Not really. Whoever created these distros had a specific vision they wanted to achieve. Debian is one thing, Arch is another. The world is richer for having both.
Debian and Arch are different enough that the argument isn't about them. The issue is the 100's of distros that could be replaced with just "install <major distro> and do apt install X" (or some other trivial thing like changing the default to KDE instead of Gnome).
You can also replace that with "just install Windows", or "just use macOS".
Hell, you use this for anything; "why make a new album, movie, or book when there are already thousands upon thousands of them? Yours probably isn't any better!"
You completely misunderstand. Windows and Mac are different enough from every linux distro that the argument isn't about them.
And if you're going to start talking about copy-rightable works of entertainment, then yes if you write a book based off another book just with 1 extra character (analogous to "install <major distro> and do apt install X") then that book would violate copyright and should not be written. It's the lack of copyright in FOSS that allows all the pointless duplication of effort with all the almost identical linux distros.
90% of distros' "visions" is ultimately just providing a general-purpose desktop/laptop OS. There's indeed an insane amount of wasted effort, both on developers' part but also users (skill portability is an issue because no 2 Linux distros/machines are alike).
I would argue that those are either similar enough to not be wasteful or dissimilar enough to not be redundant. Lubuntu is just Ubuntu with some minor differences in default packages and configs; there's not enough difference there to be wasteful. OTOH, Ubuntu, at least for a long time, was genuinely much more friendly to beginners than Debian, partially just because they could get patches in faster, and partially because they had a looser standard around non-free packages. There was divergence but for a good reason, and the projects have largely collaborated over the years so that the source code changes are shared where sensible but they target slightly different audiences with different support systems. Well, there's also Canonical just being Canonical but there's no way to solve that.
In what way are we not ready? If you don't have the necessary critical reasoning skills to doubt Joe Rogan telling you about complete bullshit, no one needs technology to trick you into a scam. If you have critical reasoning skills, it's pretty hard to convince you to part with your money. Who exactly does this scam target?
Say you have a child or close niece or nephew with insufficient latent opsec and a lot of public social posts from which an attacker can mine their voice and compromise their account, and they call you asking for urgent help...
This has been happening to a few relatives for about a year now. The niece calling for help from "jail" using an impersonated voice, it's quite impressive. The niece being impersonated has some shows, fairly small but enough to impersonate!
This helps answer a serious argument I had on whether Puerto Rico and/or Washington D.C. should become states. Some people argued that the the flag could stay the same. I think the most clever answer would be to make a flag with a star randomly placed to annoy flag-obsessed nerds. More seriously, I think the reason that a 51st or 52nd state can't be added is that the urgency of the matter is lacking. Doing something about statehood would require it to be exceedingly popular and even then the odds are poor.
> think the reason that a 51st or 52nd state can't be added is that the urgency of the matter is lacking.
The reason for the resistance to statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. is because they both lean heavily Democratic, and the prospect of 2 or 4 more Democratic Senators is unacceptable to the Republicans.
I don't think that's the entirety of it. DC becoming a state is significantly more problematic than just the politics of it's residents, it's potentially unconstitutional. It makes more sense to cede the city outside the capitol to Maryland and Virginia and allow for representation that way (and what IMO should've been done instead of giving DC 3 electoral college votes via a constitutional amendment), and an amendment to make DC a state would require a lot of reorganizing, the clause providing for a 10 by 10 square mile federal district, the reasoning that the sovereignty of the united states can't be under jurisdiction of a state, it's just messy.
Puerto Rico, I think the political balance between parties is largely the prohibiting factor, you're right. But there are other issues, they are not compliant on a lot of requirements for statehood as per US law (congress has the power to regulate this with any legislation), and it seems the status quo in Puerto Rico is exactly what the more powerful political and financial interests there want.
Yes. DC used to be a square with the Potomac River running straight through it; the land on the Virginia side of the river was returned in the "retrocession" in the 1800s. Everything left is on the Maryland side now.
