zapita (u/zapita) - Readit News

zapita commented on Dagger – portable CI/CD pipeline dagger.io/... · Posted by u/rammy1234

rurban · 4 years ago

can we get a short preview without having to ask for early access? a new language from Google, without the need to use incompatible yaml declarations? sounds just like the next incompatible declaration language, probably unrelated to googles dagger 2 (https://github.com/google/dagger)

zapita · 4 years ago

The language is CUE, it is a separate open-source project: https://cuelang.org

Dagger uses CUE but you can use CUE without Dagger.

zapita commented on LXC vs. Docker earthly.dev/blog/lxc-vs-d... · Posted by u/lycopodiopsida

chriswarbo · 4 years ago

> Docker became popular because it allows one to build, publish and then consume containers.

True, but Docker is an awful choice for those things (builds are performed "inside out" and aren't reproducible, publishing produces unauditable binary-blobs, consumption bypasses cryptographic security by fetching "latest" tags, etc.)

zapita · 4 years ago

> builds are performed "inside out"

Docker supports multi-stage builds. They are quite powerful and allow you go beyond the "inside out" model (which still works fine for many use cases).

> ...and aren't reproducible

You can have reproducible builds with Docker. But Docker does not require your build to be reproducible. This allowed it to be widely adopted, because it meets users where they are. You can switch your imperfect build to Docker now, and gradually improve it over time.

This is a pragmatic approach which in the long run improves the state of the art more than a purist approach.

zapita commented on Spotify is removing Neil Young’s music after falling out over Joe Rogan techcrunch.com/2022/01/26... · Posted by u/FinnKuhn

Chris2048 · 4 years ago

> Greenwald is a disgraced journalist turned professional provocateur.

Says who? He's unpopular (with the media), now he attacks the media; what gets to decide he's "disgraced"?

zapita · 4 years ago

I regret using the term “disgraced” because it’s hard to assess objectively as you point out, and superfluous to my argument, which is that 1) he is wrong in those quoted tweets, and 2) he is a polarizing figure who is not known for his objectivity and therefore, quoting his factually wrong statement as only evidence does not support the argument presented here.

zapita commented on Spotify is removing Neil Young’s music after falling out over Joe Rogan techcrunch.com/2022/01/26... · Posted by u/FinnKuhn

gjsman-1000 · 4 years ago

You clearly forgot about Russiagate. The claim that Trump was colluding with Russia was all over the news for over a year with constant coverage every day. The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham.

That was a huge, huge pie-in-the-sky take. The media is absolutely not above their own lunacy. Green Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about Snowden, agreed that it was "this generation's WMDs in terms of media malfeasance."

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1459242600179933190

My point is that the media is absolutely capable of getting things immensely wrong on incredible magnitude.

zapita · 4 years ago

> You clearly forgot about Russiagate. The claim that Trump was colluding with Russia was all over the news for over a year with constant coverage every day.

That coverage was accurate. There was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

It is clearly described here for example: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0126

> The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham.

This is false and you provide no evidence for it.

> Green Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about Snowden, agreed that it was "this generation's WMDs in terms of media malfeasance."

Greenwald is a disgraced journalist turned professional provocateur. I’m not surprised that you have to resort to quoting him to support an argument as ridiculous as “Russiagate was pie-in-the-sky”. You might as well quote Tucker Carlson.

> https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1459242600179933190

This references two Washington Post articles which have been corrected. The correction was specific to the identity of one source in the famous Steele dossier which made some of the more outlandish and salacious claims in the dossier. There is no other retraction. In particular none of the facts of the dossier are retracted. In any case, the FBI has since conducted their own investigation and published their findings. As far as I know the FBI has not retracted those findings and the press has not retracted any reporting on those findings. So what exactly are you talking about when you mention “dozens of retracted stories”? Where is your evidence?

zapita commented on Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics amc.sas.upenn.edu/francis... · Posted by u/edu

roenxi · 4 years ago

While I disagree at some level with most of what you've written, I think the most egregious point is that nothing that you wrote is linked to the conclusion you draw.

1) There are reasons other than white nationalism for political parties to play politics with voting laws. It is overwhelmingly likely that these changes target Democrat voters rather than minority voters.

2) If this is the best a party of white nationalists can manage - marginal changes to try and tip tight elections in their favour - then the situation seems to seem very much under control from the perspective of all the non-white non-nationalists. It is hardly a defining policy.

zapita · 4 years ago

> 1) There are reasons other than white nationalism for political parties to play politics with voting laws.

I referred to a very specific piece of legislation for a reason. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is, to quote Wikipedia, “a landmark piece of federal legislation in the United States that prohibits racial discrimination in voting”. It is the direct result of Martin Luther King Jr marching against Jim Crow laws in the south. Supporting it was a no-brainer Republican policy as recently as 2006 (the last time all its provisions were re-authorized).

In other words, the VRA is no ordinary law: it is the quintessential anti-Jim Crow law. When the modern Republican party took the unprecedented step of removing these protections against Jim Crow laws, they effectively made themselves the champions of Jim Crow - the champions of white nationalism.

