Are_Euclidding_Me [e/em/eir]

When the phrase is as specific and meaningless as that one is, I think I do indeed get to criticize your use of it by pointing out it’s a favorite of a right-wing hack.

Hmm… I’ve heard the phrase “woke moralist” somewhere, where could it be from…

Oh I remember! It’s this guy:

What’s your definition of propaganda? I’d like to invite you to spend some time in this thread thinking through why this article is, in your mind, so clearly propaganda that it’s not worth engaging with.

Of course, I can’t (and wouldn’t want to) force you to spend any time or mental effort thinking about this. But if you’d like someone to (kindly and calmly) ask you questions that could help you come to a deeper understanding of your thoughts about propaganda.

Because this piece seems, to me, interesting and worth reading and thinking about. I also don’t think that the two categories “news” and “propaganda” are totally disjoint, instead I think there’s a huge overlap, with most “news” being delivered as “propaganda”.

Which you haven’t linked.

If I go to wikipedia and search “Russian military” will I find an article with those numbers?

Why can’t you quote the relevant sections, then link to what you’re quoting from? That’s how sources in an argument are supposed to work.

Well I did read the F-22 page, as I said before. You’re right that I didn’t read the rest of them because at that point in the conversation I was extremely confused as to why you’d linked them in the first place.

I see that the US built a total of 195 F-22’s. That number isn’t any of the ones you listed in your one comment that had some numbers.

To be charitable to you, I might be able to find the 1000 warplanes and 70 nuclear sub numbers somewhere in the wikipedia pages you linked. I’m not going to read them, I’m really not into military hardware, but if you tell me that’s where you got the numbers, I’ll go ahead and believe you. It would be better practice, though, to quote a passage that includes the relevant figures, then link to the place you’re quoting from.

Now what about the numbers for Russian warplanes and Russian nuclear subs? What are your sources for those figures? They surely aren’t found in a wikipedia article about the american military

Now we’re finally getting to a real argument! Now you’re arguing that the US is better prepared for war than Russia is, not just that the US spends more money on war than Russia does.

I do notice, however, that you have linked not a single article or source for the claims in these comments. Where are your numbers coming from?

You might be right that the US is more prepared for war than Russia is. I’m not convinced, and also I think m532 has a good point that nukes (which both the us and Russia have) change everything, but you could still be right.

I’m actually not that interested in whether the claim “america would easily beat Russia if they actually tried” is true. My entire reason for engaging was simply to point out that “the US spends more on war and hence is necessarily better prepared for war” is not a good argument; the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

If you want to convince people on the internet, you should practice making better arguments, and sourcing them properly. Your argumentation in this thread has been abysmal and I wanted to help you see that and make improvements

in this case spending 10x more than everyone else is resulting in a bigger and more advanced army

This is the part I think you haven’t shown, even a little bit. First you linked a wikipedia page which was a list of countries with the highest military expenditures, then you linked wikipedia pages for a bunch of american military hardware. At no point did you try to compare american military hardware with Russian military hardware, either in quantity or quality. The only comparison you’ve made is in terms of expense.

You want me to answer the question that is your last paragraph?

I have no idea! I don’t live in Russia, I’m not well-versed in modern warfare and military technology, I haven’t studied diplomacy, I have no idea how Russia would respond if nato suddenly brings to bear every piece of military hardware it can muster.

Literally all I’m saying is that more expensive doesn’t always mean better quality. That’s literally it

So all these Wikipedia articles are evidence for the claim “NATO would trounce Russia if they were actually trying”? And the evidence I’m supposed to be getting from these articles is “look at all these extremely expensive war planes, clearly they’re better than their Russian counterparts, they’re more expensive”.

Is that a fair characterization of your point?

I still don’t understand what evidence you’re finding on these Wikipedia pages. Like, ok, I read the Wikipedia page for the F-22. What am I supposed to get out of my reading? What should I have learned from that page?

Can you please actually draw the connection you’re making, explicitly? Because I legitimately do not understand what you’re trying to say

Can you please explain how a list of countries with the highest military expenditures is evidence that weapons used by the US aren’t bought/produced for a ridiculous markup?

Like, the claim m352 is making is “the american military spends unreasonable amounts of money on weapons for no benefit, because of how much graft and how many middlepeople exist in the american weapon supply chain”.