I'm sure there's a handy Wikipedia article about this, but in a nutshell, no: they wanted the capital to be independent of states, but no state wanted to just give up all that land. So they came up with the idea of both MD and VA contributing land on either side of the river. This land was also basically a swamp, so it wasn't terribly valuable. The original city was a perfect square, 10 miles on each side (not aligned NSEW, however), and there were boundary stones at the 4 corners and one stone every mile along the border. These stones are mostly still there, though some of them are on private property so are inaccessible.
Anyway, for whatever reasons I forget now, DC decided in the 1800s to give the VA side back to the state of VA. What's left is the part MD donated, which is why DC looks so odd on a map: 3 sides are straight (one of them being 10 miles long, the others roughly half), and the 4th side is just the river.
Also, just look at a map: the border between VA and MD is the Potomac River itself. For some strange reason, the King of England set the boundary between the two states to be at the shoreline on the VA side, so the river belongs to MD. So if you're standing on the shore on the VA side and walk into the river, you're now in the state of MD.
> Anyway, for whatever reasons I forget now, DC decided in the 1800s to give the VA side back to the state of VA.
As seems to be the dominant theme of the 1800s in the U.S, the answer is slavery. Thanks, I hadn’t heard about this.
> In the 1830s, the district's southern territory of Alexandria went into economic decline partly due to neglect by Congress. The city of Alexandria was a major market in the domestic slave trade, and pro-slavery residents feared that abolitionists in Congress would end slavery in the district, further depressing the local economy. Alexandria's citizens petitioned Virginia to take back the land it had donated to form the district, through a process known as retrocession.
> The Virginia General Assembly voted in February 1846 to accept the return of Alexandria. On July 9, 1846, Congress agreed to return all the territory that Virginia had ceded. Therefore, the district's area consists only of the portion originally donated by Maryland. Confirming the fears of pro-slavery Alexandrians, the Compromise of 1850 outlawed the slave trade in the District, although not slavery itself.
IIRC the corners of the ten-mile square are due north/south/east/west of the district's original center point - so it's aligned 45 degrees. (I had thought that the Capitol was dead-center within the original ten-mile square, but it's not.)
Also there are a few borders set to not be in the middle of the river - New Jersey-Delaware is another one, and there are bits of land on the Jersey side that technically belong to Delaware. (But New Jersey-Pennsylvania isn't, even though Delaware used to be part of Pennsylvania.)
Puerto Rico has blatantly unconstitutional gun laws. It has a minimum wage under the federal minimum wage. The US congress requires all applicant territories for statehood have constitutions compliant with the US constitution (a problem for North Dakhota until 1997 funny enough), have laws requiring child support on the books and a whole host of other laws. Puerto Rico is compliant on some fronts and not on others.
The only thing that the U.S. constitution has to say about gun laws is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Which means Puerto Rico's gun laws are not in line with the current interpretation of this cryptic sentence prevalent in the 50 current states (as in more strict - what a scandal!), but saying they are unconstitutional is a bit of a stretch IMHO.
It IS unconstitutional, because the SCOTUS says so. Whatever their interpretation is, is the law and defines what's "constitutional". Yes, even when the Justices are a bunch of partisan hacks and their interpretation is BS. You may not like it, but that's the way the law works.
Funnily enough, the second amendment isn't that cryptic. It says that, in order for the states to remain free, they need their own militia made up of the people, and that militia needs arms, thus the federal government shall make no laws inhibiting their ability to acquire said arms.
Ironically, the laws we have on the books are technically unconstitutional.
Just a nitpick, it doesn't say the federal government shall make no laws, it basically says nobody will. Precedent after the fact limited the scope of the bill of rights to the federal government until the passage of the 14th amendment, but the wording of the amendment itself placed no such restriction.
Even under more restrictive interpretations that were prevalent in times past, Puerto Rico doesn't qualify. Their gun laws are very similar to other Latin American countries. They require you to have a reason to get a gun, and a "may issue" policy which means they can just say no with no justification required. They don't often say yes, so de facto gun ownership in Puerto Rico is banned, the only people that get them are the politically connected and people who grease palms.
