psycotica0

I guess Jim Jordan has more faith in Democrats than I do…

I do wish we metric places (or at least Canada) were more flexible and familiar with the whole system. Sure we have milliliters and centimeters and kilograms, but people say things all the time like 2000km or 2 million kgs, or even things like 25000mAh. And I get it, people get into a frame of reference and want to stay there, but I wish people had the agility and practice to say 2 megameters, 2 gigagrams, and, well 25 amp hours, and still be understood. That last one’s not hard, but packaging still seems to be stupid about it.

MIT: The recipient of this source code can do with it as they please. That may include building it, distributing it, modifying it, building and distributing those modifications, commercializing it, whatever. GPL: The recipient of this software, including builds of it, is entitled to the source code that was used to build it. Anyone with the source code can modify it, share those modifications, make builds with it, etc, but you cannot restrict the rights of the recipients of your builds more than the terms you yourself received the source code under. So you can make changes and distribute builds of those changes, but users you distribute builds to are also entitled to your code including the changes you made. AGPL: Same as GPL, except the recipients of this software also include users of the software, such as over a network. This was because with SaaS suddenly people were using software they hadn’t “received”, because it was running on someone else’s computer and they only provided inputs and received outputs, so the licence was created to bring this back in line with the spirit of the GPL. LGPL: You can use this library in your non-GPL code, and it doesn’t “infect” your entire codebase by extending the entitlement of the source code outside the library to all users of your builds. It does still entitle users to the source code of the library itself though, especially if you’ve made changes to the code of that library. People often talk about the GPL preventing commercial uses, but that’s actually not true. You’re allowed to sell GPL software. It’s just a somewhat risky venture, because all users you sell software to also get all the source code. That means anyone can buy your software, request the source, and then immediately start competing with you by offering it themselves for free or cheaper or whatever. So it’s allowed, but rarely works for very long unless you have a lot of good will in the community.

I had a problem literally today because some script was relying on a particular behaviour of dirname that was handled differently between uutils and GNU. It’s been fixed already in a newer version than the one I had, but it took me a long time to figure out what the heck was going on, because finding a missing expectation in a nested shell script is tough… It was just mysteriously doing the wrong thing.

There’s an ongoing lawsuit: sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html It just takes forever and lots of money. That’s not a software license problem though, that’s more of an “American Legal System” problem. And I say that not to imply that it’s worse than other legal systems, just that I know it’s one with these problems and I don’t know about others.

I would argue the entire point of shell scripts is to coordinate running external programs, that’s what the shell is for, but I’m a dreamer. If I was just going to use the built-ins I’d use Python or Ruby or something. In this particular case I didn’t write the shell script, I was just debugging it because it broke on my system when I was running something. Also your implementation has a bug because dirname blah.png returns “.” 😉

You bring up an excellent point! It’s not present on the chart, but we are also one of the most accepting of LGBTQIA2S+ Be excellent to each other! 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈

Ooh ooh, or crepuscular! Mostly just because I like the word…

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding who you're replying to, or if I'm misunderstanding you in this reply, but I don't think they're saying "all gamers are incels who don't like girls", I think they're saying "all the shitty people reacting poorly are the remaining socially inept incel guys"

You're going to have to do a lot more to justify the leap from Godel's Incompleteness and the Halting Problem to "digital is limited, analog is not", because neither of those things have anything to do with digital processes at all, and in fact both came about before we'd *invented* digital computers. To me this comment sounds like when popsci gets ahold of a few sciency words and suddenly decides everything is crystal vibrations universal harmonics string theory quantum tunneling aligning resonance with those around you.

I am not aware of this setup, and so I'm musing and winging it, but I think what they're saying is that if you point at the paper and say "is this a sheet of paper" they'd say yes. And then you point to the crease and say "is this a crease" and they'd say yes, so it has identity, separate from the paper (as in creases and papers are not synonymous), but given that it's not counted when listing things in the room, it's also not a thing. But I think for me it's not that tricky, because it's a *feature* of the paper. Like if there was a coat in the room with buttons, and you asked me what was in the room I wouldn't say a coat and three buttons, I'd say just a coat. And the coat *has* three buttons, but those are properties of the coat, not the room. And buttons are something that *can* stand-alone! But if I had a sheet of paper with a button placed in the middle of it, but not attached, I wonder would most people say it was a sheet of paper *and* a button, or a sheet of paper *with* a button?

