can’t see how this can possibly be a good thing, you know it will mean funding with conditions.

Well, the things they are funding will get funded? How is that a bad thing?!

The conditions range from very broad, like “fix bugs” (curl), over somewhat specific like “improve cross-platform compatibility and the Linux RNG” (Wireguard), to very specific like “create a test-suite and drive development on the Fediverse account migration functionality” (ActivityPub).

You can see more for yourself at https://www.sovereign.tech/tech

All of these seem to be rather tame conditions that are just there to ensure the funds get used in the way they were intended to be used. And I don’t really see how that gives the STF any sort of direct control over these projects, while it gives those projects resources to achieve more than they might have otherwise. There are no long-term funding models that would enable implicit control over these projects.

They could set up an account on one of the larger well established Canadian instances or even better start up their own.

Both of these options have their pros and cons, and I think it is important to explain these well to the council if you want to have any hope of convincing them.

A line of argument that has had some success in Europe is what has become known as “Digital Sovereignty”, basically a fancy term for saying government should control its own infrastructure. So you might want to sell it as an easy way to have a permanent archive of public communication and a method for it that is under their direct control, rather than as a way to find more engagement.

As others have said self hosting has a maintenance and moderation overhead, but this can be lessened by running an instance together with other cities while still retaining most of the benefits of self hosting.

Seeing from the linked cross-post that this is about Port Alberni, and considering that http://portalberni.ca/ returns an empty reply while https://portalberni.ca/ lets me know I have been geoblocked because I’m outside of Canada and the US, I’d say you have an uphill battle before you though. These people made a website (probably paid for it, too), and then killed much of its use by geoblocking most of the world.

Good luck.

I think you are being naive.

Fair.

The LofN failed, the UN is now failing too.

That’s why I’m looking for ideas to reform or replace it.

They by definition cannot solve problems. That said some related incentives have succeeded, such as the WHO.

That’s kind of the crux here though, it can solve problems and it does. People are being fed by the UN every day. Yes, it’s not good enough at solving the problems it is charged with solving. But that makes improving upon it the obvious course of action, does it not? What else is there except apathy?

Bodies like the LvN and UN are inherently going to fail to achieve peace because they rely on willing compliance with almost zero enforcement mechanisms.

Because having enforcement mechanisms slams face first into the principle of state sovereignty.

I agree on the state sovereignty part. But both the LvN and UN bettered the world within their limited means, while obviously more often failing than succeeding. So I don’t agree on the failure part entirely. They may be inherently aspirational, but they tried and managed to improve conditions somewhat, exactly by being an (if ever so slight) impediment on state sovereignty that didn’t exist before.

But yeah the general consensus seems to be that the UN is a failure, so I’m just looking for people who are thinking about what to do about that. Seems like the only people talking about it are the World Bank and Russia with its multipolar world order.

Yeah in a way. That particular keyword has a big conspiracy factor when you search for it though. :D

Local international institutions are of course an obvious avenue whether you aim for a world government or not, but I doubt they have velocity required for the problems we are facing, old and new.

Creating bigger and stronger governments will only lead to the protection of an elite that is way too irresponsible with their powers.

Well I clearly see the danger. The many against the few is a problem as old as society. And where there is power, there will be abuse. And every system we have, like separation of powers and checks and balances, is flawed. But the cold hard truth is that we have run out of time and I don’t really see any other viable solutions. If somebody has one please let me know, that’s why I made this post.

It’s genuinely very hard to find someone that says: “I don’t care about microplastics, “I have no issue with air pollutants causing cancer” and “I don’t care we are trashing the ocean”.

I know what you mean, most people would agree on this. But sadly it is very easy to find the people who would say so. Cui bono? Who is benefiting? So we need to regulate them. And then of course there are people too consumed with simply subsistence to care about any of this.

I don’t know if governments and corporations will solve the climate crisis, but goddamn I’ll do my part and help businesses and others do their part too.

On this we agree.

This is indeed interesting. That charter reads like a git diff on the current one. Exactly the stuff I was looking for, thanks.

World Bank ties though? Oof. People are going to call me a lizard person. /s

FYI you have a typo in your last screenshot (This sign m[a]y not…):

android auto

First I heard of this, but since it seems to be just some software that runs on the hardware of car manufacturers it seems rather unlikely. But very theoretically possible, if the car manufacturer was using default process scheduling in a CPU constrained machine and now switches to real-time scheduling in an update. But that was possible for years before this news, the code has just been mainlined to the default kernel now. If the car manufacturer cared about that they would probably have done it already with a patched kernel.

Oh yeah, can’t use the same IP range as your LAN, that will lead to problems. :D Glad it’s fixed.

Out of curiosity, does forwarding work now without the output (-o) command in PostUp?

Like I said in another thread on this post, I’m pretty sure that’s because they are forwarding input but not output in the PostUp rules. Setting a /32 in AllowedIPs works fine for me.

What are you trying to say? That reply also shows AllowedIPs set to a /32 on the server side.

I don’t think that’s what the setting does. Anyway, I have them set to a /32 IP in my server config and it works nonetheless. I get full access to the /24 behind the server from the client.

You have ALL traffic being routed over Wireguard here.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the other way around? All Wireguard traffic is forwarded to the local interface.

I think the problem might be your PostUp/PostDown lines have an in-interface (-i) but are missing an out-interface (-o) for the forwarding. Try this:

PostUp   = iptables -A FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -A FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ens3 -j MASQUERADE
PostDown = iptables -D FORWARD -i %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -D FORWARD -o %i -j ACCEPT; iptables -t nat -D POSTROUTING -o ens3 -j MASQUERADE

Wikipedia has a world map for this:

Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_Speed_Limits.svg

Linux users can’t even agree […] so how am I supposed to pick one with any confidence?

Easy. You make a post like the OP, count the positive mentions of distros in the comments, and bam, you have your distro of choice. It’s called the Linux newbie roulette and works kind of like the magic hat in Harry Potter that sorts you into your house.

pet open source projects that no one else ever seems to contribute to, not […] software that holds up civilization

SamePicture.jpeg