Quoting: Termy

Quoting: Purple Library GuyNever get rid of an obsolete thing until you have the thing you wanted to replace it with.

Yeah, generally not a bad idea - though i saw (or rather see) the prices for the Index dropping once the Frame is released. And as VR isn't exactly essential, i thought i can do without it for a few months rather than not getting much anymore when selling the Index. And i'm trying to lessen my clutter anyway 😆

I want to do the same with my Index but: I have no experience selling online, don't know how to price it (since it has a few defects), and struggle with work capability in general.

Oh and in my case, I might not get the Frame asap, since I'm doing worse economically than when I got my Index - so I might do many months or a few years without VR.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GerarderloperIs this Android Driver meant as a alternative to Valves FEX layer?

Quoting: GoEsrNo, it's meant for getting Windows games to run on Android. It uses FEX for ARM compatibility.

So do I understand correctly that:
- before: both games (x86) and Wine (x86) have to be run inside FEX
- when this work is finished: Wine (arm) itself can run outside FEX (and Wine would use FEX still for the x86 games)

And this would probably give greater stability and performance.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SirMCJeager

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: SirMCJeagerI'm not as concerned about who they interact with as many people here have been stating. The amount of left-leaning bias and 'passion' is a little concerning in these comments. We should commend this company for the good they do, rather than condemning them entirely based on a few interactions with someone who holds a differing view.

I am not concerned about who they interact with, but I don't like that they actively and financially support a known racist and bigot like DHH. Which makes me unwilling to support them, so that I do not support the hate by proxy.

If that doesn't sound reasonable to you, I suppose that shows your own bias. Willing indifference is an active political stance.

Looking up about him, just seems like a conservative who doesn't like the influence of Islam and the negative influence of illegal/asylum immigration into Britain.

Please don't jump to preconceived conclusions! I absolutely love Framework for what they are doing! And I bet other people expressing their worries about their financial ties include a lot of people who do so specifically because they *care* about Framework and what they stand for. As stated above in the Wikipedia article (but feel free to seek your own sources for those concepts) explaining the concept of "paradox of tolerance" or "paradox of freedom", this is about more than merely "differing views".

I want there always to be plenty of reasonable conservative (and progressive) people - there are perfectly good reasons to be anxious about and opposed to unrestrained, un-debated changes being forced upon us by the opinions of few. At the very least more democratic inclusion is needed. But this DHH person allegedly e.g. calls for attacking a whole category of people based on the actions of exceedingly few! This isn't about labeling anyone racist. This is about having a rule that nobody should get to do what Hitler did - make public speeches about killing or seriously harming people simply by category. Would you defend incitements of mob violence against white people for the crimes of a few elites or loonies among them? In my information sphere, I see far more white acts of terrorism than non-white. Also this person was *not* talking only about illegals or asylum seekers but about people having any part of their ancestry from outside Britain in the last few hundred years. If you actually chat with a number of immigrants, you learn that here, too, are spectrums - some are indeed slightly alien (which has both good *and* bad effects to the society) and some only differ partly in their genetic heritage and their grandparents lives (which are similarly slightly alien to these people themselves).

We *can* dismiss others by putting them in boxes (like "conservative/progressive, right/left bias"), but I believe we can get further in the world by listening to each other's points and evidence, not by making caricatures.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Durandal

Quoting: mr-victory

Quoting: DurandalThat said. Fuck Framework and their “big tent”.

Huh? What did I miss?

TL;DR they promoted and supported an unapologetic white supremacist... when they were called out on it they said they use a "big tent" and don't pick sides.

https://itsfoss.com/news/framework-hyprland-sponsorship/ [External Link]

Some, not informed about those incidents, might take your initial comment to be overly emotional or even inflammatory. I believe all emotions serve a function, at least internally. How and when to express them is... a complex skill.

That said, I too, believe in the paradox of tolerance [External Link] - that intolerance should not be tolerated. Free speech only so far as it doesn't limit the speech of others. Hate speech takes away the ability of weaker participants to have a say at all. Initially by taking away their safety, and if unchecked, actually injuring and killing the oppressed group.