Yeah it is pretty interesting, I read about it a long time ago and having trouble with the search engines, but some kid found a discrepancy between the ND constitution and the US constitution, which was quickly amended and fixed in 2012 (not 1997 as I thought). Basically the ND constitution didn't require the governor to take an oath of allegiance to the US, which the US constitution requires all state constitutions to require officers of the state to do.
> The reason for the resistance to statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. is because they both lean heavily Democratic, and the prospect of 2 or 4 more Democratic Senators is unacceptable to the Republicans.
That's undoubtedly part of it, but I also get the impression that Puerto Rico itself isn't that eager to become a state. DC probably is and really does deserve better representation, but there are historical reasons for why it was made explicitly not a state. I think those reasons need to be revisited to see if they're actually still true (if they ever were).
There's too many states as it is, and I think that's a good enough reason to deny any attempts at making new states until they fix the first issue.
Fixing it is easy: combine some of the existing small states, or break up other unpopulated states. For instance, Vermont and New Hampshire don't need to be separate states; they're too small. Just combine them, along with Maine, into a single state. Rhode Island is also much too small: combine it with Massachusetts. Eliminate New Jersey: give the northern half to NYC and make it a new state, and give the southern half to Pennsylvania (and perhaps make Philly a new state). Eliminate Wyoming: it only has 500k people. Break it into pieces and merge them with the surrounding states.j
DC by itself is much too small to be a state, both geographically and population-wise. Take the entire DC metro area and make it a single state instead. Perhaps combine it with Baltimore too and eliminate Maryland in the process (most of MD then just becomes new the DC state); give the western side of MD to WV, and the eastern shore part to Delaware.
Finally, there's no way DC should be called "DC" as a state, or have any mention of the genocidal conqueror Christopher Columbus. It needs a new name.
On the other hand, it might be better to have many smaller states, perhaps the size of counties, which could better represent urban and rural areas separately.
Switzerland does this, having "cantons" about the size of U.S. counties, and these cantons hold more power in their system than states do in the U.S. These cantons, averaging a few hundred thousand people, handle citizenship and cultural issues, collect taxes, administer health care, run secondary schools, etc. If you have a problem in a construct this size the politicians are not so far away and inaccessible. Your fellow voters are nearby, and more like you.
I don't know that it is a good thing to put more people into larger groups, noticeably diluting their political representation. That causes a lot of friction, when large groups of people don't agree.
I imagine that most localities would rather have more representation, not less.
>On the other hand, it might be better to have many smaller states, perhaps the size of counties, which could better represent urban and rural areas separately.
Have you seen Star Wars: The Phantom Menace? What you're proposing is something that resembles the Galactic Senate from that movie. Are you going to have Congress hold sessions in a football stadium or something?
>Switzerland does this, having "cantons" about the size of U.S. counties
Switzerland is a tiny country with a small fraction of the US's population or geographic size. It's comparable to a single US State, so sure, having cantons the size of US counties makes sense. (And what kind of counties are you talking about anyway? This really doesn't mean much: on the east coast in a state like Virginia, the counties might only have 5000 people. In the western states, you can have a county like Maricopa County, Arizona with over 4 million.)
>I imagine that most localities would rather have more representation, not less.
At the national level? There is no example of this working anywhere, worldwide, for a sizeable country. (No, Switzerland is not a sizeable country.) The whole idea is completely unworkable. There's real-world limits to how large political divisions can be before they need to be grouped together into larger groups, which themselves have representatives in a larger body.
I have not seen that movie. Heard it wasn't that good. I'm happy to hear about the relevant parts, if you want to describe them.
> Are you going to have Congress hold sessions in a football stadium or something?
I'd be ok with that. Not afraid to try something different. It used to be 1 federal representative per 30,000 people, communicating via horse-back. We've regressed to 1 representative per 500,000+ people, even though we now have instant communication. I don't see what the big deal is about counting more congressional votes.
I realize this would be a drastic change for those currently in power, those with money might not be able to afford to bribe so many more congress people, or so many more state representatives if we had more states.
