FWIW both of these books were written about western societies. 1984 was about Orwell’s experience writing propaganda for the BBC during WW2. Oceania is explicitly modeled on the U.S. + Britain; “air strip one” is his tongue-in-cheek name for the British isles. Fahrenheit 451 is based on the second red scare and McCarthyism in the U.S. It’s explicitly set in America, and the inspiration for it was actual calls to ban books in the U.S.
They not only could happen here, they did happen here. It’s a testament to the power of propaganda that people view them as a hypothetical rather than as a lightly fictionalized documentary where the countries were changed to prevent the authors from going to jail.
"As only Orwell could, he marked the BBC as he left – almost prissily: ‘I feel that I have been treated with the greatest generosity and allowed very great latitude…on no occasion have I been compelled to say on air anything that I would not say as a private individual.’"
That page does not seem to support the claim that 1984 is about or relates to his time at BBC.
The recent HN front-page post linked to Asimov's review of 1984—Asimov claimed it was Stalinism through and through (writing the review in 1980, FWIW).
So asking an LLM to work from memory will get you the general vibe of the thing from sources. The vibe as a vibe is actually very useful! It's a new variant of counting google hits for a term. But it doesn't really tell you more than that; and you can't treat it as fact.
Same as with a smart person working from memory. They're smart, and their memory is good, but they could misremember after all. [1]
If you ask your LLM to execute a search for you, congrats, you're one step further, now it can summarize the search results for you. But now you're back at the point you were before LLMs existed and we all relied on google. Just because google says something, doesn't mean it's true.
Now both you and the LLM need to go work through the sources and figure out what's actually going on.
The "ChatGPT says it's clearly absurd..." is missing the word "...because..." , and roughly a paragraph of support
[1] (Before you complain: I'm not anthropomorphizing. You're anthropocentrizing! )
I don't think anyone minds if you use an LLM to try to track down information like this. But the LLM's output is not what we want. That's merely a clue for you on your quest to find a proper source.
Even school children in the 90s were told that "the search engine" was ludicrous to give as a source. You should know that your LLM is the same.
Those events and times inspired those books, but they didn't actually happen in those countries.
There is a core message about the nature of not just ingsoc but the other governments of the world as well, and their relationship with each that gets left out when talking about 1984. The overbearing surveillance capital state is all people think about, that's part of it, but why that state exists, the motivations of it's leadership, the sheer and terrifying brilliance of the architecture of their government. in many ways, I'm glad the leaders of major countries and political movements don't grasp 1984 well (or at all).
But I agree that in 1948, Orwell's frustration and experience was not just that there was a world war, but that it was the second one in his life time. War-time mentality does approximate the levels of repression he mentions in the book, but in any country, it doesn't quite get there. But it could!
That's the scary part, things like "facecrime" weren't possible in 1984, now not only is it possible, it can be done without humans being involved too much. We have all the surveillance, more than he could have even imagined. But not only that, we have the means to analyze all the surveillance data in real time and do something about it. The capability to implement a world much worse than the one in 1984 exists. The villains of our times and the people they rule over just haven't managed to negotiate the imagination and sophistication of a strategy to abuse it yet.
This is what I mean. just random people are doing the spying parts already. [SPOILER] a very similar scene is in 1984, except with the government behind the cams.
While it’s true that the day-to-day misery and bureaucratic absurdity of 1984 were heavily shaped by Orwell's time at the BBC, he primarily wrote the novel as a cautionary warning against the rise of totalitarianism and the dangers of a centralized, surveilled state.
Having witnessed the horrors of Nazi Germany, the rise of Stalinist Russia, and the Spanish Civil War, Orwell wanted to expose the mechanisms of oppression and propaganda.
Eh, orwell got his fare share of socialisation with socialism in spain and became a ardent anti-communist (more anti-totalitarian after seeing what this "experiment was all about" when it betrayed the anarchists).
Its like animal farm a staunch criticism of the communist experiment and the societies it would form. The history rewritting was actually a typical socialist society pehnomena, going so far that china basically erased its whole past permanently. Its a incredible young country (barely 70 years old) and had to reimport a ton of its culture from taiwan!