Sometimes I try to swipe up and the phone interprets it as a sideways swipe and dismisses something I hadn't read. So I've hit the history feature to see what that might have been. Now, what I'd *prefer* is an undo button, and I wouldn't have expected that history to persist more than 10 minutes, but it's not 100% useless.

Yeah, 2 was just 1 again, with all the same jokes but in reverse. But 3 was legitimately different and better, so it saved the whole thing!

Right, but I don't wear shoes in my *own* home. I'm not asking them to do anything I'm not doing. I'd also like them to not piss in my plants, despite them being a guest.

I used glaxnimate quite a bit like 3 years ago for some videos I was making, and it was capable but *rough* in terms of UX. But it worked. So good for them! And I hope it's gotten better since then, because it certainly had the room 😛

Oh, so L could be "lead"! Or similarly "live"

I'm only about 15% sure you yourself aren't an AI bot making a beautifully ironic and satirical play here. But I think we can agree not to argue any longer 🤝

That is *not* the situation. 😛 Analog signals are *not* digitally irreducible without presuming there's no level of noise floor under which greater detail is irrelevant, Turing's machines are *not* digital by their construction and predate the concept by a long time, and the first computers we built *were* analog and we invented digital computers later because they were cheaper and more efficient and easier and more reliable. Also the halting problem doesn't say "there are things which a computer can't know *but a human can*", it says "there are some things that *cannot* be known". Similarly Gödel proved that there will always be true things about a system that cannot be proven from within the system, that is using its axioms. That was a real bummer for folks trying to prove all of math with a small set of axioms. But that does *not* mean there are things math can't know that humans magically can, it just means there's other math, outside the axioms, that are true without following from them, in math. He proved it with math, after all. It doesn't claim to give any special abilities to human brains. And also, again, nothing Gödel or Turing ever said has anything to do with the concept of "digital" anything. I think you're using the term "digital" to mean "rulesy"? Which is not even close to what it means?

😛

I had a cat named Orion that looked almost exactly like that, except he was very old and died in 2013, so it’s probably not the same one. But it could be that you have a second gen model. If so, you’ve got a great cat ahead of you! Just be aware that 15 years in he starts misunderstanding what it means to really use a liter box; his heart’s in the right place… it’s just that his hindquarters aren’t…

One thing I haven’t really figured out yet, and it may be because there isn’t an answer, is why some of these companies could plausibly be genuinely sending money to Omarchy. Like, Digital Ocean. They’re a headless server company. So… why are they donating anything to a desktop distro? There’s nothing Digital Oceany about Omarchy as far as I understand. It feels like someone was like “Guys, I made open source chicken feed” and Linode was like “son of a bitch I’m in”, I just don’t get it. Ignoring the part where they just like the vibes and want to spend their money on… favour? I don’t even know that the company pretends to get out of it… Like, how would one pitch this expense to shareholders? We use company money to fund projects we don’t use, that have nothing to do with our business, because the guy running the project we don’t use is mean to people who aren’t white enough for him? And that’s what we’re spending your money on?

You know what, fair, that’s my bad.

I paid a premium for a Prusa. Their documentation and assembly instructions were phenomenal, the build quality has been solid, and from day one I’ve been having good prints and haven’t yet had a print fail. Maybe the other printers do that too these days, but I wanted a tool and not a project, at least in this case. Beyond that I also just wanted to support a company with values I support, and have put a lot out into the world that other companies are piggy-backing off of. So yes, maybe another company can also put motors on a frame, but I felt like I was supporting something important when picking Prusa.

Depending on their opinion it could be Because they prefer a fancier shell that isn’t bash Because they prefer their shell scripts to be in standard POSIX Compliant shell language without the bash extensions and features Most likely answer that bash is pretty good for hacking some stuff together, but not great for larger long term maintainable projects versus other programming languages. I think it’s fun though, and I’m not going to be the one maintaining it 😛

Hang on, I’m not saying I have any evidence or experience with what OP’s image is about… but I have a strong feeling you didn’t actually read the words. Read the words. Every word, not just a skim for keywords. It’s not saying the left is demonic. It’s not saying anything about climate change. It’s not even being critical of the left itself. It’s saying there are people who use left-coded language because it’s the language of their culture, but that these people are still operating on moral purity standards. It’s saying these people will dislike something that doesn’t align with their moral purity, but rather than using the language of religion and calling it demonic, they instead use the language of their inclusivity culture and call it problematic, but it’s the same thing. That’s what this post is about. I don’t know if it’s true, I don’t encounter these people myself, but it’s still what it’s about. I have to assume you read the word left at the top, slid your eyes down the page to the end where it said demon and were like “wow, I’ve got a take for this!” 😛

Everybody most certainly did not switch over! They hard forked it and sure some people moved to the new fork because they liked the maintainers more and it has the community they vibe with, but a lot of people stayed with the old one and are still using it. The trademark stayed with the original fork, which means the new fork had to develop a new flag which not everyone in the community is stoked about… There’s a couple side-forks with small communities, like Omni, but most people consider them pretty niche.

