partial_accumen

Both mod logs for the bans indicate one of the instance admins saw something I wrote elsewhere and banned me.

Ahh gotcha. They saw your activity on other instances and decided pre-emptively they didn’t want you there on their instances. Well, that’s their right, and I know both aggressively defend their communities.

I’m confused then. How did they ban you if you weren’t in there? If you were never there, how would you even know you were banned?

I’ve been banned from blahaj and beehaw for reasons I don’t agree with

Both those instances have very specific rules that they have established for the protection of their communities. If you go in their clubhouse I think its reasonable to abide by their rules, no matter your opinion on them. If you don’t like the rules for whatever reason, there’s no requirement to go to those instances. There are lots of other instances with are more laissez-faire in their approaches if thats your preferred interactions.

Your English was fine and your message clear. @[email protected] is choosing to take exception and believing you are belittling labor employment. I don’t see you doing what they are apparently saying. You are telling OP to experience labor to see if they like it as a career, and if they don’t they’ll know that so they can choose a different career path. Your suggestion is a good one.

Comfortable people can still have passions and drive.

Sure, but OP is comfortable and is citing their lack of passions and drive as a problem they want advice for. They’re asking for confirmation that its okay to have no passions/drives or for actions that will change that.

You don’t need to suffer to want something different.

Where @[email protected] is going here is that some temporary suffering may underscore with OP that they want something different than suffering which may act as motivation for them to choose a path to continue their easy lifestyle instead.

128-192 cores on a single epyc makes almost nothing worth it, the scaling is incredible.

Sure, which is why we haven’t seen a huge adoption. However, in some cases it isn’t so much an issue of total compute power, its autonomy. If there’s a rogue process running on one of those 192 cores and it can end up accessing the memory in your space, its a problem. There are some regulatory rules I’ve run into that actually forbid company processes on shared CPU infrastructure.

I suspect that instances outside the US will simply be too small a factor to bother with.

Aren’t the largest (by user population) Lemmy instances already located outside of the USA? .world is in the Netherlands, I believe. Sopuli.xyz in Finland, etc. Even Midwest.social is not hosted in the USA.

The other use case was for hosting companies. They could sell “5 servers” to one customer and “10 servers” to another and have full CPU/memory isolation. I think that use case still exists and we see it used all over the place in public cloud hyperscalers.

Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities are a good argument for discrete servers like this. We’ll see if a new generation of CPUs will make this more worth it.

Lisan al-Gaib!

The future is 12 years ago: HP Moonshot 1500

“The HP Moonshot 1500 System chassis is a proprietary 4.3U chassis that is pretty heavy: 180 lbs or 81.6 Kg. The chassis hosts 45 hot-pluggable Atom S1260 based server nodes”

source

Best we can do is 1099 with pre-ACA “swiss cheese” cover healthcare including pre-existing conditions. As for retirement savings, we’ll place 1% of your salary into our the trump memecoin, but it doesn’t actually vest until you turn 65 so you can’t sell it before hand. How does that sound?

This is the first post you haven’t been praising the 1950s as a better time for workers.

Isn’t at all, but you’re reading whatever you want into my posts. So keep on keeping on. 👍

Do I need to quote you back to yourself? Okay, these are your words:

“If you look at what many consider to be the golden age of American corporations after the second world war, the notion of a ‘company man’ was a celebrated one”

“but it’s worse now than it was in the – what I’m now calling the first – gilded age.”

I think we’ve hit the end of productive conversation between the two of us on this subject. I appreciate your conversation up to now. You’re welcome to keep going, but I won’t be responding on this thread anymore. I hope you have a great day!

I don’t understand what you’re trying to prove here to be honest. Of course there’s been shitty behavior all along.

This is the first post you haven’t been praising the 1950s as a better time for workers. Thats what I was trying to prove. All your prior posts were speaking nostalgically about the “better time” for workers in the 1950s. Besides a small set, it wasn’t better, and many times worse. Thats all.

