𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍 @ sxan @midwest.social

🅸 🅰🅼 🆃🅷🅴 🅻🅰🆆.

---

Read more

Posts

26

Comments

3,682

Joined

3 yr. ago

Because there is no such thing as a universal standard for software.

You're imagining a way for software to talk to each other with something like Esperanto, right? Some universal library interface, a language that can be compiled for every CPU architecture, byte ordering, and operating system.

This would require all hardware vendors to agree on what that interface is, for each type of device. It would require that the API never changes, or else old devices wouldn't work with new OSes; the alternative is that OSes have to support years of different versions of the language. It would prevent bug fixes, unless you add the ability to flash individual chips, which would make many more expensive. It would have to be a higher level interface which would limit both innovation and performance tuning. But the biggest issue is that this universal language would have to understand every operating system to know how to access itself using the OS's paradigm.

I think you're fixing the wrong problem.

If your desktop was stable with X, and it's unstable with Wayland, Why is Wayland "more sweet"?

I try Wayland about bi-yearly, and IME it's slower, more buggy, and less complete. It may be inevitable, although I half expect a new Rust display server to come along and yank the rug from under it; it feels a lot like Upstart before systemd came along, including major distros having migrated already.

What about it do you find so compelling about Wayland?

It's a Microsoft network filesystem. They're probably telling you: don't leave your games on an old Windows computer and try to remote mount the drive with NTFS; if you do, you'll be sorry. Re-install the games on Linux.

No.

AI can steal from you, but not from movie studios or record labels. I don't want to be too confusing with the legal jargon and case history, but it can be summarized as: you don't own a senator, and they do.

Sure; I'm saying that there are trigger words that are guaranteed to generate negative comments: blockchain, crypto, crypto currency, and Bitcoin.

You said that you can't understand the negative feedback. I'm giving you one reason why you might be seeing it. Lemmy and Mastodon (the AP FediVerse in general) is not cryptocurrency-friendly. If you mention "Bitcoin" in the post, you're going to get brigaded. If someone sniffs around on the repo documentation and sees the crypto link, they'll mention it in the comments and you'll get brigaded.

I think there's such a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of crypto currency, even in comparison, that even a whiff of a relationship generates negative reactions. As you say, much of it is based on no actual knowledge about the topic. It doesn't help that there are some truly deplorable people associated with cryptocurrency, a great many bad actors, and proof-of-work was in retrospect a terrible design decision by Satoshi.

Blockchain isn't cryptocurrency, and vice-versa, but most people can't distinguish between the two. If there's any mention of blockchain on the site, or especially if you mention bitcoin (as you did) you're going to get crusaders.

Thank you, I'll check them out.

... true. You were clearly talking about how the "root" was constructed. If the root were random, a weakness would still be inherent in having the root exposed means all your accounts are potentially compromised, but social engineering wouldn't be as much of an issue.

I skipped over the root generation, as it's just a useless twist on an older process. "Useless" in that I don't think it adds any value to construct a root from favorite things. It's no easier than just memorizing a single 12-character random string and then adding per-site suffixes, which is how I first heard this described a decade ago.

I never considered that Alaska might be less serviced than other states, given how removed it is. It's no Hawaii, but still.

I have no idea what it was called! It was long ago, in a city far, far away. Said friend went off and became a cultist, and we lost touch.

I think it was originally a Mexican dish; maybe some kind soul will chip in with the answer.

My problem has always been finding a SIP company I wanted to give my money to, for providing a land line #. For a glorious, brief, period, I was able to do this through Google Voice. But then they got rid of that feature, and I haven't found another provider who I like the looks of.

It is amazing. They shut down during COVID, just before I decided to buy their checked bag. I don't know how good the large one was, but there carry-on is fantastic. The only thing I'd change about it is that it has one of those built in battery ports, which I've never used in my life and is IMHO wasted space; but it was a big trend back when they designed it, and before airports and airlines started putting charging ports in everywhere.

https://trekbible.com/g-ro-luggage-review/

A random, but fairly comprehensive, ad-disguised-as-review.

