After checking out more options, I think forgejo looks like a good place to start.

Thanks, yes, I’d far rather stick with a familiar and ubiquitous system unless I see a reason to switch. Thanks for the suggestion, I’ll keep it in mind.

After looking at that list, I think forgejo or gitea are what I’m looking for. I would prefer to stick with software as open as possible, so forgejo looks like where I’ll start. I love that they’re involved in federation and have a collective governance structure.

Oh, yeah, I meant open-core, not closed-core, but I’m still leery of software where they close off portions to make you want to pay. It gives them an incentive to make the open part of it worse.

Okay, thanks for the heads up.

A quick search found this: https://trac-hacks.org/wiki/TracKanbanBoardMacro

Looks like there are others too, I’ll play around and see what works for me.

Okay, I wasn’t able to review your links before so I just focussed on answering your question.

Trac looks the most promising of everything I’ve seen so far, I like that it’s minimal and also does basically everything I’m looking for in one place. I’ll give it a try first.

Thanks so much!

Okay, I’m looking into that, thanks. The open-core model is a little concerning for me - one of the things I hate about the proprietary stuff is all the gatekeeping you have to deal with, but if the other possibilities don’t pan out I’ll consider it.

This should be a claxon in the ears of the ruling class that they are facing dire consequences in the near future if they don’t change shit like yesterday.

Jury nullification is powerful partly because you need to get a group of 12 strangers together who have been vetted to remove bias, to all unanimously agree to say, in effect, “fuck the law”. The more people realise this is an option, the more it will happen, and the more it happens the more it will become obvious that we are being screwed and our oppressors want it to happen. They should be shitting themselves right now.

Instead nobody’s reporting on it, not even the centrist style conservatives, and the very wealthy have clogged their ears with reactionary rhetoric that will stop them hearing the alarm until it’s far too late.

They didn’t lose the support of 12 out of 12 jury members. You’re lying about something we can all see right in front of us. This verdict proves you’re wrong and is a massive win for this movement. So weird that you chose this story to get on your high horse about.

Also terrorism? To who? Petrol pumps?

The carbon footprint sham: a ‘succesful, deceptive’ PR campaign

I would disagree that it’s widely hated, I only hear the worst, most obnoxious assholes talking about how much they hate it. If anyone wants to say it’s “widely hated” they’ll need to give some numbers.

Also, anyone making a good faith effort to combat climate change in any way gets a pass from me, as long as we don’t yet know it’s actually counter-productive.

Anyone who actually cares about climate change would understand that there’s no measure too ridiculous. If throwing soup on a painting’s glass cover moves the needle on climate change even a millionth of a percent towards a solution then great, fucking do it. Even if it makes no difference at all fuck it, you’re trying, I support you. Fuck the paintings, they won’t matter if nobody’s left to look at or preserve them. That’s the point of that particular protest, to ask “Why do you care about this painting more than our climate?”

These people hate on activism despite never having any evidence that it’s counter-productive beyond “I reckon it is,” which just means they don’t like it. They don’t care about climate change or the human race, they’re just here to shit on activists because they’ve been taught to hate them by fossil fuel industry propaganda.

So these aren’t persuadable people, we shouldn’t care about what they have to say, fuck 'em.

Uuuhhhhh wait. So there have been 17 new versions released and people with 7.6 installs just missed it? I think I still have a 7.6 install and this is the first I’ve heard of this. I would love to know the history of how people are being advised to go from 7 to 24.

High tension steel cable is strong though, I wouldn’t be very concerned about it. And we have plenty of experience keeping it safe from weathering from using it in all those bridges.

It also incentivises more production, if you believe the supply & demand story.

Yes, it’s called a typewriter.

In any case, the actual argument I was making […] as that you seem to think that ‘power’ is some monolithic they which is endlessly intelligent and completely shared between business and politics.

And there it is. There’s the actual thing you were apparently trying to address. You spent all that time and all those words addressing an imaginary thing that I had not said based purely on an impression that you had without ever actually explaining what you were thinking. That’s why none of it made any sense.

See, in future, you can just say this upfront. If you had in this case then I could have just told you flat out that you were wrong about what I thought and saved you all this effort. It is really weird that you were able to say this, and even that I “seem to think” it, and not understand that you were simply projecting some strawman bullshit onto me.

What a fantastic waste of both of our times.

In the interview, he is quoting someone else’s conclusions in one line, and unless you can give actual context to these words it’s not even clear what he’s getting at. He says himself that it’s one aside line in one interview that doesn’t represent his conclusions but someone else’s, and that’s exactly what it appears to be. The thrust of his point appears to be that the western media was using one atrocity to distract from their own, which seems like a reasonable position. If you want to make the case, make it. That is indeed one line in an interview that doesn’t make his position clear.

David Campbell himself seems content to give fragments of quotes heavily bracketed in his own deeply interpetive framing that seems to require a deep familiarity with the subject matter in order to even understand, where he talks about A’s reply to B and C’s postion and oh my god it shouldn’t be this hard to make the case if there is one. He links another article of his criticism of Chomsky in which he does exactly the same thing, at which point I lost patience with reading bullshit.

