anyone can host an email service

Eh, no. You could in the 2000s, nowadays spam protection is so tight, and necessarily that tight, that you need at least a full-time position actively managing the server or you’re getting blacklisted for some reason or the other. Other servers will simply not accept emails sent by you if you don’t look legit and professional.

Definitely possible for a company with IT department, as a small company you want to outsource it (emails being on your domain doesn’t mean you’re managing the server), as a hobbyist, well you might be really into it but generally also no. Send protonmail or posteo or whoever a buck or something a month.

Should all be in place. Even nvidia driver support. It’s one of the rare cases where I actually support nvidia on a technical level, that is, having explicit sync is good. I can also understand that they didn’t feel like implementing proper implicit sync (hence all the tearing etc) when it’s a technically inferior solution.

OTOH, they shouldn’t have bloody waited until now to get this through. Had they not ignored wayland for a literal decade this all could’ve been resolved before it became an issue for end-users.

Programs can’t set position or size of windows, period, at most they can ask and then hope they don’t get ignored and it’s good that way. Window management is responsibility of the compositor, not of applications.

At least KDE has support for it that’s about on X11 level, a proper-proper solution is still in the pipeline. And yes you’re seeing right it’s been there for four years.

And nobody wants to rewrite Xorg or understand the code (other than very basic security maintenance).

That’s precisely the point: All the devs got tired of it and started wayland instead.

X12 might happen at some point when wayland is mature, as in a “let’s create and bless a network-transparent protocol so we might have a chance of getting rid of XWayland in 50 years” kind of move.

Yep that’d be Wayland devs maintaining XWayland, which is part of the x.org codebase. There are no “X11 devs”, they’re the ones who started Wayland to get rid of that bowl of spaghetti!

I argue that X11 would have hyperactive development, if we did not have Wayland

Wayland was started by the X developers because they were sick and tired of hysterical raisins. Noone else volunteered to take over X, either, wayland devs are thus still stuck with maintaining XWayland themselves. I’m sure that at least a portion of the people shouting “but X just needs some work” at least had a look at the codebase, but then noped out of it – and subsequently stopped whining about the switch to Wayland.

What’s been a bit disappointing is DEs getting on the wayland train so late. A lot of the kinks could have been worked out way earlier if they had given their 2ct of feedback right from the start, instead of waiting 10 years to even start thinking about migrating.

That does not seem to be a stray and yes there’s definitely reasons to take potshots at Gnome. They still don’t support server-side decorations. Everyone is absolutely fine with them not wanting to use them in their own apps, have them draw window decorations themselves, and every other DE lets gnome apps do exactly that, but Gnome is steadfastly and pointlessly refusing to draw decorations for apps which don’t want to draw their own decorations. It’d be like a hundred straight-forward lines of code for them.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to breakage you have to expect when running Gnome.

Wayland kinda is an x.org project in the first place. AFAIK it’s officially organised under freedesktop but the core devs are x.org people.

x.org as in the organisation and/or domain might not be needed any more, but the codebase is still maintained by exactly those Wayland devs for the sake of XWayland. Support for X11 clients isn’t going to go away any time soon. XWayland is also capable of running in rootfull mode and use X window managers, if there’s enough interest to continue the X.org distribution I would expect them to completely rip out the driver stack at some point and switch it over to an off the shelf minimum wayland compositor + XWayland. There’s people who are willing to maintain XWayland for compatibility’s sake, but all that old driver cruft, no way.

More context

Bonus short interview with Dani

Bonus music

I’m not exactly sure but often the whole comment history is nuked so there’s really nothing left to migrate.

They can’t ban you from the whole platform it just so happens if some admin wants you gone chances are your home instance admin wants you gone, too.

That level you describe also exists – instances are self-policing their users, though it’s an admin thing, not a mod one (mods are for communities).

lemm.ee just posted some numbers for the year and after kbin.social, which seems to get many spam accounts, they’re mostly banning lemm.ee users for misbehaving. No great need to ban .world users because .world admins are keeping their own ship clean, “are your users a bother to me” is a big factor in federation politics.

OTOH not giving communities the ability to police themselves would leads to problems because the only way to deal with anything would be to choose the nuclear option: You might get heated in a discussion about your favourite comic book character and lash out, calling people names, but otherwise be perfectly reasonable, the mods temp-banning you from their community is the right approach, there, not making you switch instances, or depriving others of the furry porn you post to the same instance as the comic community is on, or whatnot.

Added

Europe was in a state of constant war until they began to form larger, more federal power structures like the EU. This example supports my point.

The EU has exactly zero capacity to put boots on the ground to stop countries from fighting each other. The only boots it has is FRONTEX, that is, border guards. They wouldn’t stand a chance against the police force of a single larger city.

It’s not in people’s interest to participate in the anarchist model because it sounds like a huge hassle, an incredibly inefficient way of running a society. Like I would much rather elect someone to make laws on my behalf.

Noone’s stopping you from doing that. There’s generally plenty of delegation going on. Noone’s putting considerations about the cement mixture used in lamp post foundations to the general council, everyone knows that it’s best left to the engineers.

While they’re probably not good examples for how things would look in the west because the conditions they operate in are quite different, I recommend looking at how Chiapas and Rojava do things. They don’t get bogged down in meetings. Here’s a couple of videos (also about other places).