> It is overwhelmingly likely that these changes target Democrat voters rather than minority voters.

No, it absolutely is not. Civil rights organization like the NAACP and SPLC systematically challenge these laws on the grounds that they are disguised racial discrimination - and they win. The problem is that the legal process takes too long and enforcement is easily dodged by the states. This is why the VRA was crucial: it required federal pre-approval of voting laws, and allowed proper enforcement against states that persisted in racial discrimination.

This is not only well documented legislative fact, it is actually tought in History class. It is mind-boggling to me that it is even a point of debate. The only excuse for your argument is ignorance.

> 2) If this is the best a party of white nationalists can manage - marginal changes to try and tip tight elections in their favour - then the situation seems to seem very much under control from the perspective of all the non-white non-nationalists. It is hardly a defining policy.

Large scale voter suppression is a serious matter. MLK and countless other Americans shed blood marching to secure the VRA, and now their work is undone. That is a grave threat to our democratic institutions. I am optimistic that the white nationalists will lose, but it will be a difficult and uncertain fight ahead.

But you tell me. Assuming you vote for Republicans: what do you believe they stand for beyond white nationalism? And how do you reconcile your support with their efforts to undo legislation that Martin Luther King Jr fought for?

zapita commented on Francis Fukuyama – Against Identity Politics amc.sas.upenn.edu/francis... · Posted by u/edu

uejfiweun · 4 years ago

I hate identity politics as much as the next guy, but I think a lot of Fukuyama's takes here are pretty bad. He repeatedly paints massive groups with a large and indiscriminate brush. For instance:

"The right seeks to cut off immigration altogether and would like to send immigrants back to their countries of origin."

Uh, what? The United States is a nation of immigrants and we all know it. I don't think anyone wants to send immigrants back, it would be illegal and unconstitutional as well as impossible. Now, restricting ILLEGAL immigration on the other hand? Yes, basically everyone on the right supports this. But not wanting illegal immigration is literally on the other side of the map from not wanting any immigration at all and sending back immigrants.

I don't lend much credence to this guy anyway, considering that he thought history ended in 1992, as other comments have mentioned. But I think just as important as identity politics is defining the opposing side by the worst ideas of its supporters. For example, defining Democrats by "defund the police", or defining Republicans as the party of "white nationalism". There are tons of people on both sides who don't believe in this crap and are dedicated to the core ideals of economic prosperity for all and expansion of opportunities. Tuning these crazies out would go a long way to calming down the discourse in this country, but I don't think essays like this really help the situation.

zapita · 4 years ago

> For example, defining Democrats by "defund the police", or defining Republicans as the party of "white nationalism".

This is a false equivalence.

On the one hand, the Democratic party has unequivocally rejected “defund the police” on multiple occasions. First in the 2020 primary by electing a presidential candidate who explicitly rejected the slogan, and continues to do so as president; then by excluding it from its platform altogether; and most recently by a nearly unanimous bipartisan vote in the senate to denounce the slogan. So the record is quite clear that Democrats do not in fact stand for “defund the police” beyond a loud minority.

On the other hand, Republican senators have unanimously refused to renew the Voting Rights Act, which until 2006 enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support. The VRA is one of the enduring legacies of the civil rights movement and has been a bulwark in protecting Black citizens in particular from disenfranchisement in the southern states. This is evidenced by the fact that, since the VRA has lapsed, virtually all Republican-controlled states have resurrected the same sweeping restrictions on the right to vote that MLK and others marched against. Let’s not even get into the January 6 attack on the capitol which was instigated and carried out by openly white supremacist organizations and which, to this day, the Republican party refuses to denounce, probably because so many of its own leadership is directly implicated.

So, yes, the Republican party is now defined by white nationalism. This is an established fact, and you being uncomfortable with it does not make it less true.

zapita commented on Parler Raises $20M axios.com/social-media-ap... · Posted by u/lxm

seattle_spring · 4 years ago

Considering it's still dead simple to become inundated with far right opinions and conspiracy theories on twitter, it's a bit of a stretch to claim it's "left-twitter."

Just because the most egregious and dangerous stuff from one side gets deleted does not mean it's a place only for the polar opposite.

zapita · 4 years ago

“left-twitter” simply designates a subcommunity within twitter. I don’t think OP meant that Twitter as a whole leans left. Many people have an opinion on that topic, but in reality it’s hard to know for sure as Twitter is very large.

zapita commented on How Y Combinator Changed the World wired.com/story/how-y-com... · Posted by u/philonoist

edouard-harris · 4 years ago

Sincere question: what would one use to measure success in such a world?

zapita · 4 years ago

Aggregate human suffering.

Note: I don’t particularly agree with GP.

zapita commented on Cloudflare Pages goes full stack blog.cloudflare.com/cloud... · Posted by u/samwillis

nevikashah · 4 years ago

Right now, you can only create a project through GitHub/GitLab. However, being able to upload your pre-built assets directly to Pages is something we are working on now! Listen out for updates!

zapita · 4 years ago

Thanks. This makes Pages a non-starter for me. I look forward to trying it with direct upload!