And thereby Framework (according to this philosophy) is in fact promoting the domination of intolerance by not suppressing it.

I do get where people on the other side of this are coming from - suppressing any speech feels uncomfortable, intolerant, and wrong. But I wouldn't expect anyone on their own, especially engineers without an interest in the humanities, to evolve to such heights in political philosophy. In a proverbial trolley problem, most people would not pull the lever to kill (partially the free speech of) one to save fifty.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Epic reaffirming my decision to not sign up for an account, even if they sometimes give free games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GustyGhostRemember fellow pirat er, gamers, tools like this hold increasing value in an age of games being selectively withdrawn from PC.

I was gonna simply report it with a thoughtful comment, but then decided that it might do more good to share my personal opinion publicly (and potentially receive other opinions of what we are or want to be):

I get it that piracy is normal or even necessary for certain demographics (inequality is quite bad even inside countries or districts 😔!). But I don't think we should risk skirting quite that far this line of permitted speech about content punishable by those who hold power in our globalized society. I don't believe these power structures or their very selective enforcement are fair. (Corporations scraping for AI training data being another egregious example of this, also undermining even more semblance of a rules-based society; On the other hand, I'm glad copyrights are far less strictly enforced in poorer countries (in my experience)).

I wouldn't mind the comment quite as much if the commenter were risking mentioning punishable activities in order to provide more substantive value to the community AND they were subtle about it. There is a time and place to fight the power, but I feel this comment would be as valuable without allusions to piracy.

Any thoughts?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Since I in this phase have rather low (work) capability, I will refrain from engaging to the degree I would wish with the core of the discussion, but accounting for that, I still want to add a bit of value I deem especially high:

First, I, too, want to praise everyone for such a civil, respectful and good-faith discussion of such a loaded and touchy topic 🥰! Especially considering this is the notorious internet! And to their credit, there are different perspectives what level of emotional expression is desirable in argumentation. Some believe that hiding one's feelings behind a over-intellectualized, seemingly-unbiased, impartial form of speech is quite dishonest and thus disrespectful.

Having learned a small bit about cooperative argumentation/discussion, I want to share some advice for having more informative and rewarding discussions:

• Defining terms. It sometimes gets called semantics and often gets skipped because it feels tedious and unrewarding. But a cooperative debate without it spends *a lot* of steam on half-nothing - leading to the realization that parties were misunderstanding each others point and a course-correction.


• Sharing your relevant context/background. Similarly to the previous point, our perspective on someone's arguments shifts noticeably when we realize where the argumentation partner is coming from. Way easier to front load it, rather than recalibrate the last X mins of input/understanding. E.g. knowing the context, you may want to tread more kindly and carefully in some subtopics due to their related difficult personal experience, or you may want to grant the other party more authority in some subtopics due to some of their past experiences, etc. It helps both parties guess at their own and each other's outlier biases as well. Now, this is a one comes with the caveat that - as with all vulnerability - it should be exercised to a mindful degree. Usually it should not be used with emotionally unsafe people (using it against you; spreading your intimate information) or in a permanently-public environment (like a public forum) where again it might be used by malicious agents. Train and trust your intuition.

Specific to this discussion, I agree with many things tuubi and eggrole said, but I was reluctant to "upvote" simply for my respect and partial agreements. Whereas my position aligned with Purple Library Guy's views much more completely. 2 small point I beg to differ in:

• I think the origin of a system (Enclosures for capitalism) doesn't bear much weight on judging the pros & cons of a system (which I felt we were discussing). Then again, it is not a universal that for me my moral beliefs permit temporary more-harm for longer lasting less-harm (which I rather don't believe capitalism to be). Devil is in the details.


