hope in one hand and do something in the other to see which one fills up faster. hoping is always a strained good idea, but hoping on Azure really strains credulity
I've been using a self-hosted forgejo (which Codeberg uses and maintains) instance for all of my non-work projects and it's been great. I don't miss GitHub at all. I also keep it accessible only from Tailscale so that AI crawlers and such can speedily make their way into the sun.
I have moved to self-host Forgejo a few years ago and I can also highly recommend. It's working great. I have posted a tutorial [1] (verified last month that it still works), and recently moved from Hetzner to 2 Raspberry Pi's for hosting the server and the runner [2]. It's great. Really rock solid. Has been more reliable and faster than GitHub.
Same. I installed Forgejo two months ago when Github wouldn't let me create agent accounts. It's been awesome. Any time I want a new feature I open my agent on the server and tell it to add the feature to Forgejo. Took all of 15 minutes for it to add a working Show/Hide "Viewed" files on the PR reviews.
Same - also installed a forgejo runner via docker so i've got CI. Forgejo has it's own artifactory/registry so the apps I make get a docker image and I just run that docker image. All on my own hardware.
Same, I've been enjoying it a ton. Recently, with the help of Claude, I've used it to set up an entire CI/CD pipeline for my home server. The flow is roughly:
Build Nix config into a VM image => Deploy VM to Proxmox via its API => Spin up Docker stack via Komodo
I've also trying to use it to sync my Obsidian vault via git to my phone, altho that flaked out on me recently (if anyone knows a reliable way to use git via the shell on iOS, please let me know).
I went with gitea, but for the same general reasons. I like It has the option to mirror repos up to GitHub for the stuff I actually want to share with the world. Is there anything that made you choose forgejo specifically? I’m not eager to move platforms, but I know there’s more options that have popped up in the years since I first stood up my gitea instance.
Their core product is local ML inference in the context of a photo app, i.e. a drop-in cloud dependency removal/replacement for non-technical, privacy-conscious users as well as those who want advanced functionality offline.
If they manage to compete with Anthropic in the enterprise market, are either of them able to reach profitability? To what degree are they subsidizing token usage and how tolerant are enterprise customers of significant price increases?
The only people I've seen post AI Disney content was in the Facebook groups for the parks / cruises. Before that it was whatever clipart they could find. There's just no market for it. No one is going to pay to make fake disney art.
AI art as a whole has just become the new clipart. The fact that it’s effortless to produce just means that it has no real artistic value, and by using it all you’re signifying to people is that you’re too cheap to pay someone to create real art.
It’s quickly become the modern day equivalent of Comic Sans, WordArt, and the default clipart illustrations included in Word ‘98.
Techbros, largely, never had any taste to begin with. They just also don't have the skills/will to make any art, so they could hide their lack of taste for a long time.
That said, there are still people with exceptional aesthetic sensibilities in the tech field, obviously. They're just largely not in this space.
There's still people out there that believe the west is a "democracy"?
People really think voting, elections, politics in general is even real and not a reality show/circus act put on for the masses?
If you don't see why Trump is worse than Kamala or Clinton would have been, I don't know what to say. The reputation of the US is in the gutter. Even European people are now openly expressing their hatred.
Even IF tomorrow would come a fresh "and super nice US president", Trump et al crushed so much that the damage is already severe and will be permanent for the future: US gov lost so much trust in more or less everything that was perceived as somehow reliable by others.
The damage is that big that -apart from BigTech- the US-industry will have a hard time coming
The US have been fooled by Israel for the past... thirty, forty years at least? Look who Trump is sending around the world to negotiate on behalf of the US: two committed Zionists, personal friends of Netanyahu and past financers of the Israeli army. The other negotiators regard them as Israeli assets, plain and simple. While they pretend to "negotiate", Israel launches surprise attacks that have not been agreed with the US and that forces them to intervene.
Either Russian propaganda is leaking into US, or people are being so easy to manipulate it's becoming scary.
What's the deal the US not having agency? Lol
Russia was manipulated by NATO and they were fooled over and over again, according to the state propaganda - if that was true, why are they still stuck with the fool who keeps being fooled? Isn't that the sign of a deficient leadership?
Same applies to the Trump administration, until when will that narrative stick?
Because the "common sense", a big trope used by both states propaganda, claims that you can only be fooled once lol
The US has an eternal fool on the throne. Common sense also claims that you can only declare bankruptcy once, and never with a casino, yet here we are.
It is also very clear that both the US and Israel have very different mission objectives, which is why there's no way out for this admin. A long war may destroy Iran but will also help them in the long run - a war that they're eager to fight. Furthermore it has been established that Trump was goaded into this war by his benefactors, as well as Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Salman.
What Israel and US (and MBS) don't understand is that they've just enabled a country 3 times the size of France to go militant, in their backyard.
