Nothing to worry about. They don't need to learn anything anyway. Anything they would do in the future will be done by agentic AI, and generative AI will produce all the content they could possibly consume. They will be free to spend all day on their phones.
Perhaps it's important to point out that socialism != communism.
I think this is something the US really doesn't understand about Europe.
Socialism is about putting people first and making sure no one is left behind by society, which is the opposite of communism (and capitalism).
In fact, US capitalism is much closer to communism regarding societal outcomes (social injustice, power concentration) than European socialism. It is very much possible to be anti-capitalist and anti-communist at the same time .
Unsere Geschichte ist geprägt von der Idee des demokratischen Sozialismus, einer Gesellschaft der Freien und Gleichen, in der unsere Grundwerte verwirklicht sind. Sie verlangt eine Ordnung von Wirtschaft, Staat und Gesellschaft, in der die bürgerlichen, politischen, sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Grundrechte für alle Menschen garantiert sind, alle Menschen ein Leben ohne Ausbeutung, Unterdrückung und Gewalt, also in sozialer und menschlicher Sicherheit führen können.
Das Ende des Staatssozialismus sowjetischer Prägung hat die Idee des demokratischen Sozialismus nicht widerlegt, sondern die Orientierung der Sozialdemokratie an Grundwerten eindrucksvoll bestätigt. Der demokratische Sozialismus bleibt für uns die Vision einer freien, gerechten und solidarischen Gesellschaft, deren Verwirklichung für uns einedauernde Aufgabe ist. Das Prinzip unseres Handelns ist die soziale Demokratie.
You may want to look into the ideologies of European political parties that have "socialist" in their names, instead of relying on definitions from the Soviet revolution.
Socialism in Europe is social democracy. The only difference between "socialist" and "social democratic" parties in Europe is how fractionally close to the right or left side of the center line they are.
The definition of socialism does not change and has not changed, and it's not "social democracy".
Many European political parties that have "socialist" in their names are historically socialist but have all but abandonned that ideology in favour of social democracy (i.e they have moved right) because, as we know, socialism was tried and it failed so there has been a lot of soul-searching on the left since the fall of the USSR and al.
That does not mean that there aren't socialists anymore, including in major parties.
For the more central block parties, this is correct. But for many ultra-left and ultra-right parties, this is not necessarily true. There are true Marxist or Stalinist blocks in many of the ultra-left. There are straight-up fascists in the right wing "national socialist" parties.
ultra-right parties may have "socialist" in their name, but they are typically not in a sense connected to Marx&Hegel. Example: the "National-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" (Hitler's NSDAP) was not marxist.
Yes, and I never said so. But the post I replied to implied that socialist=social democratic.
And neither the marxist/communists in the far-left parties (and sometimes the whole party) nor the fascists in the far-right parties are social democratic.
(Of course there is no such thing as a "social democracy", in the sense that the government structure is modified from a "non-social" democracy. But there can be democrats who push for a socially oriented governance. For example: Let's have affordable healthcare. Yes, that means that it cost more for rich people..
Democrats here means "people who want to take part in a democracy". not the US party. Not that they are liberal in the European sense either.)
)
> But the post I replied to implied that socialist=social democratic
That's actually largely the case in Western/Middle Europe.
> marxist/communists in the far-left parties (and sometimes the whole party)
Which are often not seen as socialist. Social/socialist typically signals that the party is inside the system supporting political spectrum. "communist/marxist" usually signals that the party is at least partly outside the system supporting political spectrum.
It’s a mix that includes social democracy and democratic socialism, as well as things to the right of the former (Britain’s Labour is still nominally socialist) and left of the latter.
> Socialism is about putting people first and making sure no one is left behind by society, which is the opposite of communism (and capitalism).
The problem with that sentence is that you can say the same sentence with socialism/communism/capitalism in any order and you would find people who would sign it. And to some degree, maybe all would be right.
I was enjoying The Expanse until the Marco Inaros arc started. From that point onwards the show felt rushed, mostly repeating the formula of so many other shows, and sidestepped all the alien bits that could have been interesting.
I much preferred BSG, even though it had plenty of boring "west wing in space" episodes.