Orwell lived through the hyper akward year, where hitler and stalin where allies and best friends - and thus saw the moscow controlled part of the international defending facists as best friends for a year, right after they stabbed the anarchists in the back in spain.
The Spanish civil war turned him into a socialist. His anti-stalin/anti-Soviet streak was in no way anti-communist. perhaps you shouldn't be so weasel-y with your wording.
Nope. He was unapologetically socialist before his involvement in the Civil War, and that conflict actually did make him anti-communist, and an anti-authoritarian. Socialism of the kind Orwell supported and communism of the kind we have seen in the world are two very different things.
For those reading who are curious on which comment is accurate, I would encourage you to read up on it to confirm for yourself. It's a highly fascinating subject to read about.
Another thing the Spanish Civil War did make Orwell was a hardcore realist.
june 1937, in a letter to Cyril Connolly, written in Barcelona during the Civil War;
>‘I have seen wonderful things and at last really believe in Socialism, which I never did before.’
He was a libertarian socialist at various points, sure, but you're painting him as something he wasn't. He was avowedly a socialist throughout most of his adult life even if he wasn't playing patty-cake with the Trots and the MLs and various other 20th century Euro-centric leftist revolutionary groups
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
― George Orwell, 1984 (2026?)
Just wait until the AI "layer" gets fast enough to rewrite the web in real time. Text, Photos, Videos, even real time phone calls will soon be in the grasp of the corporations. Forever locking us into our own personal prisons, controlled silos of information perfectly crafted and tailored to extract the maximum value where truth is not just hard to know but is imposable to know.
My original comment was just a counterpoint to the doom in parent: not all is lost, and in fact, quite a lot is not.
The situation of “things we care about are far away and require intermediaries to connect with” and “our ability to trust intermediaries is gone” are both human creations, and totally addressable.
Brave New World always gets overlooked. I understand why we gravitate towards 1984, however it sure seems like we are much closer to BNW. What is TikTok (read: all of the addictive parts of the internet/smartphones) if not a gramme?
Atlas Shrugged (and the fountainhead) is like a superhero comic book where the almighty good guys fight the flat, faceless "bad guys" with pure and fully justified moral righteousness. The "bad guys" are a slobbering caricature of a boogeyman that everyone can easily despise - wanting to do nothing except take from others like a bridge troll or a grey goo disaster scenario.
Nothing wrong with that I suppose but the second someone implies it has something to say about real life capitalists or social welfare or anything else then it gets weird; that makes as much sense as any of the marvel movies helping you decide how to vote for exactly the same reason.
I expect it's for this reason you're being downvoted - these books are often used as a motte and baily to imply something about real life (or often to ironically excuse their own selfish/bad behavior) and they just don't hold up for that in my opinion.
Probably because the author was an insufferable person and that that very book was part of the basis for (not "twisted") her inhumane and pretentious pseudo-philosophical spin on libertarianism?
> If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
I think it's the idea of the boot that is stamping on this human face. We're in an open society, 1984 makes up for a good contrast that pushes us in the right direction.
I feel that way everytime I go for a walk in a well populated neighborhood, and there's nobody around. Or at work hearing about how people spend hours with their glowing walls of faces that talk endlessly about nothing, they say soon the faces will be able to talk back to!
“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Having said that, there is nothing there that isn't public information. I guess the CIA's name added some weight but this could easily be published by any public institution interested in foreign affairs.
Brunhilde Pomsel, Joseph Goebbels’s former personal secretary, said something like "even when we heard about atrocities, we didn't believe it, because come on, Germany was the most civilized, most developed country in the world, we couldn't do such things".
But these are publications written by the CIA. Factbook was a name given to the book by the CIA, nobody is banning facts, that's just what they called it. It presumably just doesn't make sense anymore for the CIA maintain an encyclopedia, and I'm surprised they haven't sunset the program sooner.
I think the lament is the rise of the "facts are the enemy" stance is a step towards dystopia.
I recently learned that if we converted all the land we use to grow corn for ethanol (not food) into solar farms the US would produce 84% more energy than it currently produces (from all sources) [1]. Of course that's a huge undertaking, but we're not even talking about it because pesky things like facts are swept aside in lieu of punchy counters like: panels are expensive (they're not), we don't have the land (we do), what about the batteries (solved problem with today's--let along tomorrow's tech), the corn best doesn't get enough sun (it does), etc.
