Many of them have been reclaimed. Check out the "awesome self hosting" GitHub repo.
Podcasts: audiobookshelf
Music: 500 different subsonic clients, many of which are good. Or some fun tuis
Feed readers: lol, more than there are grains of sand in Torvalds' flippers
Note taking: again innumerable, also, just use nvim or emacs of course
Chat: tons of very good self hosted options that can save orgs thousands a month.
Rather than build your own from scratch, rediscovering already solved issues, why not contribute to or fork a FOSS project? LLMs make it easy easier to get up to speed on large projects
Audiobookshelf is a web app! Like, if you had a good TUI music player, I don't think you'd be rebutting my thesis here. I don't doubt anybody's ability to build TUIs.
The point of the post is the emacsification of the native macOS (and Windows, I assume) environment. Totally reasonable not to care that it's occurring, that's not really responsive to the post, is it?
I was responding to your comment that nerds should reclaim software that's overwhelmingly professional and pre packaged by sharing that there already is FOSS software for the categories you listed, which imo represents nerd reclamation.
Audiobookshelf has a native android app, not sure about desktop, I only use it on Android.
Anyone can build a TUI sure but why try to rebuild the whole mpd client/server stack that lets anyone on your network play music from the several TB collection of FLACs on your NAS? Same for subsonic, why reinvent the client server protocol there when it's already solved? And for subsonic clients, why reimplement streaming, offline downloads with de-duping, stream bitrate, album / artist handling... If there's something a subsonic client doesn't have that you want, fork it, point claude at it, done! That probably falls within the emacsification thing, right?
When my friend was telling me about GrapheneOS I was thinking back to the old days of android custom roms, all the bugs and bullshit, the time I couldn't dial out to 911 because my custom ROM crashes when I did, or other issues. So I gave it a pass.
However he's been on it now for months and every time he shows me something on it I get a little more jealous. Everything seems to be working fine, including e.g. bank apps, and he has interesting features like some kind of app zoning thing limiting permissions on a zone to zone basis.
The only problem is it's only available on massive phones without headphone jacks and SD card slots, so I'm sticking with Xperia for now.
REI Co-op has an Annual Members Meeting in Seattle, where it announces the results of the board of directors election.
The 2026 one happened Feb 5. Apparently the presentation is only 8m long, some saying it's pre-recorded and it's near-impossible for members to submit a question that actually gets answered:
This is the fundamental contradiction of Burning Man values, and I admit to obnoxiously pursuing it around the fire these past three burns now.
Burning Man is a community and society, and often pitches itself that way, and attendees come away feeling that way - they're "Burners," any city in the world they go to they can probably find other Burners they've never met and hang out, and to truly understand the Burn you really just have to attend.
But the values, and event, and many attendees, reject this fact with the "radical self reliance" value. People try to work around it by doing Theme camps - tribes within a tribe. Oh you're self reliant all right, you and the rest of your suburb with whom you organized to bring water and toilet paper. But no no no, that line stops at the edge of your camp, beyond that lies only community WITHOUT responsibility.
In reality there is no community without responsibility. MOOP blows around. Your sound affects other people. And if someone is suffering from thirst or hunger at the Burn, you absolutely have a responsibility to them as a member of your community to share food and water.
This radical self reliance thing just shifts the burden of managing people to the theme camp level, without any guarantee that any given theme camp is actually itself a good member of the community (other than processes that take a while e.g. the MOOP map).
The Burn is big but so are towns. There's already infrastructure for sewage, there should be as well for trash, and imo food and shelter as well. That doesn't require violating any of the principles, and a form of "radical self reliance" can be maintained through "radical participation" wherein people can identify a problem they want to resolve about the Burn and resolve it, or organize a working group or syndic to do so.
The Burners I've interacted with would happily help others in need and care about the community at large. That's the whole point of civic responsibility, isn't it?
