lennivelkant @ lennivelkant @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

0

Comments

545

Joined

1 yr. ago

I like that the image already contains the credit twice (props for those crops, whoever did it), but you put it into your comment a third time to be sure. Good bird!

Isn't that the "how dare you leave this in the tags" phenomenon where OP will hide some gem in the tags for someone else to spot and call out? I was under the impression that it's often funnier that way, like a comedic duo where one party sets up the joke the other delivers.

So by quoting what was hidden, you became the second member of the impromptu comedic duo. You might not strictly deserve credit for writing it, but you helped deliver it.

If you have no idea how long it may take and if the issue will return - and particularly if upper management has no idea - swapping to alternate solutions may seem like a safer bet. Non-Tech people tend to treat computers with superstition, so "this software has produced an issue once" can quickly become "I don't trust anything using this - what if it happens again? We can't risk another outage!"

The tech fix may be easy, but the manglement issue can be harder. I probably don't need to tell you about the type of obstinate manager that's scared of things they don't understand and need a nice slideshow with simple words and pretty pictures to explain why this one-off issue is fixed now and probably won't happen again.

As for the question of scale: From a quick glance we currently have something on the order of 40k "active" Office installations, which mostly map to active devices. Our client management semi-recently finished rolling out a new, uniform client configuration standard across the organisation ("special" cases aside). If we'd had CrowdStrike, I'd conservatively estimate that to be at least 30k affected devices.

Thankfully, we don't, but I know some amounts of bullets were being sweated until it was confirmed to only be CrowdStrike. We're in Central Europe, so the window between the first issues and the confirmation was the prime "people starting work" time.

Pretty sure hermit crabs (like most animals) aren't renting. The previous owner of that shell has abandoned it, so they'd be squatters or, lacking any concept of private property, simply inhabitants. Point is they wouldn't need any owner to return security deposits they never made.

Moving furniture and personal belongings is a good point though, they don't have any of that. Most houses aren't too mobile either. Clothes just fit better.

...and just how many PCs do you intend to "reboot into safemode delete one bad file and then reboot again"? Manually, or do you have some remote access tool that doesn't require a running system?

Having seen Excel used creatively, I think it's an exaggeration. It would make collaboration entirely impossible. I assume they have several smaller ones, with more or less - but not exactly - the same layout as it has been adapted for new use cases, and the only way to transfer records from one to the other is to manually copy and paste the info to the relevant cells, but mind the order you do it in and double check, or the Frankenstein's Macro running half the logic will crash.

I think it's time to expand the Clown-Empire and add ClownSocialServices.lol and ClownFlare to its Vassals.
What do we call the head of state? The Witish Clown?

Accessible through my corporate network. Fun thing, that.

...provided it runs on CrowdStrike-protected systems. I would expect the site's operator to make sure to avoid that if they can help it.

But what would it even change? The businesses would no longer be able to make an explicit agreement, probably have to pay a fine, but can they be forced to advertise or will they just proceed to coincidentally all decide not to advertise without explicitly colluding?

In my experience, the shelf helps avoid having water splash your nethers, which happens to me more often than leaving streaks, so I prefer it over having my urine splash back up at me.

To be fair, seeing a complex equation simplify down to a concise result is kinda hot 😳

...then you use the brush to clean them? Is that a big deal?

[The list concatenation function] ++ is an infix function i.e. [1,2,3] ++ [3,4,5] = [1,2,3,3,4,5] (which will be equivalent to doing (++) [1,2,3] [3,4,5] by virtue of how infix functions work in Haskell).

I think that's the part I was most confused by. I'm coming mostly from Java and C, where ++ would be the unary operator to increment a number. I would have expected that symbol in a functional language context to be a shorthand for + 1. The idea of it being an infix function didn't occur to me.

Partial applications I remember from a class on Clojure I took years ago, but as far as I remember, the functions always had to come first in any given expression. Also, I believe partial fills the arguments from the left, so to add a suffix, I'd have to use a reversed str function. At that point, it would probably be more idiomatic to just create an inline function to suffix it. So if my distant recollection doesn't fail me, the Clojure equivalent of that partial function would be #(str % " Is Not an Emulator").

iterate works the same though, I think, so the whole expression would be (def wine (iterate #(str % " Is Not an Emulator") "WINE") )

This code was typed on a mobile phone in a quick break based off of years-old memories, so there might be errors, and given it was a single class without ever actually applying it to any problems, I have no real sense for how idiomatic it really is. I'll gladly take any corrections.

NGL though, that last, readable version is sexy as hell.

Game Conqueror also works, but is missing a lot of features too from what I can tell. Don't know how it holds up against PINCE.

I've had success getting CE to run with Proton though, specifically by using SteamTinkerLaunch to run it as additional custom command with the game. There are other ways too, like protontricks. In my experience, it has been mostly stable, with the occasional freeze, but generally usable for pointer scanning and such.

I've never worked with Haskell, but I've been meaning to expand my programming repertoire (particularly since I don't get to do much coding at work, let alone learn new languages) and this makes for a nice opportunity, so I wanna try to parse this / guess at the syntax.

I assume iterate function arg applies some function to arg repeatedly, presumably until some exit condition is met? Or does it simply create an infinite, lazily evaluated sequence?

( ) would be an inline function definition then, in this case returning the result of applying ++suffix to its argument (which other languages might phrase something like arg += suffix), thereby appending " Is Not an Emulator" to the function argument, which is initially "WINE".

So as a result, the code would produce an infinite recurring "WINE Is Not an Emulator Is Not an Emulator..." string. If evaluated eagerly, it would result in an OOM error (with tail recursion) or a stack overflow (without). If evaluated lazily, it would produce a lazy string, evaluated only as far as it is queried (by some equivalent of a head function reading the first X characters from it).

How far off am I? What pieces am I missing?

The broker handling our apartment on the owner's behalf told us the owner was opposed to pets, but couldn't legally prohibit us from getting an indoor cat with a wink and the previous tenants had one too. Apparently she didn't kick up a fuss - unlike the neighbour, who must be very happy to live in an area where I know of at least five different cats in the vicinity, given that she deeply hates cats.

Notably, his adopted child whose name he decided to change. It's also not an actual child with actual feelings, just a platform.

I don't think it makes a difference.

Musk isn't concerned whether we think X is the same that Twitter was. His whole point was to usurp Twitter's reach and pervert it to the cause of spewing toxic shit. The old Twitter means nothing to him, just the users do.

And for the most part, the users are the same ones as those of the late Twitter.

So I think calling it ex-twitter, xitter or anything else doesn't have an impact on anything. My preference to call it Ex-Twitter is mostly just spite.

This sentence is a lie.

-The Ascended, product of Trump and his cult fusing into one giant monstrosity... That promptly implodes from the self-loathing of realising it's mostly made up of 🤢 poor people 🤮