That’s what anarchism is going to look like (in fact, it’s a pretty accurate depiction of real world public consultations).

That’s what consultations look like if people use the little chance they have to ever get heard in person to air general grievances. Even just emotionally. Can’t expect people to act sensibly in your “conservation of the red-footed sparkle toad” consultation while their community is getting demolished for a highway expansion – without consultation. Replace whatever with whatever in that equation.

Meanwhile, there’s plenty of studies surrounding sortition (which would be a great intermediate step in many areas) showing that if you take a random sample of people (actually randomised) and sit them together with a couple of experts for at least a couple of days to hash things out, they do come up with very very sensible stuff. More like juries.

You ask how we can “break the conditioning” but the thing you’re responding to is human nature. So what you’re actually asking is how to brainwash people into all adhering to one system.

Nah what I’m asking of you is to stop saying “this thing I’m thinking of won’t work because human nature” and instead say “hmm maybe another thing could work” and “probably not perfect but it’s better than we have now and we might learn from it”. You’re not in school, any more, incomplete and approximate answers earn full credit when it comes to catalysing societal change.

Most people have no interest in that model,

Why? Would it not be in their self-interest? Enlightened self-interest, that is. If it is, and they still have no interest, what makes them choose otherwise? How do we free them from that kind of conditioning?

It especially isn’t going to work as soon as you reach the scale where tribalism sets in. That’s a natural human behaviour and cannot be eliminated.

That is true but also overstated. Over here in Europe we’re tribalist AF going down to the village level, doesn’t mean that we’re at each other’s throats. At least off the football pitch, that is.

The only way to prevent that tendency from dominating society is with the structure imposed by a government.

You’re overstating the power that governments have – they all, by necessity, even the likes of North Korea, govern by assent or acquiescence from the governed it’s a simple numbers game. It is a question of culture, not of having police at every corner. Who, btw, in many places do the exact opposite of reducing tribal tensions.

Like, how exactly would you envision anarchism working in NYC, with the current population of NYC?

NYC isn’t a good place to start moving towards an anarchist municipality. Plenty of anarchists in NYC, doing their neigbourhood thing, but capturing Manhattan is pretty much impossible without full smaller cities haven gotten the bug first. It’s like starting a D&D campaign as low-level character and saying “but this is pointless, I can’t even slay ancient dragons”.

Attempting the impossible is a sure-fire way to be disappointed. To feel disheartened, powerless, fatalist. To then fail to achieve the possible. Consider Anarchism not as a vision that is to be realised, or even provable in your lifetime, but as a compass to guide your direction: Can you take a step? Then what’s stopping you? Let things yet beyond the horizon be things beyond the horizon, they might not even exist any more once you get there. What’s the worst that can happen, that you made the world a bit of a better place? I’d take that risk.

I wouldn’t want anyone to seize the food in your fridge. Unless with “seize” you mean “fill up unprompted” because people know you need to eat and that’s enough reason to give you food, and maybe you’re busy all the time with constructing bridges or whatnot so they also cook for you.

And while corruption is an issue, it’s not the only issue: The very act of having lots of capital to throw around allows companies to direct policy, you e.g. don’t need to grease hands to get different municipalities to overbid each other with tax breaks for your new fidget spinner factory. The BS is inherent in the system.

As to scaling: Possibly. Possibly not. I’d argue that it can’t yet be envisioned, not even by anarchists themselves (and we’re aware of that, hence all the gradualism)… but as you acknowledged that it can work in the small, what happens if all the municipalities we have turn into hippie communes? Would they elect, among themselves, an Emperor Commune to rule over them? I don’t think so. They’d find ways to cooperate at eye level. How that will look in detail, as said, I have no idea, it’s probably going to involve federation and plenty of subsidiarity.

Practically, right now, it makes no difference as most of us are not living in hippie commune towns. First step would be to get there, then we can think about luxury gay space anarchism.

The anarchist definition of state is a very different one from the Marxist and also from the dictionary one (“people, organisation, territory”). You can usually freely replace “state” in Anarchist texts with “hierarchical power”. I myself don’t like and don’t use the anarchist definition as there’s better terms it’s just unnecessary confusion. Has its historical reasons, but we’re usually not ones to pray to ashes instead of passing on the fire so why should we be doing it there.

And, sorry, but no, it isn’t Anarchists who are couping liberal democracies. That’d be Bolsheviks.

Council communists would have a better track record if they realised that they are Syndicalists, which have plenty a track record. Until that happens, it’ll continue to be methadone therapy for recovering MLs.

Out-competing and out-organising them. Decommodifying things, e.g. things like housing cooperatives and similar are an antidote to the real-estate market. Also, capturing even state structures, replacing hierarchical power into horizontal relations where you can, no topic is too small there. If the stars align just right simply changing the way the city’s road planning authorities communicates, how it comes to decisions, can cause a cultural shift making the electorate want to have more of that stuff. With a thousand little things organised that way it becomes harder and harder for the people at large to not ask “hey why aren’t we doing this big thing like that”.

Ultimately, the enemy is not one particular thing but the idea that organisation necessarily involves hierarchy and domination.

Then there’s also the little issue of them denying that such a thing as a social contract exists, and I never signed no NAP so I cannot possibly be bound to it.

What would happen to those corporations without the government enforcing their property? Have you ever tried to seize a McDonalds to distribute food to the homeless?