Ideally a national congress so large, ruling over so many people, would not be running the entire country in minute detail, just coordinating on issues that need to be collectively dealt with, and where there is collective agreement.
> And what kind of counties are you talking about anyway?
Swiss cantons vary in size, like U.S. counties. The smallest canton in Switzerland has something like 20,000 people. The largest is home to Geneva. 26 cantons, about 8.5 million people total. I brought Swiss cantons up as a demonstration that smaller groups of people can run things for themselves just fine, doing more than U.S. states. They subdivide cantons into municipalities that function much like U.S. city/town governments.
> At the national level? There is no example of this working anywhere, worldwide, for a sizeable country.
Why do countries need to be sizeable? What would be wrong with smaller groups of people governing themselves and organizing into federations when they want or need to? What is sacred and desirable about the idea of large countries?
There's seems to a be a trend of wanting to consolidate into larger political units. I don't know that this serves the interest of the people. Sometimes it seems this is just a way to impose one-size-fits-all solutions across ever larger and more disparate groups of people.
> There's real-world limits to how large political divisions can be before they need to be grouped together into larger groups, which themselves have representatives in a larger body.
I agree that it is harder to get larger groups of people to agree. I don't know that the best answer is to force people into larger political units. That doesn't make disagreements go away.
There's a line of thinking that larger and larger political units are actually harmful, that they ultimately lead to authoritarianism and bullying behaviour, towards their own populations and others, and that the solution is to split into much smaller political units [0].
Countries that become too big become evil. History is full of such examples. The U.S., Russia, China, Japan, Germany, and the U.K have all taken advantage of their size and power to do things that are harmful to others, and those are just the largest examples over the last 100 years. Adolf Hitler as the ruler of Bavaria would not have been able to command forces that could kill millions of people, but Adolf Hitler the leader of Germany did. What benefit are larger states and countries, besides concentrating more power in one place, power that is so often misused?
Name me a sizeable country that has not suppressed large segments of its own population and other less powerful countries. Large political structures come with a lot of their own problems.
I realize this is a big topic, I tried above to present more detail behind what I was thinking. I'm not sure why you think it is wrong or a problem to have smaller political units that better represent people.
Basically, you live in a fantasy world. You mention Hitler, but someone like Hitler doesn't stop with Bavaria, he takes over everything around him, as we saw in the 1930s. Did you totally forget how both Austria and Germany were under control of the Nazis, and then they invaded and took over Poland, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, France, etc.? Then, the reason they lost the war was because the "evil" US was large enough to beat them militarily. If the US had been a bunch of small un-unified countries, that never would have happened. They would have been like pre-EU Europe: not sharing any common governance or military power and not having that much economic power because of a lack of a single market and currency.
So, in your world, all the free nations will be too small economically or militarily to really do much and won't be able to effectively unite, and then they'll be beaten into submission by China and Russia.
Hoping to make the world a better place, via more democracy...
I objected to your original assertion that we should consolidate states in the U.S., because that would be less democratic, and I think we should go in the other direction. I assume more local government is better, because it is more responsive to the people. People revolt if when a government becomes too unresponsive. Also it's easier to corrupt a more centralized and far away government, a one-stop shop for the oligarchs. We've got enough of that as it is. I don't think theirs anything sacred about the status quo. We could do a lot better.
If the people in Vermont and Rhode Island want to merge, I'd be ok with that. I don't think they want to, though! If the people in eastern Oregon want their own state, or to join with Idaho, I'd be ok with that also.
I am still curious why you think less states in the U.S. would be better? Is there a reason you said that?
> but someone like Hitler doesn't stop with Bavaria, he takes over everything around him
Remember that Hitler didn't start as the ruler of Bavaria, he was able to become the leader of the entirety of Germany because Germany was already a large country. Also other large countries caused WW2 by leaving Germany trashed after WW1, a war which happened because a united (large) Germany was a threat to the other large nations of France, Russia, and the UK. Large countries caused those wars.
