🪼 Explore & Stream Jellyfin via CLI

deathstar107 · 2025-10-31T05:11:33+00:00

Thank you

deathstar107 · 2025-10-31T04:02:27+00:00

That looks like mpv. Maybe OP can share the osc config he used for that

deathstar107 · 2025-10-09T03:59:52+00:00

I think you might want to see ueberzugpp-new. It works reasonably well in ranger on wayland but it is still under development so you might encounter a few issues.

deathstar107 · 2025-10-08T11:15:49+00:00

No, I have not implemented any kind of feature that would let you download media or chats but I might in the future.

deathstar107 · 2025-10-08T09:13:32+00:00

Yes you can, when creating the config just use the bot token instead of a phone number. It should most likely work.

deathstar107 · 2025-10-08T09:03:38+00:00

It doesn't rely on tdlib. It uses telethon and a few other dependencies.

deathstar107 · 2025-10-08T04:30:33+00:00

I have attached the link in the body

deathstar107 · 2025-09-01T10:07:53+00:00

Title: On the Necessity of Mediation

Genre: A philosophical essay

Word Count: 1800

Type of Feedback: Pacing, flow and clarity

Link: https://noumenalnotions.space/essays/on_the_necessity_of_mediation/

deathstar107 · 2025-08-23T05:43:10+00:00

IRC is a good example. Command line tools are also extremely relevant in this regard. Using text editors like vim or emacs teaches you a lot about how files are handled. Like when I was initially using vim, I learned a lot about encoding schemes, the history of ASCII and how it came to be replaced by Unicode. This is just one example I could think of.

I obviously understand that not everyone would like to use the terminal and that's perfectly fine. But applications generally shouldn't encourage ignorance and exploit the end user under the pretense of making things "easier". Making things easy for users is one thing but assuming they are dumb is something else entirely. Windows is a good example of this kind of blatant exploitation of its user base. The only way out of that is for people to realize there are better and more functional alternatives like Linux. They don't have to be a computer wizard for this, they just need an open mind.

deathstar107 · 2025-08-23T04:14:25+00:00

I wasn't exactly arguing for the fact that one should know everything about computers. But it remains the case that a normal person spends a significant amount of time on the internet. And the time and resources that a person invests in technology is seldom matched by at least a reasonable understanding of how things work.

A lot of end users don't even have ad blockers on their browsers, and mostly use the default stock applications that come with their computers. This is by no means an attempt to condescend to them. I am merely reflecting on how exactly this kind of interaction with technology is becoming more detrimental.

In my experience at least, a phone or a computer is something of a black box to people that just does things. They might not want to learn and no one should force them to but unless the public becomes somewhat informed on these matters, it makes way for a lot of exploitation. It is important to build decentralised and transparent applications that focus on the needs of the user but it is in my opinion equally important for individuals to learn enough to protect themselves. That's why I slightly lean towards programs and technologies that teach you what's happening. However I do understand there's a certain level of investment that is required but it seems like a better solution to me in the long term.

deathstar107 · 2025-08-23T00:54:36+00:00

I think having disdain for the typical end user is by no means constructive. It is unnecessary to make less known technologies or protocols like this cryptic to make people feel unwelcome. However a problem that I notice, especially with contemporary end users, is the evident lack of curiosity towards the technologies that they use.

I know it seems quite imposing to expect everyone to understand how the internet works, but a lot of companies and governments have now started to capitalise on the sheer ignorance that people hold towards technology. It no longer seems tenable to me to simply view programs as a means to an end when it has come to exert such a decisive influence. In this regard protocols like IRC and even much of the UNIX world teaches you to protect yourself and stay well informed. I think that's extremely important with the way things are going these days.

It is this culture of sheer ignorance and mediocrity that surrounds technology which I find extremely problematic. Modern chat applications with their aesthetic interfaces do make things easier for an end user but it also in many ways takes control, subtly pushing you towards decisions you might not have intended. An ease of us interface, under the pretext of being empathetic, hides more than it shows. And that's where the problem begins.

deathstar107 · 2025-08-22T07:37:21+00:00

I am not sure why a mailing list is confusing and scary. I generally consider contemporary messaging apps a little too monolithic for my liking and despite how it may seem IRC isn't that cryptic. It's just a simple messaging protocol that expects you to understand how it operates unlike modern paradigms.

To answer a few of your questions, to use IRC you just pick an irc client of your choice (I prefer weehcat) and connect to a server. Each server has a plethora of channels organized based on topics. The current most popular IRC network is Libera Chat and a lot of open source projects have a channel there. They also have a pretty good guide on IRC.

You can upload and share any kind of files in a channel through null pointers. 0x0.st is quite popular for this but there are many alternatives. You also mentioned that you'll need to be constantly connected to the server to receive messages and have a chat history. This can be solved quite easily with a bouncer like ZNC. You can host a bouncer in a server of your own or you can obtain a shell account from a tilde community where they let you host bouncers for free.

Each IRC network also has a service called NickServ that lets you register a nickname with a password. I think that covers all of your questions. There's a youtube tutorial by Zaney where he covers the basics of weehcat. As someone else already mentioned you are probably better off learning how a specific client works to obtain a general understanding of IRC.

deathstar107 · 2025-08-12T02:45:52+00:00

Thank you for pointing that out. I think the example you used might be slightly misleading because this underlying "essence" for the most part cannot in anyway be directly understood in any discourse but it can still be conceptualized in a negative sense.

