Nobody should be using steamos on a non-steam-deck so I don’t really see it mattering much, I basically never use desktop mode.

That’s true but ultimately doesn’t matter, 30% of a country revolting is typically enough for a revolution. Even if they try this, which, there isn’t much incentive for them because they can have whatever they want, people will rapidly revolt.

Agi? Yes. Nothing economically makes sense in a post-agi world. Who would pay anyone for anything in such a world? it is a post-scarcity economy, nobody can do anything of economic value because the ai can do it better in every way, then everyone gets resources rationed to them and they can live their life however they wish.

You would no longer need one?

Did you actually analyze the likelihood or did you just assume good things never happen?

Would you have said the same if antibiotics were invented now?

Look, most of the time good things don’t happen but what’s the point of saying that, congrats you’re right 80% of the time or more.

Network drives are a legitimate painpoint, luckily kde just got over a mil to work on network drives in particular, this will be a solved problem soon.

https://news.tuxmachines.org/n/2026/05/13/KDE_Receives_Over_1M_from_Sovereign_Tech_Fund_for_Software_Deve.shtml

i will say using a network drive makes you not an average user though.

This is a problem for all politicians not exclusively communist ones. At least the communist ones are saying the right things, even if they’re lying, the important thing is that they’re held accountable for their lies.

The question is irrelevant, we should get as close as possible, and certainly enslaving people is no way to get there. you would have to be insane to not have utopia as the ultimate goal of political power, even if it is unachievable it should obviously be the goal.

This really isn’t trua anymore with immutable kde distros, everything really does just work. You have to relearn some things but that’s a fundamental issue with switching to anything, the recent ltt experiment confirms pretty much the only thing that’s missing at this point is anticheat and it’s the year of the linux desktop. I feel like your stance was valid a few years ago.

Is there a reason one should care? The only engines I know are of any interest are UE and godot

That’s the link below my post.

They do not care about implementing communism genuinely, it’s a propaganda tactic, you are aware politicians lie, right? This is akin to saying “I’m in the party of building an egalitarian utopia!” And then immediately enslaving half the population. Then you announce actually utopia is bad because this guy is bad. You would have to be an incredible fool to take their word for it and not look at their actions. To think that you think this is an anticommunist gotcha and not a clear case of lying to the public is embarrassing on your part.

The only problem with this thing is the damn d-pad, it seems.

Literally the opposite of the definition laid out by marx but I think you’re trying to be funny and failing

That’s literally the definition of communism. Where does enslaving people make sense? It contradicts with “classless” no?

No federation, not interested

https://github.com/orgs/fluxerapp/discussions/703 once they add it call me though

A stateless, classless, currencyless society in which the workers own the means of production.

where does it fit?

I could say that they experience negative feedback when given a thumbs down and positive feedback when given a thumbs up which is something akin to a conscious experience.

Consciousness does not in any way presuppose that humans are special, but it is a property of the configuration of physical systems where matter is arranged in a particular way to produce patterns that constitute internal experience.

the part that presumes we are special is the notion that not everything that reacts to something is conscious, in philosophy there is a notion of a philosophical zombie that does all the things a conscious being does and is therefore indistinguishable from one but doesn’t have any internal experience. I believe that the ability to react IS a conscious experience and that such a being is impossible because consciousness does nothing and means nothing beyond an ability to react to stimulus. We say computers aren’t conscious, but they react to stimulus if setup properly, I ask how that’s meaningfully different. You’ll say “because in decides if we care whether it suffers” to which I say we shouldn’t decide whether we care about the suffering of a being on the basis of something that has no physical or measurable ramifications on the world and should use a better, well defined framework. This same line of thinking lead people to the notion that there is no such thing as insect suffering and is just a bad way of looking at the world.

While we don’t have a definitive model for what consciousness is, there are definitely compelling arguments on the subject, and the book I linked earlier from the author clearly demonstrates that he has thought about this subject more than you have.

maybe he has in his book but he should’ve put them in the article, and of course we don’t have a model for that, so he should’ve put whatever his model is for it before he started talking about it, that way we can both understand what he means. This is done in for example, cladisticss papers because there’s no definition of a species that everyone agrees on. As it stands there’s no way to discern what he even means thus leaving the argument incoherent.

You just keep repeating how Ted Chiang hasn’t proven his case definitively, which he has not, but you’ve provided zero counter agument of your own.

i’m not providing a counter argument, because there’s no argument to counter. I haven’t thought about this because I think that consciousness is completely unimportant, I don’t think it is a meaningful term, it is spiritual woohoo nonsense where we try to make ourselves special by pre-supposing we are special and that this isn’t just a property of any mechanism with enough inputs that outputs a response.

the real problem I am facing with his article is that it didn’t accomplish what he claimed at all, he didn’t move the conversation forward and claims to have solved it definitively.

“What he’s saying is that it seems rather implausible that we’d skip all the stages of development and jump straight to consciousness which is a reasonable position to hold.”

i don’t see any reason to think that you need to go through those particular steps, they seem unneccessary and egregious. The author doesn’t know what consciousness is at all so they can only assume one way to do it. If that’s their point it could’ve been said in one sentence and adds nothing to the discussion.

“Nowhere is he saying he would just never believe it no matter what either.” he didn’t give a reasonable way to falsify the claim which ultimately amounts to saying “nah I just don’t think so”

“Why wouldn’t anyone ever do the steps of actually creating a proper feedback loop which would have some basis for consciousness?” They would, what you said is vastly more reasonable than what the author wrote, but even then, you wouldn’t know if you ended up with something conscious or not. None of the steps listed actually require subjective experience.

basically the author added nothing to the conversation, they went “i don’t really know what consciousness is but whatever it is llm’s aren’t it because they’re different from me and I’m the only thing I know is conscious.”

and in fact that’s an adequate summary of the article, if they wanted to make a good one they’d first need to define consciousness and continue using that definition, since they didn’t define it they’re free to say whatever they want and it’s essentially meaningless