Prior to Germany uniting there were smaller wars in the area. Nobody said that small countries would never go to war, but they tend to so less often, and with less impact. Most people don't want to go to war, they end up forced into it.
Maybe this all goes back to kings who created these large countries to command more money and power? Hard to say stuff like that is in the interest of the people, especially considering how well many small countries have done for themselves.
> So, in your world, all the free nations will be too small economically or militarily to really do much and won't be able to effectively unite, and then they'll be beaten into submission by China and Russia.
Small countries confederate when they need to. They are aware of threats, they make alliances. They get caught off guard sometimes, just like big countries do. The U.S. entered the NATO alliance with other countries, we didn't have to merge them into ours.
There's no reason we can't make changes to be more democratic and still defend ourselves. China and Russia are not a threat to the United States if we have more states and give them more power. China and Russia are both large centralized countries that are disintegrating - the Soviet Union is gone, Russia is still declining, and China is headed in the same direction.
What do you suggest, we become a large dictatorship because that is the most efficient way to weaponize a nation, in order to best defend ourselves from hypothetical threats? Or do you think that everything is perfect in the U.S. at the moment, except for some pesky small state senators, and we should just plod along wondering if the next Jan 6 will be successful or not?
Confederating doesn't work. The US tried that back in the 1700s and it was a disaster; they gave up after 12 years. Did you forget that part of your history? It works OK for Switzerland because they're surrounded by mountains and during wartime have taken advantage of situations for their monetary benefit.
The reason the US is so successful economically is because of unity. It's the same reason Europe has not been that successful lately, despite their much, much longer headstart; it's why the EU was formed, to try to emulate the US's success with a single currency and single market. However they're finding that just having a confederation doesn't really work and isn't stable: Brexit, the Greek debt crisis, etc.
And no, I'm not convinced that China is disintegrating at all. That's a rather distorted view of current events. They might be shooting themselves in the foot with their Covid policy, but that's a long way from "disintegrating". The US shot itself in the foot in many ways too but it isn't breaking apart.
You might be right that the US in particular has gotten to a point where internal divisions will force some kind of large change, but this doesn't support the idea that free nations would be better off splintering into hundreds of tiny republics and hoping that confederating will protect them from enemies that don't share this view.
> Confederating doesn't work. The US tried that back in the 1700s and it was a disaster
I'm not sure what you mean that confederacy doesn't work. The U.S. has always been a confederation of states, as per the current constitution. We got started in the conversation debating on how many states there should be.
> The reason the US is so successful economically is because of unity.
I've always thought that geography, natural resources, free markets, and immigration played a big role in our economic growth. The Soviet Union was unified, and they were not successful, so there are obviously other factors. Perhaps unified dictatorship vs unified democracy makes a difference, also, at least over the long term.
> it's why the EU was formed, to try to emulate the US's success with a single currency and single market
The EU was flawed. Money and labor could cross boarders, but not national debt. The poor countries were allowed to borrow more than they could afford, and lost their manufacturing to the richer countries. It was half assed. Perhaps the countries in the EU were too dissimilar to be unified the way they were. In contrast NATO still works. Confederacies come and go as the decades go by, things change.
> I'm not convinced that China is disintegrating at all.
China has fallen apart numerous times in their history. it's not just what is happening now with covid, it's going to be economic bubbles bursting, increasingly ineffective centralized power, their rapidly aging population, culturally and economically disparate regions, etc. The aging population is a time bomb for them, they're headed towards a seriously scary demographic cliff. They are not going to be the same country in 2030. They are not an existential threat to the U.S., just like the former Soviet Union and the current Russian regime are not an existential threat. Three years before the Soviet Union fell apart we were terrified of them, too. We over-judged that threat for a couple decades.
> You might be right that the US in particular has gotten to a point where internal divisions will force some kind of large change, but this doesn't support the idea that free nations would be better off splintering into hundreds of tiny republics and hoping that confederating will protect them from enemies that don't share this view.