Real reason to remove the facts and archive of the records is so that they're not cited in deportation litigation and government lawyers don't have to argue against the facts the government holds true
Did we read the same book? Wasn't Winston fixing historical records? Sure he just directly rewrote them, but that's not a job. A job makes it look like you aren't fudging the numbers. But the result is the same.
The CIA has a long history of lying with statistics to push political agendas. Who remembers the "war on drugs" or LA in the 90s? I don't recall seeing CIA working with contras in the duckbook.
That's because it's a tool of propaganda. It's not suitable for the current restructuring so they got rid of it.
One only believe it's useful insofar as the people in power reward you for believing it. Regardless of what you believe for example writing the word stable next to a country doesn't make it so. It's a common misconception people have about religion.
There is always a tradeoff. For the utility gained by the factbook you carry increasing cognitive dissonance. You are stuck in a system radically reinterpreting labels, becoming increasingly brittle and cruel.
It was certainly one perspective that was valuable to have: I imagine everybody understood that it was by CIA (it was in the name!) with everything that implies even with "fact" in the name.
There were still actual facts in there, and when there was controversial stuff, you knew that it was coming in with US-tinted glasses, so if that supported with any claim an "adversarial" point, you could trust it to be true (eg. if it confirmed rising GDP and per-capita increase for China and matched Chinese figures, you'd be fine trusting it).
Everyone ran towards this Brave New World based on media fueled populism.
To me religion isn't Christianity or Islam. It's following orders of arbitrary leaders who give themselves titles via narrative. Priest, Minister, CEO, General... just words.
Provenance such as "this is what I want to do with my life" are poor justification for enabling it.
> To me religion isn't Christianity or Islam. It's following orders of arbitrary leaders who give themselves titles via narrative. Priest, Minister, CEO, General... just words.
Religion = doing what your boss told you. Got it, that makes sense why so many people are religious.
That's better, but it's still wrong, because there are plenty of organized belief systems whose leaders don't demand blind loyalty. To say that these don't qualify as religions is absurd.
You could say that one of the elements of religion is having faith in something that is not provable via the scientific method and I'd agree. But then you'd lose generals, managers, politicians, etc... from the list above in which case the comment has lost its meaning.
I'd actually go a step further: even science and scientific method require a sort of "faith" that the underlying assumptions (axioms of formal logic and algebra at the very least) are true.
The core difference is that science invites questioning those unprovable assumptions, whereas religion usually does not (and sometimes forbids it as part of the canon).
"Do what we say or lose your income" does require blind faith in the correctness of the hierarchy. The business model and whether or not useful work is being done or if the biological is just shuffling capital around as political rules allow.
It requires ignoring management is just another random person, wielding fiat authority. Physics has not imbued them with special properties. It's allegiance to made up semantics.
> "Do what we say or lose your income" does require blind faith in the correctness of the hierarchy.
That just describes anyone who worked under management. Recognizing that you may be fired for disobeying orders != believing that your manager is physically special.
How do you define blind faith and informed faith? Can't you conceive of someone who follows orders without blindly believing in them?
You seem to have this caricature of an XSXJ in your mind but your definition is so broad it lumps the majority of the world into it, and that's what I'm calling you out on.
This drips of sarcasm. While the parent comment is low quality, it can be seen as merely noise. your comment actively makes this site toxic. Please refrain from such comments in the future.
I think it’s satire, not sarcasm. Mocking sycophant but ultimately hollow AIs, by imitating them. And, in the end, concurring with GP. Highlighting both the ways in which GP is correct, and filling in the gaps in implementation between the originally proposed dystopia, and the one we actively find ourselves marching towards.
I disagree with this. I think the comment was perfect quality. As we are slowly sinking into totalitarianism in the US, you will understand that this "noise" was in fact the signal you should have been listening to.
Forgive me, my bar is high, but I tend to agree with you. I didn’t have a good way to indicate that I find value in a small number of comments like these without potentially undermining my greater desire to avoid toxic comments here.