You say his “debunking” is more eloquent than your own, even though it’s impenetrable waffle, which is not surprising given your own inability to make a point and not get lost in your own weeds.

Like, you started attacking Chomsky, why? The only reason I mentioned his credentials was to head off the usual reaction to manufacturing consent which is to call it a conspiracy theory. But, you already accept the concept, but you’re going to get sidelined with genocide denial accusations that you can’t even back up.

And the entire first half of your comment was you basically listing a bunch of different attitudes people had to the Iraq war, with no notion of the power politics involved. Like, yes, there are a lot of ideas flying about, most of them created by the media to manufacture consent, and hence mostly bullshit. I thought you understood this concept? What matters are the reasons of those in power, and they’re not even shy about it. The only way you miss it is if you ignore it in favour of the consent machine’s noise.

And yeah, the MIC can just make Abrams and let them rot in warehouses for decades. But they make more money when there’s a war, so they want it. Also wars are their way of making examples of countries that don’t submit to murderous structural adjustment policies.

I’ll admit that there’s a bit more going on than just oil = war, but it is a primary driver, not just to have the resources, but to control their flow to maintain global hegemony. Just like the lithium wars are more complex than “gib lithium”. Again, not a difficult concept.

This is weak shit. I don’t think I’ll keep replying. You seem intent on maintaining a gish gallop and your position isn’t even clear. I’ve tried to understand your position but it’s like wading through a pile of shit to find a raisin which may not even be there. I just don’t have any more energy for it.

So that’s a lot of detail that doesn’t really matter to muddy the waters and completely ignore the point I was making.

And that is an absolutely WILD fucking take about Chomsky. Do you have anything that shows him actually saying any of the things you’re accusing him of?

If you don’t provide receipts in your next reply then we’re done here. I would love to know what fucking wild political background produces this bizarre mix if mis and disinfo. Dyed-in-the-wool blue-no-matter-who dem, I would guess.

It is really hard to take you seriously when apparently you haven’t been paying attention to anything the US has been doing for well over a century now. Like you actually think wars are ideological? You think states don’t want war? What the fuck do you think the Iraq war was about?

Iraq invasion was about oil

Those aren’t my words, that’s literally the headline, and it’s not an editorialised opinion, the US was extremely open about their reasons. Their words are right there in the article.

You should also read about the military industrial complex, because it turns out that if you can socialise the harms and privatise the rewards of war, you can make a fucking killing, and that’s a large part of why the US is rarely not at war. Shit’s wild, yo.

This is a very old idea. Smedley Butler was a major general and basically the US’s golden boy veteran way back in the day and he wrote War is a Racket in 1935. It’s 14 pages long, it’s a pamphlet, and unless you’re Ethan Klein you really should try to read it. This shit is a very old playbook and it is not that complicated.

Next, you should spend some time with Manufacturing Consent. That is a seminal work by Noam Chomsky, who is amongst the most cited scholars in history, let alone currently living scholars, explaining exactly how the media does the exact thing I am explaining in my original comment, laying groundwork and building the case specifically for modern wars, and he explains this in simple, observable, material terms. He never appeals to conspiracy at all.

So you have it from an historically influenctial academic source, a highly experienced and decorated general, and from the US leadership’s own mouths. If you keep trying to tell me that modern wars are about ideology and we all just peacably buy from one another these days, I’ll know you’re really not paying attention.

I see, well I’m sorry I jumped to conclusions then. I’m glad you’re at least open to discussing things. In future maybe don’t just assume everybody knows that when you say “Australia” you’re referring to the lithium that’s here unless it’s been mentioned before. It’s not at all obvious.

Of course, when I say “lithium wars”, I’m not only talking about the extraction of lithium, I’m talking about all of the minerals required for electric car and battery production. This is an established term with a specific scope, as opposed to “Australia” which is, you know, an entire country and means a lot of wildly different things to a lot of people.

This paper talks about the lithium wars - which are not yet literal wars and also not literally only about lithium - and namedrops the Congo in the title, even though the Congo primarily mines cobalt: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4215

Either way, this is a purely semantic distinction. The OP article explicitly talks about the US’s efforts to “secure supplies of strategic minerals”. That is exactly the way they talk about strategic petroleum supplies. They are laying the groundwork here for manufacturing consent for war, and those anticipated wars broadly are called the “lithium wars”. They are also laying the groundwork for justifying these wars by appealing to climate change.

Of course, electric cars aren’t the solution to climate change. If you want to reduce your personal footprint, the best thing you can do is keep your current car running because the production costs of new cars - especially when you take into account the wars that will be fought to secure their raw materials - are enormous. Electric car hype isn’t about helping the climate, it’s about selling us a product whilst doing nothing to address the systemic problems that are actually causing climate change.

The lithium wars are going to be about providing that new market with cheap minerals by outsourcing the costs on the poorest and most vulnerable nations who have been made that way by centuries of exploitation. As they say, the cheapest land - or in this case minerals - are paid for in other people’s blood.

Now you can say that lithium is different to oil in that one respect, but that doesn’t actually matter. The point is that they will use this excuse as justification for war, not that the excuse makes sense. They don’t give two shits about the truth.