• As for what pendulum swings the instability leads to: I broadly agree. I have taken to focusing less on the means (economic system) and more on the end goal (higher degrees of democracy(system for making collective decisions)) labeling things less as left=good right=bad (also because it adds to polarization, which is not the way to a better world imo). It is very debatable though whether a northern star or immediate next step is preferable as a public political focal point, seeing as getting an additional "and capitalism is very anti-democratic" into the public consciousness seems an uphill battle at best

Also I want to comment a bit on the topic of political agency, since I've notably thought and debated on it (if anyone is interested I can share a diagram, I've used to visually explain my stances with caveats noted):

• I agree that our tiny part in influencing governmental (or better yet international 🤩) policy is much more impactful than any individual action (e.g. incl. conscious consumerism aka voting with your wallet). I've come to believe that conscious consumerism and other lifestyle-choice-activism are mostly a means of distraction and polarization of the public (e.g. see BP's "carbon footprint" campaign). If only everyone were educated in the same ways as us, it might work to change the system. But we must take consensus and compromise-building as part of change-making not an immovable barrier to it. Yes, individual action has a non-zero effect - but every action also has an opportunity cost! I.e. same effort/time/money could be better spent on other methods.


• Exercising our right to democratic voting is a better entry-level means.


• Another highly approachable option would be having healthy arguments/discussions with various other people about the topics you care about, especially with people whom you disagree with (within your window of (discomfort) tolerance, ofc).


• And my third conclusion for methods of enacting political change has been, participating in collective action within the means of your privileges. Some people have been handed relevant skills and resources to even organize and carry banners whilst most should take pride in being a smaller cog in that social machine. Attending a protest about a movement/stance you care about is a very praiseworthy achievement!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BumadarValve should talk to Sony, if a hacker can do this (sorry its on X) [External Link] imagine what they can do together 😀

For anyone who cares and didn't know - there are a number of sites rehosting/mirroring content from Twitter/X (and some other popular, yet objectionable sites). E.g. replace x.com with nitter.net in the address bar (used to be a bit easier pre-Musk) like so: [nitter.net/theflow0/status/2030011206040256841](nitter.net/theflow0/status/2030011206040256841)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: eggrole

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: Mountain Man$150,000 seems too small of a penalty. They should have added another zero.

Even that isn't enough. Businesses like that have no right to exist. They should have seized the entire thing and shut them down.

I'm really torn over this. On one hand I'm pretty pro-capitalism

Quoting: eggroleWhy, oh why, did so many of us allow money worship to be such a central focus... :(

Yeah, I, too, used to think that consumerism (over-consuming/producing) or something is to blame for many of our society's woes. But over time I learned that capitalism is the system that incentivizes breaking any guardrails ("lobbying", illegal bribing, monopolization, public opinion manipulation, promoting polarization, promoting other kinds of distractions, destabilizing states) and if you add enough guardrails to stop that, there is nothing left to justify still calling it capitalism.

Capitalism is also inherently anti-democratic - those with more money/capital have much more of a say in society. And why do some people have more than others? Even if their recent-most earnings (of power) are by-the-rules (who made the rules? - the ruling class), the origins of those differences of capital (why they got a million loan from daddy and you didn't) always trace back to historical injustices and abuses of those who couldn't defend themselves.

In my country, the wealthiest people today - are those who were close to wealth in the 90s (buying up businesses and resources). Those who got wealthiest in the 90s - were those who stole the most public resources at the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And the people with best opportunities to steal - were those who were near power in the Soviet Union...

So capitalism isn't, strictly speaking, the feudalism of old (born into the status of your ancestors) but it might as well be feudalism in a trench coat and in those fake glasses with a mustache attached.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Yeah, sure the diehard privacy enthusiasts will move to self-hosted, the intermediates to Stoat or Matrix, but the vast majority will stay on Discord. Remember when Minecraft was bought by MS and then required XBOX Live accounts for signin? Most people didn't care, some complained, exceedingly few switched.

I think the solution could be to fund some privacy advocate group that would identify likely flash points of (privacy) enshittification and direct resources to preemptively making the open-source alternative comparably good enough (like OBS, Blender, Firefox). So that when there is a point of community lash back a clear outlet alternative exists, covering not 70% but 99% of use cases.

View this comment - View article - View full comments