With limited resources, sometimes practicality needs to win. Kudos to Bruce for putting aside his (valid) feelings on the subject and doing what is best for the team and community overall.
I haven't done LFS since my tweens (and I'm almost 30 now), but I remember the sysvinit portion amounted to, past building and installing the init binary, downloading and extracting a bunch of shell scripts into the target directory and following some instructions for creating the right symlinks.
Obviously, you can go and check out the init scripts (or any other individual part of LFS) as closely as you wish, and it is easier to "see" than systemd. But I strongly protest that sysvinit is either "Linux" (in that it constitutes a critical part of "understanding Linux" nor that it's really that understandable.
But setting aside all of that, and even setting aside the practical reasons given (maintenance burden), when the majority of "Linux" in the wild is based on systemd, if one wanted to do "Linux From Scratch" and get an idea of how an OS like Debian or Fedora works, you would want to build and install systemd from source.
For me, Linux From Scratch is not about compiling linux from scratch, but on building up an entire Linux distro from the ground up, understanding how every piece fits together.
Doing it via systemd is like drawing a big black box, writing LINUX on the side, and calling it a day.
You are necessarily working with very big blocks when you're doing this, anyway. You don't do a deep dive on a whole bunch of other topics in LFS, because otherwise the scope would become too big.
That's what I was trying to get at -- yes, you can say that sysvinit is easier to understand than systemd, and less of a black box. But, even still, a "real Linux distribution" is full of these black boxes, especially the closer you get to being able to run "real applications". I'd argue that once you get into full desktop seat management, you add so much complexity on top of sysvinit that the difference narrows...
Which is why I asked "learn about what stuff". I think if the goal is to learn about "Unix" or OS design/ideas, you're better off with a leaner, "pedagogical" OS, like xv6. If the goal is to piece together an OS and really understand each piece, I don't think you really want sysvinit. You want something closer to an /etc/rc.local that just kicks off a few daemons and hopes for the best.
You can argue that sysvinit makes a better "compromise" between usability and clarity, and I'd entertain that idea, but then I think dinit is far easier to understand than sysvinit. And of course, at that point you can shave yaks till you fill the bike shed with wool.
Realistically, as much as people may hate it, if you have to pick a single init to standardize on for clarity and "building an entire Linux distro from the ground up, understanding how every piece fits together", systemd is the most rational choice. It's the most representative of the ecosystem, and requires the least "extra layers" to make the "desktop layer" work.
"best" meaning the best decision the LFS team can make given their limited, unpaid time and resources. They feel maintaining guides for two parallel init systems is unsustainable even though they would prefer not to have systemd as the only option.
The actual best decision would be to stick with his principles and make LFS be sysvinit-only instead, with zero fucks given about Gnome/KDE if they refuse to play ball.
I for one will not be strong armed into systemd or any other tech. If KDE makes it impossible for me to run without systemd, it goes into the trash bin. I will just install Trinity (KDE3) and be done with it. (Gnome deserves no consideration whatsoever.)
I will soon be releasing a distro that is free of systemd, wayland, dbus, and other troublesome software. It is built starting from LFS in 2019, and now consists of over 1,500 packages, cross compiling to x86-32/64, powerpc32/64, and others if I had hardware to test. It's built entirely from shell scripts which are clean, organized, and easy to read.
I need help to get the system ready for release in 60-90 days. In particular, I need a fast build system, as my current 12+ year old workstation is too slow. Alpha/beta testers are welcome too. Anyone who wants to help in some way or hear more details, please get in touch:
The difference is that the people who designed X11 were honest in their intentions. The authors of systemd, wayland, etc are not. I'll just leave it at that.
(I recommend staying far away from "X11libre" also, for the same reason, with no further comment.)
Monolithic stuff is OK too, where it makes sense. The kernel is monolithic. ZFS is monolithic.
(Yes, this system has ZFS support. The module is built in to the kernel. In time it will support booting from ZFS also, when I finish the initrd code.)
There is a clear, solid reason for everything this system is or does. I'm not a contrarian or a purist, just someone with opinions gained from long experience who is not happy with the direction mainstream Linux is headed. My system is a zen garden of bliss compared to buggy garbage like Ubuntu.
