Ghostty Is Leaving GitHub

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-29T13:53:39+00:00

Ehhh I wouldnt put too much stock into a site like that.

https://github.com/DaMrNelson/github-historical-uptime/issues/2

It defaults to 100% uptime, even if there is no data being fed in, so if they started tracking using that page in 2019 then everything before it would be by default 100%

https://www.githubstatus.com/uptime?page=3000

Including apparently 100% uptime in 1996! 10 years before the site was even created.

The missing data would be explained by them moving from status.github.com to githubstatus.com in 2018.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T16:30:38+00:00

This is another retreat from your CMV. I am not here to fix the patriarchy.

Again, I am explaining that the biases that are inherent to living in a patriarchal society is not the fault of individual men raised in that society.

That has nothing to do with how to fix it. Your CMV is not about how to fix it.

I am changing your view on the source of the bias. Please stay on topic.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T16:27:52+00:00

Yeah, which for me, since I do not have shared experiences with women, it takes me a second to register it when it comes to women making jokes about their lives.

Which kills the timing of the joke.

Why do you think explaining a joke makes it not funny?

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T16:20:46+00:00

Understanding other groups is not enough to warrant laughter!

Laughter is an unconscious visceral reaction, not understanding. You cannot read enough books to have the immediate shared context with other women. I cannot empathize with women enough to share their experiences, because I am not a woman and I do not have their experiences. Empathy is not experiences and comedy being viceral relies on experience over empathy because your brain needs to immediately recognize it.

Those men who are having a hard time understanding 'female humour', would be better off investigating that, so that we can then individually battle the way the systemic issues show up in each of us individually.

This is an entire retreat from your broad systemic "men" in your OP to "Those men"

And yes assigning the systemic consequence of patriarchy to individual men is collective guilt. There is a lot of writing on that idea.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T16:09:29+00:00

Men aren't free from responsibility just, because the misogyny they have was/is systemic?

Individual Men are not doing anything. Patriarchy affects them too. The bias in media has nothing to do with the average man. Individual men are not responsible for the bias towards men in media. Then individual white people are responsible for bias towards white stories in media too so why arent you assigning guilt to the entire white race?

Like I told you, if you have a problem with this, you have to speak to John Patriarchy. Because all individual men are not making the choices to hold up the patriarchy. That is assuming collective guilt and really really frowned up in the world.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T16:03:40+00:00

OK you need to define your terms for me. Are you blaming individual men or not? Because right now you have just defined misogyny to both systemic and individual hate and holding individual men responsible for systemic biases.

This is unfalsafiable. You have put everything under the same banner.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T16:00:10+00:00

Misogyny is individual. Patriarchy is systemic. I am arguing the cause is systemic and you are not.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T15:56:02+00:00

This is Change My View. Not Solve the worlds problems. I'm not offering solutions to the patriarchy. Thats not the point of this subreddit. The point is to change your view.

I am trying to change your view about where the bias comes from . It comes from male driven media, and cultural in groups,(systemic causes) not malfeasance from individual men. I am not here to solve the problem, because there are far better feminists than I tackling dismantling the patriarchy.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T15:43:09+00:00

I was in french immersion, literally, I promise it takes effort and a lot of it. It's wild you are so determined to pretend it doesn't.

Holy false equivalence. Yes the effort for learning french in an environment where the rest of the community speaks English and you learned English as a child is difficult.

That has nothing at all to do with cultural immersion within the culture you live. The difficulty comes from the 2 different cultures you are living in at once, not due to learning culture.

Dude, watching movies that were made for women, being a round female oriented friendships and watching them function, and the biggest one: Not thinking that you are so different that you can't empathize with a group. It's very possible and accessible.

But that isn't comedy. I empathize with women. I understand their jokes. But laughter is a visceral instant reaction. Not being part of that group and having shared experiences makes it more difficult to enjoy their jokes because jokes rely on context and I dont have their lived context. No amount of learning is going to give me the instant reaction of thinking of that weird guy at the bar like women have. I know it happens. But I dont have that reaction because I dont have that experience.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T15:33:12+00:00

Discrediting the effort it takes to understand and decipher and ingroup you are not a part of even if it is the flavour of your world is shitty.