DO NOT SUMMON THE BEANS

A childhood friend of mine's mother was from New Mexico, and around Christmas she would make this dish that was increasingly smaller tortillas stacked until it looked kind of like a Christmas tree. There was stuff between the layers, but there very top layer was, like, a solid inch of salt. They'd have it every night for a week or so, and as it sat and was reheated, the salt would slowly dissolve down to the bottom layers. As the salt diffused, the dish would get better each day.

Although he was my best friend for three years (I met him in HS), and practically lived at his house, I was never there for Christmas because we were always traveling to see my extended family, so I never got to experience this. He was absolutely fanatical about it. I always wondered, why not just salt the layers appropriately to begin with? But apparently the process was part of the magic and made the end effect better?

Anyway, when I think of dishes that get better with age, that's the first thing I think about. Even decades later.

Counter:

1. Carry-ons can be objectively better for passengers.
   • Go straight to your gate, no check-in drop-off
   • No angst about lost luggage
   • No interminable waiting at the luggage carousel
   • Less TSA pawing through and stealing your stuff
   • For many trips, a carry-on is all you need
2. Carry-ons are cheaper for airlines.
   • Carry-ons require no handlers to transport or physically stack luggage
   • Carry-ons are categorically lighter and use less space than checked bags, translating to less fuel

2b could be mitigated by checking only carry-on-sized luggage; basically a smaller luggage-size limit.

I traveled for business for years, and got used to traveling only in a carry-on. My GRo (the best luggage ever built, and which you can no longer but) always fit into a single overhead space. I could pack underwear and several business shirts, toiletries, a pair of (compressable) casual shores, and wear my suit, and still have room left for a pair of jeans. It was a stretch to go for two work weeks, but I could do it. One week was no inconvenience at all. Now even when I travel for pleasure, unless it's a two week vacation I still only pack a carry-on.

That said: I'm a man, and women in corporate environments - unfairly - often feel obligated to pack more clothes: multiple pairs of shoes, multiple outfits, more cosmetics, etc. It is generally easier for a man to stretch a suit by altering only shirts and ties. Even so, my wife will also pack only a carry-on if the trip is 5-days or less. Even though the company pays for baggage fees, it's a worse customer experience at both ends of the trip to check a bag, and I don't think there's much airlines could do about that. It's a straightforward logistical problem.

Except for long, or specialty, trips (e.g, skiing, backpacking), carry-ons for us are subjectively, but uncontestedly, superior. Airlines reversing the fee schedule would be categorically worse for us, enough that we'd switch our frequent flier programs over it.

You're getting a lot of flak, but this is sort of the plot of Soilent Green, without the twist. With explosive population growth, it's not an impossible scenario.

What's the question, though? Is it possible? Sure, anything is. Why insects, though? There are plenty of other sources of protein, and today vegans (for whom eating even insects is streng verboten) can build healthy diets, even if they have to work a little harder and be more conscious about it. Insects would be yet another level of inefficiency in the system: it's nearly always most efficient to get nutrients from the most base layer, plants (or fungus, whatever). If all you're going for is pure efficiency, plants do it all. You may want to kill yourself just to end the culinary misery, but we're not taking about pleasure or quality of life, only efficiency and base dietary needs.

Ok, but: you describe what glitches are in detail, which wasn't the question. OP clearly understands the concept behind evolution, despite using imprecise terminology.

You seem confident that there's no benefit to the light/sneeze reflex: why? Is that an authoritative answer, or just your opinion? Do we know the mechanism behind the reflex, and can we trace it to an origin, like the recurrent laryngeal nerve?

Isn't every system vulnerable to social engineering hacks?

This person Unicodes

Not a bad idea. It could be distributed, with innocent components assembled in any of his many factories, and then final mix in the nursery.