With much love and respect I ask you to please read the remainder of my comments in this thread.

It’s sarcasm yes. I figured dropping a phrase like dicatorship of the proletariat would give up the game (honestly I thought my very first comment in the thread was already laying it on thick), but Poe’s law in action I guess. I do really appreciate you, keep up the good work.

Look, it’s like the scientific method, right? You start with a theory, and then you gather a bunch of data, and the stuff that agrees with your theory you keep, and the stuff that doesn’t you either dismiss outright, or you rationalize. I feel like I really can’t make my position any more obvious than that.

I appreciate your patience and your continued efforts to educate folks on this website, but I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here.

See now there you’ve made a crucial error. You’re recommending a book which, while it has some criticism of the specifics of how the USSR implemented socialism, on the whole it’s quite positive about the idea of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat in general. Obviously that disagrees with my preconceived notion that humans are greedy, and that therefore capitalism is good, so I would never read a source that contradicts this, because I would have to dismiss most of it outright. And that’s just a hassle.

It’s suspicious because it disagrees with my preconceived notions about communism.

I think this is a good rule of thumb in general. When statistics agree with my preconceived notions, I consider them trustworthy, and if not, I assume that reality lines up with what I expect. For example, the referendum in held in the Baltics about leaving the USSR ended in favor of leaving, which I think is a good example of a trustworthy statistic. But the subsequent referendum in the remaining members ended in favor of staying in the USSR, and I think that’s a little suspicious, don’t you?

Ah thanks, I do have another question actually! So aside from speeding up builds by parallelizing different stages, so that

FROM alpine AS two
RUN sleep 5 && touch /a
FROM alpine AS one
RUN sleep 5 && touch /b
FROM alpine AS three
COPY --from=two /a /a
COPY --from=one /b /b

takes 5 iso 10 seconds, are there any other ways buildkit speeds up builds?

At my previous job, we had a “Devops” team. We even outsourced some ops to a third party in the worst possible way (I’m talking “oh you want to set up an alert for something related to your service? Send us an email and we’ll look into it” and so on). All the pre-devops pain magnified by an order of magnitude. Sometimes devs would do their own ops (I know, big shock!), and they would call it “shadow devops”. Nearly fell off my chair when I first heard it. Kinda glad I’m not with them anymore.

Is there more to it than using multistage builds when appropriate?

But at what cost?

I’ve read the resolution, and I don’t see anything in the document that I disagree with. There are some references to the Durban conference in there that I don’t fully understand, but from a cursory reading of the Wikipedia article it seems that people’s main gripe with it is its anti-zionist position (a position I vehemently agree with, Zionism is colonialism and genocide). That, to me, seems like a reasonable enough explanation as to why the US would vote against this resolution (I hope I don’t need to, but I’m happy to elaborate), and that, in turn, explains why client states voted against (or abstained).

I do acknowledge that the rhetoric closely mirrors Russia’s anti-Ukrainian propaganda, but just because a bad person misuses “nazis bad” for nefarious purposes does not make “nazis bad” any less true.

It’s a bit ironic on some level when talking about an anti-nazi resolution, but having looked into it, I’ve arrived at the position that the votes are the way they are because the US tends to vote in favor of Zionism.

The resolution very likely was phrased in a loaded way or had some bit that was dubious

These resolutions are publicly available on the UN website, are typically quite short, and actually quite easy to read in general. This one in particular is only 11 pages long, which includes skippable boilerplate. So this assertion is relatively easy to back up and doesn’t need to rely on assumptions, and it can actually be quite fun to read one of these resolutions; you get to feel like a proper journalist or scholar or something. So I would suggest you give it a read and seek out the bit that you find most objectionable.

Personally, based on not much more than gut feelings and historical precedent on similar distributions in votes, am a bit more uncertain than you about the reason behind this distribution. If we take the Palestine cease fire vote in the UN of December 2023, for example, you have a very similar distribution. And I know for a fact that that was an earnest, unobjectionable resolution, that was only voted down by the US because it was in their material interest to do so, and voted down by US client states (or abstention) because they’re client states. But on the other hand, we also have the obvious context of Russia using this exact language as an excuse for their illegal invasion of Ukraine, so it’s entirely conceivable that there’s a section in there that says sth like “and thus, Russia shall invade Ukraine, and we’re all cool with that”. As such, I’m on the fence, and I’ll read the resolution later. But do give it a go yourself! It’s a very satisfying exercise

Claiming that the genocide, apartheid, and colonialism perpetrated by Israel is in any way complex or nuanced is such a disgustingly smug way of revealing you haven’t spent even a moment thinking the situation through, or reading up on the history. Gross.

You too!

No, I don’t think it’s nitpicky, and I think it’s relevant to modern day political discourse. It demonstrates that progressive policies and positions are a viable political strategy for the democratic party. I think it’s important to stress this, because a lot of liberals today feel like courting the right is the only way to possibly win an election for the democrats. Stating “always have been” plays into this delusion, and it’s good to remind ourselves that it’s a complete and utter falsehood.

I don’t think this is correct. There was a marked post-Reagan shift to the right. Sure, they were never socialists, but decades ago they at least tried to do something for the working class.

In their moral justification, the argument of the lesser evil has played a prominent role. If you are confronted with two evils, the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Its weakness has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget quickly that they chose evil.

-Hannah Arendt

A geologist buddy of mine works on analyzing soil for placing wind farms.

A lot of people who studied physics do not end up in the “murder children for money” field. You have a choice, and you chose the deeply, deeply immoral path. You’re not fooling anyone, probably not even yourself.

You’re a very entertaining poster