Really, it's like someone added a turbo button. Ubuntu and friends are so bloated, laggy, and slow. I regularly use this system on 15-20+ year old hardware. The default window manager is Enlightenment e16. It's snappy and responsive everywhere.
KDE, Xfce, etc are supported also and are noticeably peppier than on mainstream distros, just due to the lack of bloat, gazillions of daemons running in the background, etc. Out of the box, nothing runs by default. You enable only what you want.
Another inviolable principle is that no application is allowed to originate or receive network traffic unless the user specifically requests it. There is ZERO network activity going on in the background. None of this steady stream of who knows what contacting who knows where that goes on with other systems. No auto update etc. No internet required or used during the system build. Python module installs do not consult the central repository or download anything. Meson or cmake does not download anything. Etc. All that's patched out and disabled.
It's a distro that is meant to be forked. It's very easily done. It's a blank slate, a vanilla Linux system with subtle and tasteful improvements that is the ideal starting point to customize to your exact specifications. If you want to add in systemd and wayland, fine, I don't care, it's your system and you can build it according to your desires. People can use this platform to build their own custom OS and save themselves a ton of work vs. starting completely from scratch.
It's a system that can be audited. Everything is built with shell scripts, starting with source archives and patches that are applied during the build process. It's all inspectable and the process can be understood step by step.
It's a way to hit the ground running with a full featured, working system, while learning in the process. This distro will teach you what LFS would teach you, but with less of a "sheer cliff face" learning curve, letting you focus more on higher aspects of building the system while still learning the low level details in time.
The build is actually overall simpler than LFS despite being way more featured, with things like Ada support. (Yes, it has GNAT.) I just found a way to do it better, and kept iterating countless times to simplify and improve to the max.
Existing systems did not satisfy my requirements or standards of quality, so I just had to create a new one.
> The difference is that the people who designed X11 were honest in their intentions. The authors of systemd, wayland, etc are not. I'll just leave it at that.
Leave it at what? How is Wayland not honest about it's intentions? It is completely transparent about the motivation behind the project. Whether you agree with the motivations is different, and thats fine to disagree with a project.
However there hasn't been a scenario where Wayland haven't been honest.
Yes, I am ignoring your side comments about systemd because I was asking about Wayland, and mixing the two together implies that you are just complaining about the new, rather than technical/architectural reasons.
(Plus I have to ask as "killthe.net" doesn't come up with anything)
Send me an email and I'll be happy to explain further, to whoever asks. I don't want to clutter up this thread with a bunch of arguing that will surely result, as the focus here is just on "going our separate ways" rather than throwing barbs at anyone, or causing more hard feelings.
People who like software that I don't personally like may continue to use it of course, with this system also even, it's just that it won't be in the official repository is all. But as the whole thing is designed and encouraged to be forked, that shouldn't be too much of a burden if someone likes other aspects of the system and wants to maintain their own 'systemd/wayland' version.
I got rid of dbus in GTK3 by patching the code so that the "accessibility bridge" (to ATK) can be disabled. GTK4 is beneath contempt and will not be supported.
The system uses GTK2 wherever possible, or GTK3 when not. I will either port everything to GTK2 later or create some kind of shim library. Help wanted here. Porting back to GTK2 isn't hard, I just don't have time to work on any of that at the moment.
Note that GTK 3.24.43 is the last version of GTK3.
My system is full of patches like this to tweak, improve, and adjust things. The point is to get off the "upgrade" treadmill and focus on making things work right.
Just to be clear, I did not write these patches, but have collected many like this via scouring the net. I think I did make the ATK one though.
If you'd like to be an alpha/beta/release tester of this system, hit me up via email please. I'll start with an initial closed alpha release here in a month or so, if there's interest.
Now for the donation drive: I have plenty of time and a stable situation to work on this system, but the one drawback is I have little funds--and unfortunately my workstation is getting pretty long in the tooth. (AMD FX. It's been a good system, but I'm getting Left Behind here.) The main thing holding me back is compile speed, especially doing work on Chromium and WebKit. It's 12+ hour compile times for either of those, with the latest C++ standards they're using. The system as a whole builds in about 48 hours on my computer.
