NixOS for self hosted is awesome! A few lines of code and you have set up a service on bare metal, without needing to think about dependencies. Just look at this beauty, OP:

  services.immich = {
    enable = true;
    host = "0.0.0.0";
    port = 2283;
    openFirewall = true;
  };

It is not just about deploying, which to be honest is great. I can build software for my Raspberry Potato on my desktop and remote deploy the config using one line in the terminal.

It is also for when I decide to tinker with my system by changing stuff like audio latency and clock rates for real time audio, USB HID overrides and so on. Normally I would be scared to break something, or worse, fix something without knowing what did it and thus learning nothing from my efforts.

The best part is having a system that you can approach almost scientifically, making it unbreakable in the sense that you can immediately revert to a true former state, both as a build and a config using GRUB and Git, respectively.

My worst dependency conflict was a libcurlssl error when trying to build on a precompiled base docker image.

Yea, totally agree. Was just messing around.

Differential geometry along with complex, real and functional analysis could perhaps be considered advanced calculus?

But NixOS is so cool though. I use NixOS btw

Higher difficulties are mostly for metagamers like me. No shame in doing a lower one and I frankly think doing a less optimized build more focused on the roleplay is more fun than the other way around. Do not listen to these people, do what is fun for you.

My most sincere tip would be not to spoil anything for yourself and just chill out exploring the game on your own. If that means explorer difficulty (it is literally in the name), who cares?

During years of studying mathematics I barely read contemporary works. This was because some old books are just really good and because most contemporary science relies on their foundations. If a book survives the test of time, the author probably did something right.

I have a friend who got diagnosed with ADHD and first received meds as an adult. They are definitely 100 % themselves and at the same time better functioning than before. Talk with your parents (or directly with your doctor). You will always start with a low dose with regular checkups. Have an honest conversation with yourself, your parents and your doctor about what you really are afraid of and if the risk has any basis in reality.

Removed by mod

No, you are at best basing your opinion on measured pain response in order to determine the level of pain experienced. Many animals have a measured pain reaction. You also know of your own experienced pain and assume it in other people and animals while excluding plants.

The first part is scientific and the second is not. The problem is that you are acting like your belief about how animals feel pain is qualitatively different from the above regarding plants.

We both know why you get agressive about it: You want to some extent anthropomorphize animals because you care about them, which is ok, but not scientific.

We cannot measure pain for neither plants nor animals. You presuppose the feelings of the animal while at the same time rejecting it for the plant when we really do not know.

Do they require a nervous system? Maybe. To what extent? We do not know.

Speaking from a pure maths’ perspective here: Frankly, a little bit. I think at the university research level, the academically inclined professors might be a bit tired to be sidelined with the applied ones, especially when the latter are applauded for their industrial cooperation (read research investments) and appliances (read private ownership over publicly funded research). My study mates and I joked about applied math being dirty, but in reality it is more the absence of creativity and rigor that is the problem with applied math in my opinion.

To me, math is all about answering cool questions, sometimes posing even cooler questions in the process. Maybe an appropriate analogy would be whether an artist judges those that make commercials. Exploratory work can take a life of their own that is usually not possible when the format of the answer is predefined. That being said, I do not really judge, I only think that the different expressions are (usually) quite distinct in direction and content. I did not do math for money, though I rely on my mathematical skills for income.

Mathematician here (algebraic topology). Pure maths is pretty much an internship in academia. Applied math is anything between basically physics to actuary and finance. Since pure math is highly academic, though, there is no predefined job path following a degree, which is why the question is as interesting as it is hard to answer.

In academia, we do weird and wonderful things that only a few peers in the world probably will see and understand, due to the highly specialized fields of study. In industry, anecdotally, we do surprisingly little math and are mostly sought for analytical skills and proficiency in problem solving.

Sadly, most people that hire us outside of academia do not know much math themselves. I believe there are lots of real problems that could benefit from having a mathematician working on them, but there is just too little understanding of mathematics to identify the need.

Yea, and by pressure you mean giving a big fat fuck you and sail the high seas? 🏴‍☠️

If it is just casual LLM stuff, just get something cheap with enough VRAM. Ollama runs with Vulkan now and on my 6700 XT I can run DeepSeek 7B just fine.

