ElderWendigo @ ElderWendigo @sh.itjust.works

Posts

0

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

Like every system? What's the actual distinction you're trying to point out?

I think the more nuanced take is that we should be making "piracy" legal by expanding and protecting fair use and rights to make personal copies. There are lots of things that are called piracy now that really shouldn't be. Making "piracy" legal still leaves plenty of room for artists to get paid.

Not originally, but this does sound like the kind of boundary pushing puny joke they'd make to make the straights slightly uncomfortable.

[No no no. Finger Prints.

I don't think so.](https://youtu.be/lY2kC5fZG64?si=uPoB4wzgMdvy6e-J)

Many restaurants have started adding a "service charge" that is not a tip in addition to menu prices. It's super fucking shady. There is rarely an signage indicating the charge, relying of the hostesses to inform you. It isn't always clear on the itemized bill they hand you, since it's grouped down with the tax. It's not the standard gratuity added for large groups. There is a restaurant near me that suddenly started adding this kind of charge. They did not notify me when I sat down and I didn't see any indication of it on the itemized bill and only noticed when calculating the tip, after they'd run my card. I made a huge stink about it because it's a fucking scam and they did discount my bill, but they refused to remove the service charge. I liked their food, but that was the last time I visited and I stopped recommending them.

However, the issue is that I have to use sudo when using these commands and as a result after mounting I cannot make changes to my files in the drive(s) without using sudo.

This isn't because you're using sudo to mount, that is the way to do it. This is because you're mounting to a directory for which your regular user does not have write access. Create a directory owned by your user and make sure you have write access with sudo first. Or make it owned by a group that your user is a member (I use media) and give that group write access. Then mount the drive to that directory in the usual way (I prefer to clutter up my fstab with entries I rarely use). You should now have access without sudo.

9 out of 10 times new users are struggling with access, it's not a problem with the software, but a problem with permissions.

This sounds remarkably similar to the attitude of that homophobic uncle crying about the gays shoving their lifestyle in his face by just existing. Maybe reevaluate your hang-ups.

I'm just curious how much RAM you think that is.

Yes. Windows is as much a browser based OS these days as Chromebooks are.

Remember when courts declared Microsoft was a monopoly because they bundled their own browser, Internet Explorer, with the operating system? And they did it in a way that made it impossible to completely remove from the OS. Did they learn their lesson? I think they did, just not the lesson we wanted them to learn. Go ahead and try to uninstall Edge from Windows 10 or 11. Dive into the task manager sometime too and you'll see Edge sub-processes running under a surprising number of other apps. There is no Windows operating system any more, it's just Internet Explore refactored and rebranded as Edge all the way down. (Obvious hyperbole) At least Chromebooks were up front about it.

Docker compose is just a setting file for a container. It's the same advantage you get using an ssh config file instead of typing out and specifying a user, IP, port, and private key to use each time. What's the advantage to putting all my containers into one compose file? It's not like I'm running docker commands from the terminal manually to start and stop them unless something goes wrong, I let systemd handle that. And I'd much rather the systemd be able to individually start, stop, and monitor individual containers rather than have to bring them all down if one fails.

I did a rewatch after your first comment. The line is there. Inigo says it, when Fezzik should have. But, you were right in that it doesn't make sense for Inigo to say it because we were never shown when he learned of Wesley's love of Buttercup. But Inigo wasn't looking for the Man in Black to assist true love, he just wanted whomever bested Vizzini to help in his revenge plot.

Yes, that's basically what I said. I know there is no unabridged version of the book, because I'm not a dunce. That was the joke, but you're so worried about being right and getting the last word you missed it.

I've seen the movie damn near a thousand times. I've read the book (didn't I already make this clear). We're both fans.

It's not a plot hole. It's a single stepped on line that does not matter to the plot and major motivations of the characters.

The line does appear in the film, though on review it does appear that Inigo takes the line from Frezik. Probably that was because Andre the giant didn't actually speak English very well. Forgive my confusion, since I'd more recently read the book than watched the movie and the scene in question is only changed slightly. So in point of fact, it was still a throwaway line and it was still in the movie.

Never the less, Inigo was seeking the Man in Black to aid his own revenge, not because of Wesley's true love for Buttercup, so where and when he learned of the man in black's love for Buttercup is mostly irrelevant to the plot. Moreover, Wesley declares "True Love" to Max before Inigo says anything about love to Max.

This is all especially amusing, since we are debating a single line in a movie, based on a book, that is itself a self declared abridged version of another book.

This is only a plot hole because you forgot part of the movie.

Inigo's quest is to kill the six fingered man. He saves the man in black only to get his help towards this goal. ~~But, there is exactly the kind of explanation line in the movie by Fezzik, who has not been in a drunken stupor for a month and has in fact gotten a job working closely with the castle's security forces, explaining his insight on the topic. Fezzik has this line, interrupting Inigo talking about how he needs the skills of the Man in Black to execute his revenge:

"the rumors are that he was the Princess' true love". ~~

That bit was in the book and the script, but the line as filmed in the movie was paraphrased by Inigo and not uttered by Fezzik. Doesn't really matter to the plot anyway though because Inigo sought the man in black to help plot his revenge because the man in black had defeated Vizzini. A confusing line because we were never explicitly shown how Inigo learned about the man in black's true love of Buttercup, but not exactly a plot hole.

Yeah, and we might use a ratio to describe that overlap, not degrees.