I don’t know that OP is wrong per-se, but I think they’re overstated a bit. Their statement that passkeys are better than people using the same password, but are a step back for people using a password manager, is maybe a bit much. It’s basically the same, but sometimes better. Most of their drawbacks are the hardware implementations, but that’s already true of people using hardware 2FA, and corporate management, which is already a problem if you use Apple’s or Google’s existing baked-in password managers. But if you don’t already have both of those problems, the standard is basically just “instead of having the password manager pretend to type in a box, what if they dumped something into the stream directly”, and that extends to what if the UI didn’t ask for anything and just said “hey, do you want to login? Just let me know and it’s done” And, like, should you be able to export from Apple’s built in store to migrate? Absolutely, but if you never used Apple’s passkeys in the first place, because ugh gross, then it’s not a problem you need solved yet. There is one problem I’ll admit, which is that it’s easier to make a sketchy password manager that just pretends to be a keyboard. I myself don’t actually use passkeys because I sync my passwords with git and use pass, which is cool and I love it. And then I type them using a dmenu script and xdotool, which is silly and I love it. But that doesn’t work with passkeys which I can definitely store in git, but would require a real actual connection between my browser and the tool, in a way that I don’t think currently exists. But just because I can’t use my sketchy crap, doesn’t always mean it’s a step back 😛

Um actually you’re in Lemmy Shitpost right now. And also “literally” was the Doctor, you’re thinking of “literally’s monster”

Could you prepare to, like, not let him do that? That would be best. Sincerely, The World

But does it? There are non-centralized third parties you can already use. In fact besides my sketchy password manager, is it not the case that every password manager real people are already using, already support passkeys, so it’s the same power you were likely already ceding to whoever you were already ceding it to. But in the meantime a database leak doesn’t compromise things anymore. Unless I’m missing something? Which is highly possible.

Investment is nice… but what are they actually investing in? Flatpak kinda works already. What are they planning on spending 500k on?

You’re going to AI hell for this! AI hell is just pictures of busses and motorcycles and wiggly letters and numbers.

I feel like every sitcom and many movies have plot lines based around people getting up out of their beds in the night to go to the kitchen for food. I have never in my life ever done this. I’ve never even wanted to do this. I don’t think I understand the idea. Is this a thing people do, or is it just a sitcom premise to get people into strange situations? Is it an American thing?

Right, but what license is the foam sprayed under?

You’re thinking of the P-Spot

Okay, our wires must be crossed, because I have no idea how the thing you said is related to the thing I read, but maybe that’s on me! 😉

😛 It’s not that that’s confusing me, I think I’m just surprised at the nakedness. Like, yeah, big business supports fascism, but often still have a pretense. Like, oh I’m investing in the industry, and the industry produces tanks, and there happens to be a conflict on the horizon, and you can pretend it’s just an investment in business. Or whatever. But this feels like a dude, who isn’t in government or anything, put up a sign that says “I’m a prick”, and then a bunch of companies fell over themselves to give him money for… nothing in return. It’s like the business equivalent of sending all your money to a megachurch televangelist or something! Again, if I were on the board of one of those companies, or a shareholder in it, I might be like “wait, why did we send this guy 30 million dollars? Even if I’m pro fascism… what does that money… get us? What did we spend it on?”

And yet… there is attraction. I propose, until we’ve studied it enough to come up with a better name, the “donkey carrot attraction force”

Philosophy Question Time Okay, so if a bot uses AI to generate shitty grainy unflattering dick-pics and send those unsolicited to people, is that still wrong? To receive a picture (pic) of a dick that never was, attached to a man that could never harm you, as but a figment of the bits? In the absence of implication? I mean, ignoring whatever ethics you feel about the generation of AI images in general… Maybe I’m too sleepy… 😴