So funny that you moved the discussion from Israel to Russia. But after checking your comments I see that Russia lives rent-free in your mind.
> Either Russian propaganda is leaking into US, or people are being so easy to manipulate it's becoming scary.
Manipulation, double standards and bias are very difficult to avoid and an average human with a job just have no time to verify everything, so they just consume and the more they consume the more they believe in it.
I read somewhere that Bush made this awkward figure of speech not because he didn't know the idiom, but because he realized too late that he'd be saying "shame on me" on air, which is apparently a phrase absolutely Verboten by political media advisors (because it could have been taken out of context and used by his adversaries). In a way that says a lot about the political culture that resulted in a figure like Trump, I think.
In fact no. It's well documented that the voters who put Trump in the White House weren't voting until Trump galvanized them. It's also been well known for centuries that white men are the single largest demographic in the US and that it is also the most fragmented one
>It's well documented that the voters who put Trump in the White House weren't voting until Trump galvanized them
It's even more well documented that Kamala is a "shallow-as-they-come transparently-just-a-puppet empty-headed political careerist", that even her own Party heads dismissed as inadequate decoration until Biden's faculties went even more downhill.
>It's also been well known for centuries that white men are the single largest demographic in the US and that it is also the most fragmented one
Which makes sense, since, native americans aside, it was such demographics that first populated and established the US, the overwhelming majority of the rest came later.
But it's irrelevant as an argument to what we're discussing.
There are plenty of excellent black women leaders - Kamala Harris was not one of those. Do not excuse the Democratic Party here with their dysfunctional internal infighting with just being down to racism.
Milquetoast uninspiring leader should still beat someone who outright hates everything about our country, divides rather than leads, and plans to sell our institutions for scrap value while putting the proceeds in his own pocket.
Although I think the people blaming it on racism are hopeful. The real answer is that it struck a chord with people who do not want women in leadership positions.
I remember reading an article when Harris was nominated, about how it was set up to be a "historic moment". Indeed, it was.
I hadn't heard that motive specifically, care to send any links that substantiate it?
(to be clear, the article was of course using "historic" in the sense of the DEI groupthink - since there's no way Trump could win then won't it be super historic to have a Black woman president)
(and disclaimer: criticism of DEI virtue signalling is in no way an endorsement of Maggot vice signalling)
This was not a move by Biden to position Kamala for a loss, but he certainly did not want Pelosi and the Democratic establishment to gloat on a win. Which is why he immediately endorsed Kamala for the presidency, right after announcing he was stepping down from the race.
Pelosi suggested there should have been an open primary after Biden dropped out. But Biden's endorsement ensured that they could not backtrack from Harris.
Selection as VP doesn't mean by default that the running candidate/party endorses the candidate. Most often, VPs are chosen because they are harmless enough to become opposition to them, as a concession to a former opponent, or in most cases to bridge the demographic gap and reach out to a particularly marginalized segment of voters who are not adequately represented in governance.
> she was a incredibly obvious choice and would have had a very strong likelihood of getting the nod had there been actual primaries.
Lol, hell no. She already lost the primaries multiple times. She was extremely unpopular. In the 2020 elections, running with Biden helped boost her profile slightly, but back then Biden was a much more stronger candidate and his choice of running mate wouldn't have mattered - Trump was extremely unpopular then.
While Democratic Party could have picked another candidate, to appease comments like this (I heard this too many times by a lot of very, very smart people so I am not demeaning your comment/opinion in any way) that other candidate would have been a white male
My point is that she was a poor candidate both times, and OP blaming this all on racism gives the DNC a pass when they really need to fix themselves. Obama would have beat Trump handily (a hypothetical), and not lost due to racism.
Is it strange that Obama and Harris are each only part black, but people refer to them as being black?
If we are like “black people can do everything” (which is true, of course), why are the political figureheads of that progressive dimension only half black?
And, beyond that, the black half of each is not even African American! Harris is African Jamaican, and Obama is African African.
If anything, in retrospect the birther thing back then seems like it may have been some absurdist well poisoning on totally valid criticism of Obama’s real heritage vs the media optics of same.
I thought civil rights was for African Americans? Why have all the political figureheads African Americans have, or have been, rallied behind, not themselves been African American at all?
> Is it strange that Obama and Harris are each only part black, but people refer to them as being black?
Yeah - the "One Drop" PoV was beyond strange:
The one-drop rule was a legal principle of racial classification that was prominent in the 20th-century United States. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of Black African ancestry ("one drop" of "black blood") is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms). It is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status, regardless of proportion of ancestry in different groups.
> I thought civil rights was for African Americans?
It was for the benefit of anyone sent to the back of the bus, forced to drink from other fountains, lynched, etc. That included minorities other than "classic Black" and all the people treated as Black despite not appearing black.