So I'm hoping to bump into an "angel investor" who either has some old Xeon (Broadwell or newer?) hardware laying around they would donate, something with lots of cores and memory, or who can make a cash donation for me to buy the gear I'm looking at on Ebay. $400-500 is enough for a nice 5x upgrade. It amazes me how cheap this stuff is. We're talking $5000+ hardware when it was new, for peanuts. Still quite powerful.
(A better video card would be great too, if you're feeling generous. Mine is a GTX570. I'd love to have a GTX7xx or newer, or equivalent AMD. That's more of a want than a need however.)
I'm very interested in ppc64 gear too. I want this system to have first-class PPC support. Anyone got an old POWER8 or POWER9 system laying around, or 32-bit stuff? I've got this system building OK in Qemu for ppc64le but it is SLOW, as you can imagine. Like 5 seconds per line in configure scripts, lol.
If anyone out there is in a position where they can help this project in some way, email me please! Thank you.
I'm sorry to tell you, but I'm not really interested in a new distribution. I appreciate the effort of what you are trying to do, but I think you are wasting time maintaining a distribution instead of maintaining patches (or a fork). If you have the know-how to patch those cancers out, then do only that and let other people do the packaging. Just make them known and available - a github repo maybe?
So, I'm not going to test your distro or switch from my Gentoo. I like Gentoo a lot, most of all because it's so very-very easy to patch any official package. Just put the patch in /etc/portage/patches/<package> and that's it. It gets automatically applied on the next install.
I'm using a Phenom II x6 1100 on a Gigabyte 880G. Firefox compiles in about 3-4 hours I think, not really sure. I do all Gentoo updates over night and it's usually ready in the morning. I can't say about Chromium or webkit - never used them - but 12h seems waaay too long.
Sorry dude, it's about 7 years too late to tell me to stop.
If you like Gentoo, more power to you! It's not for me.
This isn't just another run of the mill distro. It's like nothing else that's out there.
I forgot to mention that I have PaleMoon on the system also, and it compiles in a much more reasonable time. Like two hours or so, I think.
Chromium and WebKit are ginormous, and worse, they are compiled with the latest C++ standards which are slow as hell to compile. Nothing wrong with my system, it just takes forever to compile this giant bloated crap. I need more CPU cores, to blast my way through the pile of work that needs to be done.
Look of the size of the Chromium source code archives these days. It's fucking outrageous. 15 compressed gb (and growing rapidly!) of third party code vendored inside third party code vendored inside third party code, three or possibly even four levels deep! ("Yo Dawg...") Let's just have 5 complete copies of the LLVM suite in random places in there, because why not? Google has lost its marbles.
Yeah, I'm working to fix Chromium's little red wagon too. I'm on version 3 of my custom Chromium build. The binary of version 2 was slimmed down to 186 mb in size (compare to Google's version), with a 300 mb source tree (same) when I quit on it to start version 3. There was plenty more to take out. This latest version is going to be the best yet.
By the way--I did not want to disable ATK to get rid of dbus, but only did so temporarily. Ultimately a better solution is to create a UNIX socket just for the ATK<>GTK bridge.
Accessibility should be something that the system fully supports. There is speech synthesis and other useful bits installed so far. Maybe someone would like to work on this project. Email me if interested.
Who's the guy with Firefox 147 32-bit x86 who downloaded a patch? Nice to see there's still at least a few 32-bit users left out there. My system cross compiles to i686, and builds as multilib (both 32-bit and 64-bit libraries) for x86-64 as well, FYI.
Some of these User Agents have to be fake. Android 6.0.1 with Chrome 144, really? lol
No, not even close. Totally different projects. This one is for experts only, or those who want to become experts. The type of person who has been toying with the idea of building a LFS system but doesn't really want to go through all the work and headache (and it's a ton, to build a full system.) It also supports cross compiling to other architectures, which LFS does not.
This system has many powerful features like built in ccache/distcc support for the build, support for building in QEMU, etc. Eventually it will be fully sandboxed.
There is a heavy emphasis on Doing Things Right according to an old school way of thinking. Everything is kept as simple as possible, yet as full featured as is practical. A major goal is to have everything documented and explained, starting with the shell scripts which build the system step by step in an easy to follow manner.