I thought the political episodes were some of the most interesting ones. I love how Apollo grew up to challenge the attempted coup and ultimately became President as the series wound down. Also loved Richard Hatch's Tom Zarek character and the religious cult formed around Gaius Baltar.
All in all, I really enjoy all the moral greys in the series.
Europe is just as varied as the U.S. in terms of attitudes towards religion. I don't think you can generalize either the entire continent or all the states.
SELinux suffers from a reputation problem. It gained that reputation early on, while default policies were still very immature and overly restrictive.
One crucial change for the better was leaving third-party software in a permissive state. From that point onwards, disabling SELinux is cargo-cult sysadmin'ing.
SELinux is not hard if you understand its basic principles. But no one bothers, because SELinux is the bogeyman.
Yes, writing policies means getting knee-deep in macros, and it's hard because many services try to access anything and everything. But almost no one needs to write a policy.
At most you need to tell SELinux that some non-default directory should have some label. That's not hard.
But that's exactly what I would like to do! I've never seen a real guide for how to set up a policy for a custom daemon I wrote myself. Or when a specific software doesn't come with a policy.
It's true that there is a lack of simplified documentation. But that lack is also the result of the folks that would otherwise contribute to such documentation not even giving SELinux a chance.
Many years ago I decided to face the Bogeyman and went from knowing very little about SELinux to writing a policy from scratch in about a month. The policy is simple enough (but realistic) that it might help in the absence of a guide:
> At most you need to tell SELinux that some non-default directory should have some label. That's not hard.
In my experience, it's not just directory labels ("semanage fcontext -a -e ..." and friends). You also need once in a while to set some booleans ("semanage boolean ..."). Yes, it's not hard once you know about it.
The issue with looking at IPv6 adoption from that point of view is that it only shows half of the picture. It shows the percentage of IPv6-enabled clients, which has been growing steadily.
On the other side there are still major services that are IPv4-only, and growth is not uniform.
This means the combined situation is not as cheerful. It's hard to arrive at definitive conclusions, but IPv6 traffic(1) may be as low as 15% when considering this mismatch.
Without stronger incentives, IPv6 may be an eternal runner up. At least it looks like it will take quite a few decades more to make IPv4 obsolete.
(1) By connections or requests. By bytes transferred, IPv6 might have already overtaken IPv4 for all we know (I'm not aware of a broad enough study on this, so I'm open to this possibility). The largest streaming providers are IPv6 enabled.
Another good reason for slow adoption is that the pushers of V6 herald it as the death of all nat, and i wager there are certain types of net admins who really like at least SOME nat. I have a longer writeup here http://www.jofla.net/?p=00000113#00000113
granted i would love for more v6, if it yielded a 1 for 1 repacement, with all features .
IPv6 certainly has its own technically legitimate uses, absolutely. thanks for my next read! (curious how many things you discuss that i hadn't even considered.)
Every service I run for all time will be exclusively ipv4. Ipv6 gets a heckler's veto from me for trying to do too much.
Give me an addressing scheme and absolutely NOTHING ELSE - just like IPv4 - and I'll consider it. IPv6 does an order of magnitude more than just this one thing, and therefore is too complex to be a replacement as it adds a bunch of anti-features that I don't want anywhere near any of my networks for any reason ever.
I am a permanent rejecter of all ipv6, both as a client and a server.
For every downvote this post gets, I'm going to increase the number of sockpuppet acconts I automate in my crusade against ipv6 in all public forums by 1 order of magnitude. Each downvote will multiply the number of voices standing in opposition to your own desired outcome coming from my system by ten.
Don't like it? Propose a better standard that fixes the address space problem without adding layers of shit on top of it next time.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to each for lunch, and for this particular subject, I can (and will) make more virtual anti-ipv6 wolves than there are pro-ipv6 sheep that are real humans.
Don't like that? Demand a better governance system than democracy.
the very notion of technology factually implies that it never gets less complex as it iterates upon itself. reminds me of the rhetorical ponderance: how many humans did it take to invent the pencil eraser? (and somehow your post also calls to my mind the woeful Luddites! but i digress...)
pray tell who, my good man, are you railing against?