If you turn the event into a giant plug and play (if the org is providing food and shelter and trash and everything else), you've just created some variant of Coachella instead, and I sure as hell don't want that. The difficulty is part of the point and what makes it so worthwhile, the kind of people who self-select into doing all that work are people I want to be around. It's supposed to be a community of builders and doers (i.e. participants), not people who show up for a fun time while everything is catered for them.
> The Burners I've interacted with would happily help others in need and care about the community at large. That's the whole point of civic responsibility, isn't it?
Exactly my point, so why do we maintain this illusion through one specific principle that we are "radically self reliant" when that evidently isn't the case? Just look through this thread: multiple people rejecting the idea of shared trash bins as "opposed to the values." How is a shared trash bin opposed to the values when we very easily all share toilets that we all as a community keep clean?
Coachella is a for-profit event with Organizers and Spectators, I don't think it's a good comparison, just because of shared trash bins at the Burn.
> It's supposed to be a community of builders and doers (i.e. participants), not people who show up for a fun time while everything is catered for them.
Right, it already is that, and adding shared trash bins won't make it not that. We've just shifted responsibility for managing that onto the theme camps. And in any case, we don't have a magical enforcement mechanism for the values - nothing about changing what we consider a "shared community responsibility" causes our ability to gatekeep lazy people to diminish, the same mechanism of social pressure is there either way.
Meanwhile, our community is failing to handle the very real fact that people are dumping their trash in the streets of Reno, and Reno is, appropriately, attributing this failure to our community as a whole.
> Coachella is a for-profit event with Organizers and Spectators, I don't think it's a good comparison, just because of shared trash bins at the Burn.
My Coachella comment was more in response to your suggestion that even infra for food and shelter should be provided. FWIW I also love Coachella, but that's because I love music - many people there sure don't follow leave no trace principles and that doesn't sit well with me either.
> How is a shared trash bin opposed to the values when we very easily all share toilets that we all as a community keep clean?
I think it's a spectrum. From completely no services at all to everything provided. My view is that providing things like toilets and medical services are something that we all (or at least most) agree makes the city a better place with no real downside. Trash is more complicated - I believe that does compromise the principles too much because of how people behave if dumpsters were to exist. I think people would be more irresponsible than they are now, because "someone else will take care of it" on playa. You also end up with tragedy of the commons problems like some camps dumping way more than others and perhaps filling things up so much that other camps can't even dispose of their stuff, and at that point how do you enforce or manage that? You could start charging by volume or something, but then that just starts to degrade the principles even more and commodifies things. I'd rather people figure their garbage problem out on their own and not expect someone else to handle it, even if it means that sometimes people do the wrong thing. How we manage the problem in Reno, I'm not sure - TBH, if people started getting in trouble for doing it in a real way, like getting charged with illegal dumping, that'd be fine with me. It would certainly be a disincentive to do it once enough Burners get in real shit for doing irresponsible things like that. I'd have no sympathy for them, that's a personal accountability thing.
> degrade the principles even more and commodifies things. I'd rather people figure their garbage problem out on their own and not expect someone else to handle it
Right, but that's not happening, because people are dumping in Reno so someone else has to handle it :p
I'm a bit confused by how you said "provided." This may be a USA Burn vs regional Burn misunderstanding - it sounds like the USA burn has a larger divide between Organizers and Participant? For Japan / Taiwan, if there's communal trash, that doesn't mean trash is provided, it just means we organized group trash handling, increased ticket price if necessary, added voluntary shifts to pick up around a dumpster or whatever.