I’m confused. From tone you seem to be comparing what I’m saying to the one drop rule as if this doesn’t support what I’m saying, but it does support what I’m saying.
They're not using it directly .. they're part of a wider society that has been using it less and less explicitily for hundreds of years - children speak as their paerents do.
What has faded is the habit of exactly breaking down the bloodlines of anyone of mixed blood - mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, hexadecaroon and such terms are no longer in common use in this epoch.
So your theory is that the people who seem to center their worldview on racial equality (along with equality of the sexes) are subconsciously using racist language?
I mean, that’s possible, but I think a more plausible explanation is that the bulk of them are just getting riled up by media and aren’t really paying close attention to what’s going on.
No. That's clearly your framing - don't draw me into your strawman.
> but I think a more plausible explanation is that
Or, that a majority people in the USofA that are described as black in the USofA have embraced that term, own it, and have used Black Twitter etc. while those adjacent to them ( the "progressives" ? ) use that term as for the most part the "black people" are comfortable with and haven't told them to bugger off and stop using it.
Late to reply, but assuming you are not American, Black folks in America are quite a spectrum of mixed race from their history. It's not unreasonable to call/identify themselves as black in this situation. I would not extrapolate to the extremes like some repliers are talking about "one drop", etc. That's not practically what the situation is.
> gives the DNC a pass when they really need to fix themselves
I've been saying this since 2016, when HRC ran on a campaign of calling her opponents sexists and then blaming Russia for her loss. Sadly, they just shuffled aparatchniks around instead of cleaning house. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was put on the House Appropriations committee after stepping down from DNC chair. Donna Brazile was rewarded with the DNC chairmanship after slipping CNN town hall questions in advance to HRC. I suspect that the self-reflection to fix themselves is just not in the DNC DNA, sadly.
America runs better when both parties are effective. Currently, neither are.
I talked about DNC governance and accountability after the 2016 primary, not denying that Russia conducts influence operations or that sexism exists in politics. Pointing to Russian interference in 2024 does not answer whether the DNC cleaned house after 2016, and it does not change the fact that Wasserman Schultz landed on Appropriations and Brazile became interim DNC chair.
Weird that you would divert main factual points into non-sequiturs and then accuse me of cognitive dissonance. If you are free of cognitive dissonance, you can now address the points I made, not ones I did not.
> There are plenty of excellent black women leaders - Kamala Harris was not one of those. Do not excuse the Democratic Party (...)
As a non-USian this blend of opinion just reeks of blame-shifting.
You guys have a two-party system. One proposed a candidate that continued Biden's administration. The other was this hot mess. You guys picked this hot mess over Biden's regime.
If you looked at Trump and somehow decided a second Trump administration was better than a continuation of Biden's administration, the blame lays square on you. Not on Kamala. Not on the democratic party. Not on DEI. Nothing.
We prefer to be called Americans, which is also the correct demonym; it derives from United States of America, and isn't used by any other country in English. If you can call someone from South Africa a "South African" instead of an "SAian," then the same logic applies to make someone from the United States an "American."
However, Canada and Mexico are also in the North American continent, so "North American" also refers to Canadians and Mexicans, and that's specifying which part of the Americas we're talking about. The term "American" can equally apply to someone living in Brazil or Peru (or at least "South American").
To my mind, it always strikes me as hubris for the USA to pretend to be the whole American continent.
To be fair, we also ended up with a proven con-man because Southern Democrats don't approve of gays enough to win the primary for Buttigieg and we ended up with Biden only 1 term.
This both sides thing is stupid. Though there's always some form of military actions under either Democrats or Republicans, Republicans consistently start unilateral (and illegal) wars that leave us in massive quagmires, leave power imbalances in the middle east, and destabilize things considerably.
> And they'll get wars and the same shit after they vote the other way too
Eh?
Are you seriously comparing the disaster that is Mango Mussolini to the likes of (practically any) former president of the USA?
My friend, if all candidates are crap, you vote for the one that will do least harm. And then look at reforming a political system which leaves voters with such a poor choice.
> In fact they precisely voted someone promising no more wars, no more foreign meddling, and so on.
In fact they voted for a convicted felon and rapist that lies to everyone as soon as he opens his mouth. A serial bankrupt that stole money from a charity.
That was all on the table and yet his voters said loud and clear: That guy, that criminal, that one full of hate and anger, who lies and does about everything if it is in his self interest, that's the guy that represents us best.
e:
"No more wars" didn't seem to be their main issue. Just imagine, Trump won the war after a week of bombing. The Iran regime is toppled and a US-friendly dictator is installed.
Are really sure his voters would not celebrate the war and great general Trump?
I'm sorry but this is silly. I didn't vote for Obama either time but there is no comparison between Trump and Obama. Nothing Obama did had the negative impact like Trump's attack on Iran.
reply