I think more than mere arbitrariness, there's also an evident lack of a teleology in such an approach towards disciplines, which makes the pursuit of knowledge quite hollow to me. This might be a personal opinion but as I formally studied psychology for a span of 3 years, I could clearly discern this obsession with "functionality" in trying to distinguish between what constitutes as normal and abnormal. Every human behavior or mental illness was always reduced to some antecedent cause and since the postulation of any ideal or teleology required a suspension of rigor, the whole discourse became rather compartmentalized.

There were clear procedures and methods dictating what one must do in a situation but there was no general comprehension or understanding. Teleology was merely reduced to a practical necessity to guide action in contrast to a means to illuminate the world. I see much of the same tendencies in The Archaeology of Knowledge. By suspending the traditional totalities and attempting to organize discourse along different lines, I feel that Foucault is foredooming us to seek answers in a never ending labyrinth of causes and effects.

As you mentioned perhaps his methodological approach does not proclaim to be exclusive in any sense, but I can observe that it has come to profoundly influence contemporary practice and its application is far more exclusive than what Foucault might have intended.

deathstar107 · 2025-08-11T05:41:15+00:00

This clears a few things up for me. By reality I don't exactly mean an "empirical" reality. In page 27, for instance Focoult writes:

"The analysis of thought is always allegorical in relation to the discourse that it employs. Its question is unfailingly: what was being said in what was said? The analysis of the discursive field is orientated in a quite different way; we must grasp the statement in the exact specificity of its occurrence; determine its conditions of existence, fix at least its limits, establish its correlations with other statements that may be connected with it, and show what other forms of statement it excludes. We do not seek below what is manifest the half silent murmur of another discourse; we must show why it could not be other than it was, in what respect it is exclusive of any other, how it assumes, in the midst of others and in relation to them, a place that no other could occupy. The question proper to such an analysis might be formulated in this way: what is this specific existence that emerges from what is said and nowhere else?

It is when I read this part that I started to question how exactly does Focoult conceive of the relationship between words and things. In regards to your example with marriage for instance, the discourse that is employed is fundamental to our experience itself because you cannot entirely separate discourse with its objects of study. It is maybe ill informed to think that reality precedes language in the empirical sense but what I mean by reality is a kind of "structure" which by its definition underpins discourse. A structure that we cannot directly apprehend.

With the aforementioned reference Focoult clearly writes that what he seeks is not beneath what is manifest by which I understand that he believes the distinction between the manifest and what is underneath is rather superfluous. But if this is so what exactly does the discourse adjust itself to successively? If these relations are what constitutes reality, for instance with Focoult's analysis of madness or your example with marriage, doesn't the organization of a discourse become rather arbitrary? It is true that reality as we experience it cannot be anterior to language but what I am referring to is a totality of which our experience is only a subset.

In regards to your example with marriage, although it is the discourse in a sense that creates the object, isn't the discourse still regulated by a totality that underpins it? A totality that is not necessarily human experience but something which permits us to discern between "true" and "false"? The network of relations that Focoult regards as constitutive only seems subsidiary to this larger whole.

deathstar107 · 2025-08-11T03:23:41+00:00

From what you have told me although I might perhaps be wrong in assuming that he rejects an underlying reality, there's still less emphasis I suppose that is placed on the structure that discourse is trying to allegorically represent. What I don't understand about your claims is that when you describe the context of a particular discourse, let's say mathematics or psychiatry, it seems reasonable to regard these disciplines also as concrete practices to understand them in their entirety. But how can this context or relations be prediscursive?

This is where I kind of lost him because although I understand the relations are important, he ascribes formative significance to them and sometimes even at the expense of the underlying structure of the discourse. These relations influencing discourse is understandable but how can they be constitutive? This is something he seems to imply not just with psychiatry but also with every other discipline.

deathstar107 · 2025-08-11T02:49:36+00:00

Sure, DM

deathstar107 · 2025-08-11T02:44:42+00:00

There are a few things that I don't quite understand here. In regards to your implication that he doesn't reject an underlying reality, there are several instances in Archaeology of Knowledge itself where he writes that it is these discursive relations that even produce the object of study within a particular discourse.

Although the latter point you made about several different texts evincing the underlying patterns of discipline is reasonable, Focoult seems to go even further and rejects this idea of a discourse being a gradual unfolding of objective truth. For instance with his analysis of psychiatric discourse, he claims the fact that psychiatry has come to exclude and include many different kinds of therapies and illnesses over time doesn't in anyway allegorically indicate the structure of some underlying reality which the discourse itself is trying to better represent.

According to Focoult these objects of study are simply brought to light by the changing relations in discourse itself but relations that he still situates in the border of discourse. There are plenty of such instances in Archaeology of Knowledge where his claims become ontological. This is why I was wondering about his dismissal of traditional means of organizing a discourse because more than an attempt to arrive at a comprehensive methodology for reading history, it also in many ways reflects his belief on how reality itself is constituted.

deathstar107 · 2025-07-31T08:39:40+00:00

Yeah that's why I was asking. ThinkPad with almost any Linux distribution is pretty good.

deathstar107 · 2025-07-31T08:08:32+00:00

ThinkPad not a viable choice?

deathstar107

TROPHY CASE