And the evidence you use to counter this claim is “the US spends much, much more money on weapons than Russia”. And like, yeah, no kidding the US spends much more on its military than Russia does, but I don’t see how that has anything to do with m352’s claim.

So can you please draw the connection for me? How does your response here address the comment you’re responding to?

It’s pretty annoying to read the mailing list, I agree. There’s a very small hyperlink that says “next” that’s right below the message body. If you click that, you can read the next message in the chain. Keep doing that until you get to the end, and yeah, it looks like this was resolved and wasn’t actually malicious.

I didn’t know about this! I already use rofi for a few different things, so I’m going to get rofi-calc working too, it’ll fit perfectly into my workflow. Thanks!

Sure, that’s extremely fair! Those qt dependencies are no joke! How do you feel about Evince (apparently now called gnome document viewer)? It seems to be the standard gtk pdf viewer, but I’ve never used it, so I actually don’t know what it’s features are like. It’s a heavier application than mupdf (of course), but at least you don’t need to install qt to use it!

When zathura (my beloved) isn’t feature-rich enough for my needs I usually turn to okular. Sure, it’s kde, so if you’re on a pure gnome system you’re going to have to install a bunch of dependencies, but if that’s not a problem for you, okular is quite good in my experience!

I love lemmy, having been here since the very earliest hexbear days. In my view, the devs are doing the best they can. They’re a tiny team surviving on grants, trying to produce software that the users, for some reason, expect to have feature parity with reddit, a large corporation with a large paid dev team. It’s weird to say the least.

My understanding is that nutomic and dessalines survive solely on that 4000 euros per month, because all of their time goes to lemmy. How do you want them to survive? They need to eat and pay rent, you know. The real world exists and they’re humans in it, needing food and sleep and shelter.

It seems to me you want magic. You don’t want the lemmy devs to be humans, you want them to be magic coder gods who are infinitely patient, with boundless time and energy. But that’s completely unrealistic, you surely must see that, right?

You could try spacemacs (what I use) or doom emacs. Both have vi-like keybindings as a default and are slightly easier to get going with than vanilla emacs. On the other hand, especially with spacemacs, there’s more to learn than vanilla emacs and more that can go wrong.

what, on the surface, is a pretty trivial ask

I don’t think having my real life phone number tied to a website or game account is a trivial ask. I’d like my data to be private, especially something as real-life and tangible as a fucking phone number. Sure, there are ways around these things, you can get a fake phone number for cheap (or possibly even free), but that’s rather more effort than I’m willing to put in for most things. If I need to enter a phone number to sign up for an account for something, chances are very extremely good I’ll just decide I don’t need the account that badly. I don’t think I’m alone in this.

For years I used vanilla vim before finally switching to spacemacs like 4 years ago. I’ve never used neovim, because it just didn’t seem stable and mature enough before I switched to spacemacs and at this point I’m happy with spacemacs and will probably stick with it for the foreseeable future.

My issue with vim, and the reason I switched, is that vimscript was an absolute nightmare. I was doing easy stuff, writing LaTeX, but getting vim to compile LaTeX and talk to my pdf reader (as you need if you’re going to be working with LaTeX in any kind of serious way) took way too much configuration and my setup would break fairly often as well. Spacemacs is significantly easier. I was shocked when I went from “I’ve never used spacemacs before” to “I’m comfortably writing LaTeX here” in about half an hour. My setup still breaks occasionally and sometimes it’s a bit difficult to figure out why and how to fix it, but it’s much easier than vim was, that’s for sure.

I also just like the emacs workflow. I like helm, I like being able to change how the editor works on the fly just by writing some elisp anywhere, I like how easy it is to access the documentation on functions, variables, keybindings, whatever else you might need. I like org-mode. I like that emacs has been around for decades and will be around for decades more.

I’d never heard of doomemacs. I’m pretty happy with spacemacs so I probably won’t switch, but I’ll at least read about it some more.

Sometimes the 3 second emacs startup time is annoying so I use vim then.

The way I get around this is by using emacs in daemon mode. So it only has a long startup if I’ve just rebooted my computer or if I needed to change my config and manually restart emacs. You probably already know emacs can run as a daemon, but I thought I’d mention it anyway!