We kind of got mixed up talking about many small states, versus many small countries, with asides about the details of the EU and China. Perhaps that's my fault, I can't help myself, I find all of this interesting. I never said that we need to turn the U.S. into Europe, or into a confederacy of many small countries. We already have a confederacy of many small states.
I meant to defend the idea of smaller and more local government, and that more small states could be a good thing. I brought up Switzerland not because they were a small country in Europe, but because they have small states (cantons) of 20k to 1.5m people handling things that our federal government ruling over 330m people struggles with, like health care. The Swiss are my favorite example of a well designed democracy that can scale. They vote on getting involved in wars. They voted on their pandemic response. The voters can referendum to veto politicians. They use double majorities to try to avoid suppressing minorities. It's not perfect, but it is definitely better.
The founding fathers of the U.S. were against democracy [0]. They were the rich landowners and thought of it as a threat, that people would vote to take their land. And in the modern era we still have money in control of politicians, the Supreme Court ruling that money is free speech [1], legalizing what most other civilized countries consider bribery and corruption. That's why the health care industry players got to write the Obamacare bill, and we're all stuck with it. Goodbye Romneycare in Massachusetts, goodbye to Vermont's pending single payer plan, goodbye to New York's and California's future plans, etc.
I think it's a real long term problem that our federal government continues to grow in power. That Leopold Khor fellow I referenced earlier said that the U.S. works well because a plurality of states are more powerful than the federal government, to keep it in check. When the federal government becomes more powerful than a majority of states it can act with impunity, and that's where things get ugly.
You wanted to get rid of small states for some reason, and you haven't explained how come. We've talked enough, I'd really like to know if you still think this is a good idea, and why.
I used emscripten to make physics and math software written in Fortran available to my JavaScript program. I would've used wasm, but it was in poor shape back when I wrote the software. There are a lot of things besides games and graphics written in C/C++ that can be used in JavaScript as a result of emscripten and wasm.
You ignore the fact that there are perverse incentives among the participants. It's possible to implement, and I'm doing it myself. If I had more time to spend on it, we could end spam. Instead I am fine as is: most of the spammers have given up.
Can you give any advice on how to get in the right mindset to give significant part of your income to charity? Or did you have no trouble deciding that? I understand how fortunate I am, but I cannot convince myself to give.
I came to the US from Russia at the age of 11; it probably helped me recognize how fortunate I was. Later, learning about the extreme poverty that exists in the world (far surpassing what I saw in Russia) I realized how much more fortunate I was to have had the luck of being born where I was.
One way to conceptualize things is that you are a consciousness that has won the birth lottery - being born into a well-off family, or at least a family in a rich country. I don't believe in souls - this is just a way of thinking; a hypothetical to imagine, akin to "what if I was born a minority, or a member of some persecuted group". The realization that you could have been unlucky may help empathize with those less fortunate.
Branko Milanovic, a world economist focusing on income (inequality) points out that 3 of the biggest contributors to one's income are (a) the country you are born into, (b) the income/wealth of the family you are born into, and (c) the gender. Note that all three are not something one can choose. So the "lottery" of life I describe isn't just metaphorical.
I don't think I would be willing to give 10% of my income if I didn't learn about how cost-effective charity can be. For example, with a $0.50 donation to SCI a child will be provided an anti-worm pill - curing and preventing parasitic worm infections for about a year (see GiveWell to learn more).
I recommend reading the short but super-influential essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" by Peter Singer. And after that, read some books by him too.
Step 3: Find (or geek out in) a hobby that you can obsess about and that your friends and family can accept.
Step 4: If you can't find out a path toward self-actualization, ask your employer or boss about ways that you can improve the business mission goals. In that path, you should find a path toward self-actualization and go for it.
Step 5: Accept the excellent result you get because outcomes are very dependent on luck.
Rock Band 3 was pretty close to that game for me. It convinced me to get real drum training and to learn the keyboard.
I want to play a game where all the NPCs are AI trained with Seq2Seq neural networks. I have been trying to write the game off and on for a while, but it's not easy to write. There are some things that come pretty close, but are not quite there.