My point is simple: corporations are a made-up concept and one of the main things people are supposed to get in the deal to allow them to exist in the first place is efficient allocation and utilization of human resources.

Efficient for the corporations. Not efficient for an individual.

It seems to me they are admitting that they cannot do that. In which case, the deal should be renegotiated.

Their goal isn’t your goal. There can be an argument made whether capitalism should exist, but under the current system they are behaving as capitalists. Workers welfare isn’t their primary goal, and in fact, only a goal at all as required by law (OSHA, DoL rules).

It wasn’t a utopia by any stretch, but in today’s economy Intel will openly celebrate laying people off and having less employees.

…and…

The wealth distribution wasn’t perfect, great, utopian, or even good during the entire history of the US, but it’s worse now than it was in the – what I’m now calling the first – gilded age.

You’re painting the 1950s as a better time for workers than today, and except for the white, male, white collar workers, I think your position is just fiction.

There were some bad things that were even worse in some cases happening back to lots of other groups (again besides white, male, white collar workers).

Things like:

• 1952 President Truman using the power of government to suppress wages of workers to keep the price of steel lower to fund the Korean war effort. source
• 1950, a record (for the time) 4843 work stoppages PDF source
• 1956 Whirlpool Tracking workers and firing any the exhibited “pro union” ideas source
• 1951 police jailing children of workers that were on a strike picket line source

I’m not defending corporations of today, I’m pointing out that there’s been shitty behavior all along. The 1950s were not a pro-worker era as you’re trying to paint it as…unless you were white, male, and white collared worker. If so, then yes, it was great.

In theory, it would allow them to reduce costs to compete better with rivals and sell more.

Selling more could mean lower profits over all. If you have to build out extra production capacity (new fixed costs) to create more product that you’re receiving a lower price on, then it could have been more profitable to sell fewer units but at a higher cost creating more profit.

Example: If you’re at 90% capacity on your $1 billion factory selling your product for high price/high profit, and you lower your price which increase sales by 20%, you now have to another $1 billion factory to product the 8% of product not producible at your first factory. You’ve now lost nearly $1 billon from your larger sales.

I blame bitlocker.

If you look at what many consider to be the golden age of American corporations after the second world war, the notion of a “company man” was a celebrated one, and companies bragged about how they treated their employees. In that era, unlike today’s, shedding employees was not seen as an achievement but rather either a necessary evil, or a sign that the company was going down the tubes.

You’ve got rose colored glasses on. This was only true if you were white, male, and a white collar worker.

At the same time for everyone else, employers were increasing working hours, reducing workplace safety, in exchange for higher worker wages:

“During the years when wages were rising, working conditions were deteriorating. Employers made up for higher wages by negotiating higher levels of output into union contracts. And the labor leaders–seasoned veterans of business unionism by the 1960s–were all too willing to comply. Time off in the form of vacations, coffee breaks and sick leave all fell victim to new work standards negotiated in the 1950s and 1960s, while automation, forced overtime and speedups allowed management to more than compensate for high wages. During the period from 1955 to 1967, non-farm employees’ average work hours rose by 18 percent, while manufacturing workers’ increased by 14 percent. In the same period, labor costs in non-farm business rose 26 percent, while after-tax corporate profits soared 108 percent. And during the period between 1950 and 1968, while the number of manufacturing workers grew by 28.8 percent, manufacturing output increased by some 91 percent.”

source

A buddy of mine bought an N64 with Super Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64 on launch day. We didn’t know that it would sell out so quickly. He worked at a retail store and got into talking to a customer about him having the N64. Apparently the guy was a father that was desperate to get an N64 for his kid. He offered to pay 4x what my buddy paid at retail. It was a lot of money for a young guy in his late teens. He sold it to the guy out of his trunk the next day for the cash. It would be 6 months before inventory returned in stores and he was able to rebuy an N64.