In a fascist dictatorship, they have a lot more in common than opposition.
But if the dictatorship is a communist one they have more in common with the nazis! Or if your country is invaded by Russia you might find yourself fighting side by side with the Azov battalion.
There are libertarians who genuinely care about free speech and might make useful allies on those issues.
Just because someone is the enemy of your enemy, or an occasionally useful ally, doesn't mean you want to unify with them.
The idea that all "leftists" should just work together is stupid.
Leninism, Anarcho-primitivism and Social democracy (for example) are not different approaches to "leftism" that ultimately want the same things; they are completely separate ideologies that naturally come into conflict. The people who follow them disagree with each other because they want and value completely different things. If they were to put aside their differences there would be nothing left.
That doesn't mean arguing on the internet about ideology is meaningful, or that there can't be common goals or enemies, just that you should give up the idea that all "leftists" are somehow natural allies, because it doesn't make any sense.
You are right! I was fooled by my server already having git installed and this requirement not being mentioned anywhere. I guess that explains why it uses SSH rather than SCP/SFTP.
I feel like you made it sound a bit backwards :)
There's nothing to install on a "git server", git doesn't have a server component. You can point your git client to a remote place where it can store its files using SSH. But you don't install anything on the server for this.
Which is why self hosting a git remote is super easy. All you need is a server with ssh and a little bit of storage.
If you just want to sync code between different computers and have a backup, that's all you need.
There're a lot of privacy enthusiasts who seem to view privacy as a binary. So because Mozilla isn't perfect, it's as bad as can be.
They also commonly have little understanding of the underlying technology, law, business, etc., which I guess is why they can't do any threat modeling. They're just really scared of a nebulous threat they do not understand. Which I can sympathize with.
But privacy then becomes more about "staying pure" in some abstract sense, rather than about avoiding concrete threats.
(As a tip to those who want to do better, any real security starts with threat modeling. There is no such thing as perfect security, it's always a tradeoff. So you must do threat modeling to make sure you're putting your resources where they will make a difference.)
It's not about identity as much as it's a very poor way to try to convince someone.
Don't base your line of argument on a statement you know the other person will likely disagree with.
For example "You should play Pathfinder because DnD sucks", holds no weight to people who don't think that DnD sucks. In fact if they happen to like DnD, it undermines your argument, because if you disagree about DnD, aren't you also likely to disagree about Pathfinder?
If they play a system, they probably like that system and find its shortcomings acceptable. You can't convince someone that a system isn't enjoyable when they have first-hand evidence to the contrary.
Asking people to stop being comfortable doing something they like, so that they can be uncomfortable doing something you like, isn't a good value proposition.
If you lead with "Thing you like is actually bad", their immediate response will be to disagree with you and start defending the thing they like. And if you want someone to listen to your arguments, rather than just try to poke holes in them, you must avoid putting them on the defensive.
To get through to people, find common ground and build off that. "If you like FEATURE in GAME, you'll probably love SIMILAR FEATURE in OTHER GAME because..." is something that's actually going to get someone interested, rather than start a pointless argument :)
Well there are no crits on checks in 5e, so a nat 20 +0 is no different from a nat 6 +14. And someone with a +14 can't fail a check with a DC of 15 or lower.
Having Degrees of Success built into the system in PF2 is really neat though. And seems like something DnD could easily incorporate if Wizards had any vision.
Hi!
After a lot of thinking, reading reviews, and fondling gear at my local shop, I got a completely new setup recently. 8" board, 8" Thunder hollow lights, and 52 mm 93a Dragon wheels.
Having such a small, light, and low board feels really good (coming from 8.5 indys), and those wheels let me skate some spots that used to be too crusty for anything but my cruising wheels.
In fact the 93 durometer wheels (Powell Peralta Dragons and Spitfire Soft Sliders) are probably the most interesting development of the last few years. They handle rough ground and pebbles well, but still slide and bounce almost like hard wheels.
There's still some trade off, but I'd say they're perfect for skating actual street in any place that gets weather.
I don't really bike much when it's wet, and never in mud, but the main downside of a slicker (but not slick) tire I've noticed is on steep gravel trails. I have a knobbly in front, so descending is ok, but ascending is definitely harder.
Mind that tread isn't everything, tire size, air pressure, rubber hardness etc. all play a part. A wider softer tire might not struggle as much even without tread. (Speaking of which, I should try letting out some air next time.)
I was considering putting scare quotes around "communism", but refrained in order to avoid an argument about what is and isn't really communism. Yet here we are. So much for left unity! ;D