No package manager currently, though a simple one is in the works which is integrated into the build scripts. It's not really needed. You just build a complete system with all packages you want installed in a single run, with your own configuration pre-loaded. This gets compressed to a tarball. Then to install, create a partition, extract the tarball, edit a few files, install the bootloader, set passwords, and go.
> The key results: In the first approximately 30,000 kilometres, the loss of capacity is accelerated, and the so-called state of health (soH) drops relatively quickly from 100 to around 95 percent. With increasing mileage, real degradation decreases. According to the Electrive portal, Aviloo data from the 7,000 vehicles showed a (average) SoH of around 90 percent at 100,000 kilometres. According to this, the trendline is almost horizontal, between 200,000 and 300,000 kilometres, it is almost stable – and is well above the 70 to 80 percent of the battery guarantee. In fact, it is rather 87 percent.
I don't think I realized that ICE engines had this kind of degradation. What causes this? Seals and parts loosening as they break in? Some loss of efficiency in the fuel mixing/burning process?
I don’t think it’s much besides people becoming more lax on maintenance as the car ages.
Most people are going to adhere to the oil change schedule no matter what. But if the schedule is calling for new spark plugs every 60,000 miles it will almost certainly happen at 60,000 miles but maybe not at 120,000. Instead people will probably wait until something is going wrong enough that a mechanic tells them they have to replace them.
Or things that don’t last forever but don’t have a set replacement schedule. The oxygen sensor, PCV valve, etc. I just replaced the PCV valve for the very first time on a Subaru with 130k miles on it and the mpg jumped by 2-3 immediately.
Yes. Mainly wear causing loss of compression. So piston rings, valve seals and seats. Also dirt/soot accumulating in air passages, disrupting or eventually blocking air flow, leading to inefficient combustion.
So basically in other words what this means - is that if battery capacity was over-provisioned by mere 13 percent with battery firmware keeping it essentially hidden - then in effect there would not be any degradation at all.
They already over-provision to prevent users from charging the last few percent. That top end is where the most significant degradation happens when charging.
Maybe it was unclear, I meant, tautologically and just for emphasis, that the science that was done for the previous mission was (of course) done.
> Now, that science is done.
That said, building a base on the moon is pretty pointless, and I think we shouldn’t do it. If we’re going to become a spacefaring species, we’re going to have to learn how to live in space. The conditions on each planet, moon, whatever, are all pretty different, so we’ll probably need different bespoke solutions on each one.
We should perfect the art of building self-sustaining orbital habitats, because those aren’t redesigned from scratch every time. Let’s iterate on the space-station.
Energetically going downwell is a big cost. The only reason to go onto a planet is to get resources that aren’t already present in less energetically disadvantageous locations.
Sending mass from the moon to earth is energetically positive and you can build mass drivers and space elevators on the moon that are only powered by electricity. So assuming an ambitious space program, there is every reason to do this, except that it costs money.
There are a lot of great benefits to planets, protection from radiation and meteors being among them, also a free source of gravity which is pretty important to us as a species.
It is a free source of, like, some amount of gravity. But we don’t know how our biology will respond to the wrong amount. Meanwhile an orbital habitat can be spun to get us the right amount.
In order to get to a planet in the first place, you’ll have to have a ship that can fly through space without the occupants getting irradiated. The biggest problem will be convincing them to get off the ship I think.
In the colonial era they were mostly colonizing already populated areas. The land was mostly more hospitable than the ship because
* Humans evolved to live on Earth
* In many cases there were people to trade with or steal already tended land from
We could look at Arctic expeditions I guess. They mostly didn’t colonize for some reason (despite the region being wildly more hospitable than anywhere off Earth).
I think we can both agree that the reality is any sort of off-world colonization is going to be unpleasant and difficult beyond imagine with no simple solutions. I think we are much closer to being able to construct conformable habitats on other celestial bodies than we are to being able to make megastructures in outer space. Long term artificial structures will probably be the way to go, but I think to get there we will need to be able to setup base camps on nearby celestial bodies.
I remember reading books like 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 as a teen thinking, "Cool story, but the US will never look like that." Oof.