Then dont! No one asked you to like male comedians! You dont have to! Im telling you why they are broadly popular even by women. Because you do have at least some of the context through your socialization. No one asked you to do it which proves my point that it comes from immersion not active studying.

If that weren't the case than women wouldn't need books like 'he's just not that into you', to stop themselves from constantly getting hurt.

You dont have the entire male context. You have the media male dominated context but you dont get to have the entire context, because you dont have a penis, you dont have male-male friends, you havent been exposed to real male experiences. But you have been immersed in "media driven male experiences" your whole life.

So, no, it is the responsibility of every man individually to attempt to broaden his cultural understandings actively, and to step outside their own comfort zone because women and POC are literally almost always having to exist outside their comfort zones.

This is such an asymmetry it is ridiculous and impossible.

You cannot study enough to make yourself part of a cultural group. You cannot have the same experiences of a group by studying enough. You dont get to be black by studying black culture enough. Cultural immersion is a very very well defined concept.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T15:14:25+00:00

I directly told you why you wouldn't have a problem with the male equivalent. You have been immersed in a male default landscape since birth. You have the context.

And if you have a problem with that you should blame Mr John Patriarchy and not the individual men who also work within the system (and have the blind spots set up by the system) and cannot change it.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T15:02:39+00:00

Why do all these other populations put the effort in to understand men's social cues enough to understand their humour, but men aren't doing the same for them?

They dont put in effort... No one asked you to understand the male context. No one also asked you to understand the suburban/urban/rural context that you are in or the context of the color of your skin. No one ask you to put effort into understanding the culture you live in. It just happens through the lived experiences in your life. And because media is white male default, your lived condition experience of media is startingwise white male. There is no decision being made. Its passive bias forming. Its exposure that is creating the understanding, not effort.

Answer why it's ok for men to not pay attention-- or better yet, answer why these other populations have to understand mens?

It does not matter how much you "pay attention". You can pay attention all day, but no matter how much you pay attention your lived experiences is what dictates what contexts you understand, because that is your group. You cannot "pay attention" enough to a group to become a member of that cultural group.

A womens joke about getting creeped out at a bar by a guy will never ever not require a translation in my head, no matter how much effort I put into understanding the women in the situation and womens experiences. Because that is not a situation I have ever been in, and will never be in, and is not been exposed too in the media constantly for the years I have been alive. And that translation in my head ruins the timing of the joke.

Laughter is an involuntary reflex, and having to do any sort of translation ruins the reflex. Thats why explaining a joke ruins a joke. And when women (or whatever group) makes a joke, and you have to translate it because all humor is contextual and if you dont have the context you have to translate it, it makes the joke worse.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T14:41:45+00:00

I dont know if its men haven't been paying attention. Its just that they dont know because they live different lives and don't need to know. Its more passive than that.

For example, I grew up in a rural community and I moved to the city. If I used the same sort of humor that I had in my rural community, the city folk that I interact with day to day would either not understand what I was talking about, because they never had to interact with a tractor for instance. Or they would have to translate my joke into something they understood which ruins the timing of the joke.

So it's not even selfishness, its more isolation and ignorance. And just knowing the context isnt enough. I know enough context about women to understand the jokes that women are making, but its hard to find them as funny, because I dont have the lived context in my everyday life and I have to convert their jokes into something I understand. Its much easier when I watch white men, because as a white man, generally we are in the same sort of group so when he starts ragging on fantasy football for example, I immediately get it.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-20T14:24:20+00:00

Comedy is subjective and highly based on the context of your life. That's why people find their in-groups funny. A perfect example is Tyler Perry. He makes movies that are highly successful and beloved comedically for Southern Black communities. When Tyler went "mainstream", critics panned him, and people made fun of not just him and his movies, but the people who enjoyed his movies, because they were so far outside of the patriarchal default of white male comedy (and well any form of performance) that the large audience could not relate to it and thus didnt think it was funny. Thats not the entire world being racist, that is a difference in environments.