The organizers are also participants, but yes, there is a large overarching Org that manages the overall infrastructure of the city and that certainly isn't every participant. It's not realistic to expect 70K people to all band together to organize and negotiate contracts for large scale shared services like toilets and medical and things like that that end up costing millions in actual money changing hands, not to mention things like coordinating with the government for the permit and regulatory requirements, dealing with the numerous law enforcement agencies on playa, managing the airport, running the DMV, running Burner Express buses, etc., especially when these things need to be planned out way ahead of time. For a small scale event, sure, that can work, but it doesn't scale up in any reasonable way. So when I read communal trash, I'm thinking of a scenario where the Org has to contract with and pay a few million dollars to a waste management company to haul out a lot of dumpsters to the desert and haul them back to civilization to dispose of garbage, with a corresponding increase in ticket price and an increase in the problems that I mentioned before. For camp-led garbage disposal, I don't think there's anyone necessarily against that on a small scale, and sure, neighboring camps in theory could band together to come up with a solution together, but at the end of the day that adds a lot of coordination and complexity on top of an already complicated logistical nightmare. Camps are welcome to use outside services on the approved list to come up with something if they wish. It sounds like you haven't been to the Burn if your reference is Japan / Taiwan - you should go (it's a wonderful time) and I think you'd understand pretty quick why what you're suggesting wouldn't really make sense at that scale.
> Right, it already is that, and adding shared trash bins won't make it not that.
But it will change participant behavior. Most attendees work very hard to reduce the amount of trash they generate at a burn, period. This is why people bring reusable cups and plates and silverware, etc. If you provide trash services, people will be more willing to bring trash - after all, it's easy to dispose of. And this violates the LNT principle.
Could be because people growing up in Japan are taught that they're an intrinsic part of any place, event, or group of people that includes their presence. Kids in classrooms in Japan are helping clean up together with everyone else at age 4.
It's kinda the opposite of "responsible for yourself," it's a civic sense that extends to include everyone and everything around you - including things that weren't directly caused by you-as-individal.
In the case of the cherry blossoms, they were planted for the enjoyment of the people, and thus the people who come to enjoy them are a part of that system. The cherry blossom viewing events where thousands of people come to picnic, only is a "thing" because thousands of people come - everyone there is a participant by virtue of attending. Thus they hold part of the responsibility for the outcome of the event and the aftermath.
That's an incredibly cynical thing for a man like Jobs to say, given his life, especially late in it, was mostly just ordering people to invent things, and then acting like a generational genius because the massive amount of people under his purview invented things.
Why do people keep saying this? The direction of someone driving towards a thing is just as important as people working on that thing. Otherwise we may not actually have gotten anyone working on that thing at all. It's like saying a director is not important and actors should just do whatever they want.
I've been doing this at my co-op, just as a kind of, I don't know, break from capitalism or something? Or maybe to practice getting users before finding a monetizable project? Most are rinky dink derp projects to let co-op members play around with whatever stack, or to give potential members a project they can get a commit on (requirement to join), but some I think are kinda useful. Some I use every day, like the calorie one.
None of these run ads or make any money so I'm going to share them guiltlessly:
https://calories.508.dev just a simple average calorie tracker over months. I couldn't find anything like this online or on the app store.
http://stuff4friends.508.dev A stuff library for your friends to borrow stuff you aren't using. I'm most excited about this one right now because I have so much stuff, and my friends seem to be enjoying borrowing random stuff they wouldn't have just because they can see it and know it's all being tracked. https://github.com/508-dev/friend-library
I was thinking about this recently. I was gonna try an experiment where I make AGPL apps, release the source code ofc, but then published a 1-5$ version on the Google play store. There's the compiled version if you want, pay a couple bucks. If not, you're free to compile and sideload on your own.
Seems fair enough, similar to self hosted software that offers managed hosting for a price, or you can try to run the docker containers on your own or whatever. I do a bit of both, self host the non critical stuff, pay for the critical stuff.
Podcasts: audiobookshelf
Music: 500 different subsonic clients, many of which are good. Or some fun tuis
Feed readers: lol, more than there are grains of sand in Torvalds' flippers
Note taking: again innumerable, also, just use nvim or emacs of course
Chat: tons of very good self hosted options that can save orgs thousands a month.
Rather than build your own from scratch, rediscovering already solved issues, why not contribute to or fork a FOSS project? LLMs make it easy easier to get up to speed on large projects
reply