If we are to understand that the Chinese socialism is a process which inherently must navigate through flaws and imperfections of the material conditions it is dealt, then surely we much acknowledge the same of the western struggle.

We are, and we are analyzing the situation materially and historically in hope to arrive at a real understanding of the internal contradictions of either system. Historically, as you say, the capitalists use their privilege to exploit the rest of the world. When the crisis revolving around the internal contradictions become to great, they decay into fascism.

📍This is where we currently are with respect to the stages of the western capitalist cycle.

In reality there is nothing about the enshrinement of individual rights which requires or implies capitalism or imperialism, other than historical snapshot these things have been attached to.

Well no. Conversely the enshrinement of individual rights requires the absence of capitalism and imperialism, in favour of socialism. I am not saying that communism with Chinese characteristics is the only way to attain this, that would be stupid and contrasting our understanding of material reality.

I agree that the West is not only as much, but even more powerless to change its own capitalist mode of production due to the material reality. This is even more favouring the line of China in paving a new path for the betterment of all. Give the west a bit deepening of state of crisis, and it will be sure for all we are going to need it.

First of all, the advance of the bourgeois class cannot be separated from the industrial technological revolution in a historical materialist context.

With regards to

The dictatorship of the proletariat was a philosophical construct. Not a literalism. Industrialization has improved the material condition of every society that has been through it. It has nothing to do with left or right etc.

note that (quoting Wikipedia)

In philosophy, a construct is an object which is ideal, that is, an object of the mind or of thought, meaning that its existence may be said to depend upon a subject’s mind.

You are making a reductionist claim that the form is only ideal, which is untrue. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not ideal, it is material and can be analyzed as such, whether or not you agree on its ideal form.

The crux of your argument is that the industrial revolution and the bourgeois revolution has developed the productive forces, i.e. capital, and thus improved the material conditions of many people as a result. Even Marx agreed on this issue in the 1800s, remarking the absence of novelty of this idea. What you conveniently ignore is the exploitation that this development has inflicted upon every citizen outside the imperial core.

The nonsensical wording of

the petite bourgeoisie has always benefited more

than the proper haute bourgeoisie, is self explanatory for anyone understanding what the word “petite” means.

That

expansion or growth can never be infinite. Once that slows the proletariat is always the first victim of the bourgeoisie

is also not novel to any socialist worth their salt. However, this is more of a nod in the opposite direction of what you think, towards western countries currently undergoing a state of crisis.

I am not quite sure I agree that proclaiming a resolution to class struggle by taking political control over the means of production is sufficient to resolve internal contradictions. The statement regarding “basic political rights” however seem to imply that this in particular is ensured in liberal democracies, on which I definitely categorically disagree.

I spend one third of my life at work, one third sleeping and one third making myself ready for either. At work I have no “basic political rights”, not because I live in China, but because there is no democratic control over the mode of production in my liberal democracy.

I think that freedom ultimately necessitates equity, at the very least with regards to opportunities in life. In western countries, you pretty much only have the option to live subservient to the capitalist class. The political freedoms are hollow as long as political power is controlled by capital.

So what am I saying? That I believe a socialist society is the only one that can give any basic rights, and that in turn one must rephrase the question whether China has attained socialism to whether they are working to attain it. Then the situation of current worker’s rights become a question of whom their work serves.

To the victor goes the spoils, after all. Bear this in mind when you relativize the material conditions of Chinese workers to that of western ones, who historically directly benefitted on the exploitation of the former.

I think the argument is rather that the dictatorship of the proletariat is the proletariat taking political control over capital. The tankies, so to speak, recognize that this does not resolve all internal contradictions of society nor instantly improve the material conditions of said society.

What you might agree on is that:

1. The current world order is capitalist.
2. China was an extremely poor country that has improved the material conditions for their populace tremendously in a short time span.

Does this mean that worker’s rights are unimportant? No. However, I believe the political leadership prioritizes the development of productive forces over worker’s rights at this stage of development.

I also want to highlight the question of who benefits from this labour. If the proletariat is the class that benefits from their own work and the government has their popular support, is this really the red fash, authoritarian exploitation that the other comments and western media assume it to be?

This is just my flawed understanding, of course. There are probably many who can give better answers. Looking at the comment section at time of writing, I am not sure such an effort is deserved.