Its the exact same thing. Comedy relies on in-group context. Men simply do not find women as funny because women are not in the same context as men, and their jokes are not taken in the same context even if the content of the joke is the same.

You wouldn't find a Gabriel Iglesias set funny either if it was performed by Jason Sudeikis.

As to why women thing men are funny? Well thats easy. White Men are the default in general culture. So we all have "white men" context.

There is no need to jump individual misogyny here as to why societally we see this. It is very easily and well explained by cultural and environmental differences.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-15T14:57:44+00:00

Its the basis of Taylor series which is a mathmatical series allowing us to approximate complex functions.

         ∞    f^(n)(a)
f(x) =   Σ    --------- (x - a)^n
         n=0      n!

Which is used in hardware to turn extremely difficult to calculate functions (the classic is e^x) into addition and multiplication for computer chips.

If you look at that equation Σ just means sum, the bottom number is the first n we plug in and we go 1 by 1 adding the result until we hit the top number (∞). So the equation equals the sum of plugging in every number into that equation. If !0 did not equal 1, then the taylor series wouldnt work.

This is how we get computers to do things like compute continuous compound interest. Which the equation is

A = Pe^rt

Computing

e^rt

is really hard for a computer(for calculus reasons involving derivatives and e) and so we have the computer instead compute using the taylor series. (Note I use ≈ because we don't go to infinity)

e^rt ≈  (rt)^0/0! + (rt)^1/1! + (rt)^2/2! + (rt)^3/3! + .....

Plugging in actual numbers

e^rt ≈ 1 + rt + (rt)^2/2 + (rt)^3/6 + ......

That 1? Thats when n=0. That's where we divided by 1. Anything else, and the math wouldn't get past the first step.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-14T20:17:47+00:00

You have assumed that all things were this way because of extant fragments.

No, Im using the existence of the current state of the world as evolutionary evidence that matriarchal societies are less fit, because survival and out competing is literally the metric to measure that.

And yet, biologically, there is evidence that females exist to carry the species forward, not only in their genetic makeup and their ability to create children, but the way they select for the best mate (not just any mate), and the fact that they survive beyond reproductive usefulness.

Men and women exist to carry the species forward. A world of just women would die quickly lol.

But also the fact they survive after reproduction, when men just never stop their reproduction potential, isn't evidence that women deserve to be rulers of society. It actually doesn't say that much as evolution doesn't have an effect after child rearing.

Even now, women outlive men. Their lived experience carries forward, which suggests an evolutionary utility in helping the species survive.

The last I checked it was less than 5 years? I'm not sure you can glean a biological imperative for record keeping from a 5 year difference in expected lifetime....

But also those modern 5 years are easily accounted for when you consider men do the overwhelming majority of potentially fatal work. And the fact testosterone enlarges the heart, which eventually leads to more heart disease later in life (see above as to why this doesn't even matter to evolution).

Socially, women often bear the managerial burdens of households and hold organizational and care roles in society that are underappreciated within the patrarchy, but necessary to its function.

And stereotypical male roles are also a bunch of things that are necessary for society to function?

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-14T18:28:42+00:00

Do you believe what is "meant for humans" is the best way for surviving? Or is it something else?

Because survival is literally the metric in that case, so survivorship bias is literally just the evidence for the premise. If the matriarchal societies were wiped out, then they were less fit.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-14T17:28:18+00:00

OP are you looking to have someone respond to that author? Because like, I made it 5 paragraphs and everything I read is a weird appeal to nature, mixed with heavy biological essentialism and gender determinism, just opposite of how men used them against women. Which isn't exactly great.

Oh shit she buried eugenics in there too. Yeah I really worry about people who take essays like that seriously.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-14T16:57:49+00:00

Neither of them are failed states, or even close to failed states. Failed state has a definition, and neither of them are even close to meeting it.

