations made in that envelope for a high quality data source. You gotta watch out for that mate.
A major difference is they weren't being sold as "assistants" back then. Now they're a product expected to act a certain way. While some LLMisms probably come from shared poison in the pretraining corpus, many of them also come about as a result of trying to make them more appealing as a product. Most open weight models are just a company's product, post-instruct and everything. Base models are a different ballgame (and are becoming increasingly sparse), so effectively no matter what you're pulling in someone's model that's been trained into the chirpy "executive assistant" personality we all hate. Some models are worse for it than others.
You can tell the post-training makes all the difference though. Gemini has a different stink to it than DeepSeek.
It's all tradeoffs. The same power that grants the ability to reverse transactions also grants the ability to reverse a transaction in bad faith and commit fraud. Will the system correct that? Would it surprise you to know that it doesn't have to? That same power also grants the ability to lock an entity out of any kind of monetary transaction, and things like debanking. Usable for good? Sure. I don't think it's controversial to say that it being leveraged against Hunter Biden was at all justified, however. Would you like to be on the receiving end of that? Would you like to see a world where an LLM gets to decide that kind of thing based on your presence in the surveillance panopticon?
To that sense, it's really just a disagreement on what tradeoffs are acceptable. People who have a utopian view of cryptocurrency are looking at some tradeoffs as preferable to others, it's a different failure mode. To be clear, I don't necessarily agree with it myself, but you shouldn't be so uncharitable to people to assume disagreement is always a matter of delusional ignorance.
reply