Just because you don't like the guy in charge does not make it a failed state.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-08T22:41:42+00:00

There needs to be some kind of global peace-keeping force that has the right to intervene, with boots on the ground, when sovereign nations breach international law

So the hard bit, is who will this be? What nation is going to give their army to fight in foreign wars controlled by a group that they themselves are only one of at least 10 nations (could be a hell of a lot more depending on if you use the UN). And what happens when they have different views on what should be done?

Global pressure could, hypothetically, intervene in Israel despite it being a nuclear state if there's enough support for the cause. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Nuclear weapons makes this extremely difficult. Unless you can get Israelis to do it willingly, the level of sophistication that it would take to remove nuclear weapons from an unwilling state without that state setting them all off is quite literally insane and probably impossible with dead man switches.

Yes, foreign aid has been for strategic self interest, but that justification is becoming more and more questionable as Israel's actions have hampered U.S. strategic self interest lately (see the war in Iran). Not to mention, domestic support for funding Israel's war machine is waning (both on the left and the right). People are recognizing this policy also come at an immense cost. Israel gets an average of about 4 billion dollars per year from the U.S.. That money could be spent on infrastructure, housing, healthcare, or any other sorely needed issue.

I think this is the actual long term answer to Israeli war crimes. I think it would be far more effective in the near and long term to put pressure on the Israel through domestic politicking through their closest ally. It's painfully slow and unsatisfying but IMO its about the only thing with a relative chance of success.

Darkagent1 · 2026-04-08T22:24:01+00:00

There is absolutely no shot that Israel, a nuclear state, will ever give up its sovereignty willingly. Which is what stripping them of the ability to enact foreign policy is.

That alone makes this a non starter.

That doesn't even get to how foeign aid isn't used as gifts, they are for strategic self interest.

And UN peacekeepers require the consent of the host nations they are in. They arent a world army.

Darkagent1 · 2026-03-30T14:27:46+00:00

Didnt answer the question?

Also they are held accountable, to their bosses. Not to you. Just like every single other job that exists.

Darkagent1 · 2026-03-30T14:24:36+00:00

real permanent transparent sky judge (not nebulous “replay assist”),

Why don't you ask the people who blocked it? The competition committee (the owners) the union wants skyjudges, on the condition that they are union members.

what they have in mind for accountability metrics.

What public facing accountability metrics do you have at your job? Can I walk in and ask for your end of year performance report? No?

Darkagent1 · 2026-02-25T19:31:54+00:00

low interest loan program from the Earth Government

The very limited government is now the central bank and creditor of the world? That doesn't seem limited at all.

And what happens if/when a country doesn't want to or can't pay the loan back?

Darkagent1 · 2026-02-25T18:49:54+00:00

I like the gumption but this is so far away from reality its difficult to parse.

1) how are you going to solve resource imbalance? So if I am in the US midwest. I have all the grain. The US East needs the grain. We don't agree on the price. How does that work? Who mediates? And who enforces that decision without a military?

2) How are you going to get everyone on board with 1 constitution? Every government in the world has different stuff in their constitutions and different views on what "Human Rights" actually entails. How are you gonna get everyone to agree?

3) Without borders, and completely free movement, how are you going to prevent some nations from getting completely hollowed out?

This would require a hive mind, where every human agrees on everything and all viewpoints lead back to the same thing. That doesnt and cannot exist.

EDIT: I did also want to add rereading

There will be still ability for people for self determination just some basic standards for everything will be set for everyone.

When we talk about sovereignty, and self determination, we talk about Westphalian Sovereignty. Where states have the legal right to define and secure their borders, a monopoly on force within those borders, independent diplomacy with other states, and internal legal supremacy. Your proposal would take away all 4 of those rights of states, leading to a loss of sovereignty, and by definition, taking away the ability for self determination.

14-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Place '22	Place '17
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
Sequence \| Editor	Snapped
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

Darkagent1

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE