There's no problem with philosophical analysis. I have a degree in Philosophy; I'm fine debating the Simulation Argument all day long.
I'm also a SysAdmin and live in the real world (no pun intended).
If tech billionaires want to get people to help solve a problem, how about they build out infrastructure in Africa, fund self-starting economies, and stop working on apps of use only to those who live as marginal consumers of pretty much everything in their parents' basements, while they themselves trade ad-display algorithms for obscene amounts of stock.
I would point out Ocean Cleanup makes no mention about a control sample of ocean. They surveyed a portion of ocean they believe to have a high concentration of garbage. Do they have data on the amount of garbage in the rest of the ocean?
From the second fucking paragraph: "Because of its large area, it is of very low density (4 particles per cubic meter), and therefore not visible from satellite photography, nor even necessarily to casual boaters or divers in the area. It consists primarily of a small increase in suspended, often microscopic, particles in the upper water column."
Or are you going to take the conservative approach and pretend it doesn't exist?
That's exactly the point of the grandparent post: The news article and press conference has a scary dump of trash in a pile. The only other photo is a close up of a pile of trash. Saying "we opened the window and saw trash every half second" without context gives the impression that they're puttering about over the East Coast's dirtiest industrial marina harbor.
If the reality is that there are 4 micro-beads of plastic every cubic meter and every square mile or so someone finds a floating shoe that's very, very, very different.
Giving (or tacitly allowing) a false image because you think it'll be more effective at persuading people to agree with your argument isn't science; it's propaganda.
Can you define "most of us"? I take it you've spoken to them all
Most of us would want to... In reality, there's just a much larger than normal uptake of RHEL customers and CentOS/SL users that haven't upgraded to EL7 even though this is right around the time in a release (historically) when those that were able to would be going pretty full-swing into a release migration.
The problem? About 80% systemd and concerns over it. About 20% is NM, firewalld, and other stuff that's mostly not needed on server class hardware but that people's automation and config management has to take into account.
Houses, for one, come with keys that are not unique at all.It's just not possible to know to which other houses you already happen to have a key.
It's also really inconvenient to go around to all the houses in your neighborhood, let alone your city, to see whether your key opens their lock. It's pretty easy to test a know User/Pass combination on a hundred million different IP addresses.
And this is precisely the problem with inter-connectivity, and the 'I' in 'IoT': HOBE, or at least Hack Once, Easily Scan For Open Doors.
The world of physically disconnected systems that can't be defeated without physical presence (or near-physical presence, like a couple of the more esoteric side-channel attacks reading keys from chip EM output) means that having successfully figured out the key to one house is basically useless. There's both a) no quick and easy way to know what other houses you can now get into, and b) no quick and easy way to actually get into those houses without physically walking up to the front doors.
Massive interconnectivity makes it trivial to scan and trivial to execute the hack once your scan has run (these can be intermingled, but they're distinct).
...to keep them out of your network in the first place?
The shifting addresses could only apply to internal systems. Externally available systems (like, say, web servers) have to have known addresses for access, or you've defeated the entire purpose of having them externally accessible.
Which leads us back to firewalls and IDS and such.
Shape-shifting has to "bottom out" somewhere with known addresses, and that's where you're going to be vulnerable. You can test this now with low TTL DNS servers and (assuming your TTL is respected) you just send the traffic over to the new destination. If he's referring to external services, that about covers it. If it's external access to internal networks, then why are you running IPv6? Use NAT and a FW like everyone else and get that stuff off the internet. If he's referring to internal services, they're just as vulnerable for the same reason. Your internal services will have to have a lookup system (DNS, or your super-awesome low latency replacement for DNS because what good is a wheel if it isn't being reinvented), and that can be used for following whatever you need around. You've added one small, boring step for your hackers that's just as HOBE as anything else because the lookup has to be automated to make all your systems work internally.
Hosts aren't going away any time soon because they're an architecture more than anything else. There's this wacky vision some in the industry have of containers running on top of Cisco gear that they seem to think will be a panacea for all of their tech issues. Software-defined stacks won't fix everything, and they really won't fix this.
And if you say that no one needs better containerization options or that stateless systems is a worthless concept or that Debian's old init scripts were the pinnacle of perfection, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Red Hat does have some fiat sway, but if SysV init were easy to stick with we wouldn't have seen all of the major distros adopt systemd in lockstep. It's not completely worthless. Some of the problems it solves are indeed real.
This is one thing that I always found weird. I was working almost solely in RH and RH-derived distros from 2000 onward. From my perspective, "initscripts" were fine. On RH/Fedora initscript standardization and/etc/init.d/functions calls were basically a solved problem. I had no idea how crappy Debian's were until I did some release work on it and Ubuntu last year. I could understand a lot more the rip-it-all-out motivation if systemd had come from Debianland over to RH, but it's just bizarre in retrospect that it was instigated on Fedora first when by and large RH was where init was the most non-broken.
I always want to travel back in time to the Fedora 14 release era and convince everyone to just follow Debian's lead and replace Bash with Dash instead if they want a boot speed boost.
How long are systemd proponents going to evade accountability to crying about detractors, greybeards and positoning opponents as anti-change.
Any criticism of Systemd and out come a hoarde of Redhat supporters and astroturfers to change the focus swiftly from the technical to the political
It's fine to blame RedHat, Inc, and the *current* Fedora Community on top of it, but don't blame RedHat supporters.... Many of us using RHEL and its derivatives (CentOS/SL) think this thing is horrible and would have stepped in earlier if we'd been paying closer attention to Fedora-devel five or six years ago. We kind of just assumed that the adults who'd been in charge there were still making decent architectural decisions while we went on with our lives.
It's symbolic, not meaningless. There's actually a lot of meaning there...
About the only thing worse than having the UN (the majority of members of which are not democracies and don't have much value on free speech) control it would be having GoogleAppleFacebookUmbrellaCorp controlling it.
I really should have brainstormed more before deciding on my 8th grade science fair project.
This is actually pretty cool, and it was cool of WDW for allowing them to do the research. The fact that there was such a stark contrast between the front and rear positions and that it was so reliably reproducible definitely invites further study on precisely which movements best facilitate passage.
We just need someone insightful and ingenious to find a way to deal with machine learning in an 'offline' way, and be able to present the user interface in a quick fashion.
It would have to start out very dumb, but with some great key algorithms I expect an open source option could move a lot faster than anything out there in this regard.
Precisely. I don't get what the misunderstanding is here among the Slashdot crowd.
Natural Language Processing is neat tech. Mechanics of speech recognition is neat tech. Integration of the two via a dispatch engine and scriptlets to go off an search Google, run a command, or whatever else one can script, is neat tech.
I'd use this ALL THE TIME if the data didn't leave my network, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
We can't duplicate a zillion far off machines running a Google-scale cluster, but it's hard to see why we need to in OSS land. I have a spare 32 core box and God-knows-how-many GPUs sitting here. Where's the project that can let me get up and running on my own, and that we can all use to iterate over as public algorithms (inevitably) improve and storage/memory/processing costs (inevitably) decrease.
Frankly, it's difficult to see why that type of infrastructure is really needed in the first place. NLP is hard, but it's not like these building blocks aren't already there. Apple's dictation software (PlainTalk) was running on System 7.1 Pro 20 years ago, using local hardware 100's of times slower than what I have in my pocket. Basic NLP code was running on the Newton, which was 1000x slower and still managed to handle the basics on top of the handwriting recognition. "Speakable Items" let me run user-writable AppleScripts to automate tasks and was just missing dictatable variable names.
None of this required cloud-level processing, especially not voice recognition, which even Apple lets you do locally w/o using Siri.
That's their right. Luckey's right is to speak against Hillary, VR devs' right is to be intolerant to Luckey, a consumer's right is to boycott those VR devs because of their siding with Hillary and so on.
As long as we all have those rights and are exercising them legally it works itself out. It's sad that so much hate is going on but you can't blame Trump or Hillary for that -- it's the state of the world at the moment that created the conditions for it. In a wiser world such conditions would be prevented before Trump or Hillary would rise to prominence, but it is what it is.
While this is absolutely true, it doesn't mean it's good -- in the long term -- for American culture to slide into "I'll boycott anyone I disagree with about anything" mentality, because it reduces social cohesion and increases social friction.
As a libertarianish conservative, I agree 100% with people's free speech, and free speech about others free speech, and economic boycotts about others' free speech. I still lament that it has come to this and hope this age passes quickly. There's a resonant effect that will kick in once the folks who grew up in a "not my president!" post-2000 mentality start having and training kids of their own; if this dumb political intolerance of other Americans doesn't stop, it'll be that much harder to turn around.
We haven't seen a first-world country devolve into civil war. I'd hate to start it now.
I've got to imagine that some of this stuff is not going to go down well with corporate users, unless they can lock it down real tight.
"Here, we'll automatically upload stuff to the Cloud and remove it from your local computer if we don't think you need it." "You can have us permanently store your voice and background conversations and run it through our linguistic analysis AI even if you're not dictating anything."
With all of the other privacy and security issues surrounding smartphones, making laptops more smartphone-like doesn't seem like a benefit.
The Epipen is *not* idiot-proof though. Lots of childcare professions (school nurse, daycare worker, etc.) require training in how to use it. And the entire reason everyone is supposed to carry 2 of them around is the high rate of people using it wrong. Supposedly some of the competing designs are significantly more idiot-proof.
They actually didn't pass reg approval for the exact opposite reason. They weren't more idiot-proof, and occasionally failed in awesome ways (like giving a larger dose than intended).
Nope. From your description you don't have any experience with the US health care system. You opted to leave the US rather than make use of it.
My family member was in a US hospital. The costs were exorbitant and the standard of care was, at best, no better than the UK. Even with the flight cost, the UK hospital was the better option. But hey, don't take my word for it.
I've literally never heard that from anybody in person. UK folks coming here complain about cost, and office wait times if they pick bad hospitals or doctors, because they're not used to having a choice. Everyone else has been pleased with their service, and the quality of the care itself, as long as they were able to pay for it.
The uninsured have no negotiating power, and get charged 10x, 50x or more for the same exact services.
Actually, that's not *entirely* accurate. If you're uninsured but might have a reasonable chance of paying something in cash, you can often negotiate down to something more reasonable, depending on what's happened. The "list price" of medical services is more so that they have somewhere to start in negotiations with the insurance companies (and Medi[Caid/Care]).
Given a choice between "patient goes bankrupt and pays nothing" and "we might be able to recoup some of this", some medical agencies will work with you so it's not a complete write-off for them.
On the one hand, great for streaming pickup.... But I've gotta believe that this decision still won't ever be hailed as a good idea -- failing to include a 4kUHD player in it (presumably waiting until the PS5 for that).
People are picking up 4K TV's. Early adopters are picking up 4K TV's. Some early adopters don't live in areas where massive bandwidth is available (or cheap) for streaming said video services.
These people who don't already have an XBox One are not likely to go out and pick one up *just* for the drive; they'll probably get a standalone player instead unless they were close to getting a Xbone anyway. But they're not likely to think too highly of Sony for leaving the drive out.
... now here in SF where parking is $280/mo in a private garage, it makes perfect sense. My lady friend owns a car but we only use it for trips out of town. If we're going somewhere to dinner or a show we always take an uber -- parking is insane and effectively impossible. All the street parking is taken up 100% of the time by residents who don't want to pay for private parking. As more people move in to cities, private car ownership can't go up. Private ride share makes perfect sense.
The problem here is San Francisco. Massive development, poor freeways, high-density urban living in glorified dorms, zero parking, and eco-nuts who are trying to make a point.
Perhaps Uber/Lyft makes great sense there, like taxis in New York and the massive, mass public transit investment. In most of the rest of the country, the economics don't make sense unless you're going to try to force people to use them by making parking very inconvenient, and/or taxing the hell out of everything involved with having a car. That might be one way to achieve it, but that's hardly a fair win.
Hell I recently *moved* to a downtown urban area and parking's a pain for visitors, but not insurmountable. And every condo or rental unit comes with at least one parking space for it (usually 1 per BR). Why? Because San Diego developers are realistic about car needs and aren't trying to force people into their preferred civic paradigm. Bay Area problems come from a manifest unwillingness to face inconvenient truths.
The tech industry would be much less hilarious if so-called visionaries left the Bay Area or the East Coast Boston/Phil/NY/DC metropolitan areas more often.
If you get out into the other 98% of America, you'd realize that a) we like cars and b) we like ownership of property and things like cars.
Stop trying to solve problems that only exist in San Francisco. Thanks.
Python was initially released in January 1994, almost 23 years ago. Since then, some libraries have been deprecated, first producing warnings, and later being removed. That process gave users and developers time to update the code without completely breaking following an upgrade. Backward compatibility was reasonably well maintained until 3.0, which was released in parallel with 2.6. Python 2 is still maintained while developers port code to Python 3.
That's a big contrast from Swift, which was initially released almost exactly 2 years ago, and made significant backward-incompatible changes without an interim version that retained compatibility. Python's not perfectly backward compatible, but it's a whole lot better than this.
Aren't there better things to do than play with a 30+ year old computer? Don't you dorks have better things to do with your time? There is no practical use for the Apple II in the modern world, nor has there been for at least two decades. You can get a newer computer if you just leave your parents' basement.
Yes, rather than bringing a little bit of extra polish to a piece of hardware/software that's simple and elegant, and does everything that it needs to, he could be spending that time completely ripping out tech in the most obnoxious way, like developing systemd.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no problem with philosophical analysis. I have a degree in Philosophy; I'm fine debating the Simulation Argument all day long.
I'm also a SysAdmin and live in the real world (no pun intended).
If tech billionaires want to get people to help solve a problem, how about they build out infrastructure in Africa, fund self-starting economies, and stop working on apps of use only to those who live as marginal consumers of pretty much everything in their parents' basements, while they themselves trade ad-display algorithms for obscene amounts of stock.
I would point out Ocean Cleanup makes no mention about a control sample of ocean. They surveyed a portion of ocean they believe to have a high concentration of garbage. Do they have data on the amount of garbage in the rest of the ocean?
^ Mod parent up
Wikipedia
From the second fucking paragraph:
"Because of its large area, it is of very low density (4 particles per cubic meter), and therefore not visible from satellite photography, nor even necessarily to casual boaters or divers in the area. It consists primarily of a small increase in suspended, often microscopic, particles in the upper water column."
Or are you going to take the conservative approach and pretend it doesn't exist?
That's exactly the point of the grandparent post: The news article and press conference has a scary dump of trash in a pile. The only other photo is a close up of a pile of trash. Saying "we opened the window and saw trash every half second" without context gives the impression that they're puttering about over the East Coast's dirtiest industrial marina harbor.
If the reality is that there are 4 micro-beads of plastic every cubic meter and every square mile or so someone finds a floating shoe that's very, very, very different.
Giving (or tacitly allowing) a false image because you think it'll be more effective at persuading people to agree with your argument isn't science; it's propaganda.
I can actually not find a single CVE for systemd since it was put into production.
Well congrats, now you have at least two: http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/09/30/1
* CVE-2016-7795
* CVE-2016-7796
Can you define "most of us"? I take it you've spoken to them all
Most of us would want to... In reality, there's just a much larger than normal uptake of RHEL customers and CentOS/SL users that haven't upgraded to EL7 even though this is right around the time in a release (historically) when those that were able to would be going pretty full-swing into a release migration.
The problem? About 80% systemd and concerns over it. About 20% is NM, firewalld, and other stuff that's mostly not needed on server class hardware but that people's automation and config management has to take into account.
Houses, for one, come with keys that are not unique at all.It's just not possible to know to which other houses you already happen to have a key.
It's also really inconvenient to go around to all the houses in your neighborhood, let alone your city, to see whether your key opens their lock. It's pretty easy to test a know User/Pass combination on a hundred million different IP addresses.
And this is precisely the problem with inter-connectivity, and the 'I' in 'IoT': HOBE, or at least Hack Once, Easily Scan For Open Doors.
The world of physically disconnected systems that can't be defeated without physical presence (or near-physical presence, like a couple of the more esoteric side-channel attacks reading keys from chip EM output) means that having successfully figured out the key to one house is basically useless. There's both a) no quick and easy way to know what other houses you can now get into, and b) no quick and easy way to actually get into those houses without physically walking up to the front doors.
Massive interconnectivity makes it trivial to scan and trivial to execute the hack once your scan has run (these can be intermingled, but they're distinct).
...to keep them out of your network in the first place?
The shifting addresses could only apply to internal systems. Externally available systems (like, say, web servers) have to have known addresses for access, or you've defeated the entire purpose of having them externally accessible.
Which leads us back to firewalls and IDS and such.
Shape-shifting has to "bottom out" somewhere with known addresses, and that's where you're going to be vulnerable. You can test this now with low TTL DNS servers and (assuming your TTL is respected) you just send the traffic over to the new destination. If he's referring to external services, that about covers it. If it's external access to internal networks, then why are you running IPv6? Use NAT and a FW like everyone else and get that stuff off the internet. If he's referring to internal services, they're just as vulnerable for the same reason. Your internal services will have to have a lookup system (DNS, or your super-awesome low latency replacement for DNS because what good is a wheel if it isn't being reinvented), and that can be used for following whatever you need around. You've added one small, boring step for your hackers that's just as HOBE as anything else because the lookup has to be automated to make all your systems work internally.
Hosts aren't going away any time soon because they're an architecture more than anything else. There's this wacky vision some in the industry have of containers running on top of Cisco gear that they seem to think will be a panacea for all of their tech issues. Software-defined stacks won't fix everything, and they really won't fix this.
And if you say that no one needs better containerization options or that stateless systems is a worthless concept or that Debian's old init scripts were the pinnacle of perfection, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Red Hat does have some fiat sway, but if SysV init were easy to stick with we wouldn't have seen all of the major distros adopt systemd in lockstep. It's not completely worthless. Some of the problems it solves are indeed real.
This is one thing that I always found weird. I was working almost solely in RH and RH-derived distros from 2000 onward. From my perspective, "initscripts" were fine. On RH/Fedora initscript standardization and /etc/init.d/functions calls were basically a solved problem. I had no idea how crappy Debian's were until I did some release work on it and Ubuntu last year. I could understand a lot more the rip-it-all-out motivation if systemd had come from Debianland over to RH, but it's just bizarre in retrospect that it was instigated on Fedora first when by and large RH was where init was the most non-broken.
I always want to travel back in time to the Fedora 14 release era and convince everyone to just follow Debian's lead and replace Bash with Dash instead if they want a boot speed boost.
How long are systemd proponents going to evade accountability to crying about detractors, greybeards and positoning opponents as anti-change.
Any criticism of Systemd and out come a hoarde of Redhat supporters and astroturfers to change the focus swiftly from the technical to the political
It's fine to blame RedHat, Inc, and the *current* Fedora Community on top of it, but don't blame RedHat supporters.... Many of us using RHEL and its derivatives (CentOS/SL) think this thing is horrible and would have stepped in earlier if we'd been paying closer attention to Fedora-devel five or six years ago. We kind of just assumed that the adults who'd been in charge there were still making decent architectural decisions while we went on with our lives.
It's symbolic, not meaningless. There's actually a lot of meaning there...
About the only thing worse than having the UN (the majority of members of which are not democracies and don't have much value on free speech) control it would be having GoogleAppleFacebookUmbrellaCorp controlling it.
I really should have brainstormed more before deciding on my 8th grade science fair project.
This is actually pretty cool, and it was cool of WDW for allowing them to do the research. The fact that there was such a stark contrast between the front and rear positions and that it was so reliably reproducible definitely invites further study on precisely which movements best facilitate passage.
It was a plot point in the 80s sitcom "Silver Spoons".
Your UID is way to high for this comment.
We just need someone insightful and ingenious to find a way to deal with machine learning in an 'offline' way, and be able to present the user interface in a quick fashion.
It would have to start out very dumb, but with some great key algorithms I expect an open source option could move a lot faster than anything out there in this regard.
Precisely. I don't get what the misunderstanding is here among the Slashdot crowd.
Natural Language Processing is neat tech. Mechanics of speech recognition is neat tech. Integration of the two via a dispatch engine and scriptlets to go off an search Google, run a command, or whatever else one can script, is neat tech.
I'd use this ALL THE TIME if the data didn't leave my network, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
We can't duplicate a zillion far off machines running a Google-scale cluster, but it's hard to see why we need to in OSS land. I have a spare 32 core box and God-knows-how-many GPUs sitting here. Where's the project that can let me get up and running on my own, and that we can all use to iterate over as public algorithms (inevitably) improve and storage/memory/processing costs (inevitably) decrease.
Frankly, it's difficult to see why that type of infrastructure is really needed in the first place. NLP is hard, but it's not like these building blocks aren't already there. Apple's dictation software (PlainTalk) was running on System 7.1 Pro 20 years ago, using local hardware 100's of times slower than what I have in my pocket. Basic NLP code was running on the Newton, which was 1000x slower and still managed to handle the basics on top of the handwriting recognition. "Speakable Items" let me run user-writable AppleScripts to automate tasks and was just missing dictatable variable names.
None of this required cloud-level processing, especially not voice recognition, which even Apple lets you do locally w/o using Siri.
That's their right. Luckey's right is to speak against Hillary, VR devs' right is to be intolerant to Luckey, a consumer's right is to boycott those VR devs because of their siding with Hillary and so on.
As long as we all have those rights and are exercising them legally it works itself out. It's sad that so much hate is going on but you can't blame Trump or Hillary for that -- it's the state of the world at the moment that created the conditions for it. In a wiser world such conditions would be prevented before Trump or Hillary would rise to prominence, but it is what it is.
While this is absolutely true, it doesn't mean it's good -- in the long term -- for American culture to slide into "I'll boycott anyone I disagree with about anything" mentality, because it reduces social cohesion and increases social friction.
As a libertarianish conservative, I agree 100% with people's free speech, and free speech about others free speech, and economic boycotts about others' free speech. I still lament that it has come to this and hope this age passes quickly. There's a resonant effect that will kick in once the folks who grew up in a "not my president!" post-2000 mentality start having and training kids of their own; if this dumb political intolerance of other Americans doesn't stop, it'll be that much harder to turn around.
We haven't seen a first-world country devolve into civil war. I'd hate to start it now.
I've got to imagine that some of this stuff is not going to go down well with corporate users
MacOS has corporate users?
Actually, yeah it does. Probably more on corporate tech than corporate corporate, but it's there.
From what I've observed, Macs have generally fewer runtime and operational issues, but more configuration issues for IT to deal with.
I've got to imagine that some of this stuff is not going to go down well with corporate users, unless they can lock it down real tight.
"Here, we'll automatically upload stuff to the Cloud and remove it from your local computer if we don't think you need it."
"You can have us permanently store your voice and background conversations and run it through our linguistic analysis AI even if you're not dictating anything."
With all of the other privacy and security issues surrounding smartphones, making laptops more smartphone-like doesn't seem like a benefit.
The Epipen is *not* idiot-proof though. Lots of childcare professions (school nurse, daycare worker, etc.) require training in how to use it. And the entire reason everyone is supposed to carry 2 of them around is the high rate of people using it wrong. Supposedly some of the competing designs are significantly more idiot-proof.
They actually didn't pass reg approval for the exact opposite reason. They weren't more idiot-proof, and occasionally failed in awesome ways (like giving a larger dose than intended).
Nope. From your description you don't have any experience with the US health care system. You opted to leave the US rather than make use of it.
My family member was in a US hospital. The costs were exorbitant and the standard of care was, at best, no better than the UK. Even with the flight cost, the UK hospital was the better option. But hey, don't take my word for it.
I've literally never heard that from anybody in person. UK folks coming here complain about cost, and office wait times if they pick bad hospitals or doctors, because they're not used to having a choice. Everyone else has been pleased with their service, and the quality of the care itself, as long as they were able to pay for it.
The uninsured have no negotiating power, and get charged 10x, 50x or more for the same exact services.
Actually, that's not *entirely* accurate. If you're uninsured but might have a reasonable chance of paying something in cash, you can often negotiate down to something more reasonable, depending on what's happened. The "list price" of medical services is more so that they have somewhere to start in negotiations with the insurance companies (and Medi[Caid/Care]).
Given a choice between "patient goes bankrupt and pays nothing" and "we might be able to recoup some of this", some medical agencies will work with you so it's not a complete write-off for them.
On the one hand, great for streaming pickup.... But I've gotta believe that this decision still won't ever be hailed as a good idea -- failing to include a 4kUHD player in it (presumably waiting until the PS5 for that).
People are picking up 4K TV's. Early adopters are picking up 4K TV's. Some early adopters don't live in areas where massive bandwidth is available (or cheap) for streaming said video services.
These people who don't already have an XBox One are not likely to go out and pick one up *just* for the drive; they'll probably get a standalone player instead unless they were close to getting a Xbone anyway. But they're not likely to think too highly of Sony for leaving the drive out.
... now here in SF where parking is $280/mo in a private garage, it makes perfect sense. My lady friend owns a car but we only use it for trips out of town. If we're going somewhere to dinner or a show we always take an uber -- parking is insane and effectively impossible. All the street parking is taken up 100% of the time by residents who don't want to pay for private parking. As more people move in to cities, private car ownership can't go up. Private ride share makes perfect sense.
The problem here is San Francisco. Massive development, poor freeways, high-density urban living in glorified dorms, zero parking, and eco-nuts who are trying to make a point.
Perhaps Uber/Lyft makes great sense there, like taxis in New York and the massive, mass public transit investment. In most of the rest of the country, the economics don't make sense unless you're going to try to force people to use them by making parking very inconvenient, and/or taxing the hell out of everything involved with having a car. That might be one way to achieve it, but that's hardly a fair win.
Hell I recently *moved* to a downtown urban area and parking's a pain for visitors, but not insurmountable. And every condo or rental unit comes with at least one parking space for it (usually 1 per BR). Why? Because San Diego developers are realistic about car needs and aren't trying to force people into their preferred civic paradigm. Bay Area problems come from a manifest unwillingness to face inconvenient truths.
The tech industry would be much less hilarious if so-called visionaries left the Bay Area or the East Coast Boston/Phil/NY/DC metropolitan areas more often.
If you get out into the other 98% of America, you'd realize that a) we like cars and b) we like ownership of property and things like cars.
Stop trying to solve problems that only exist in San Francisco. Thanks.
"Move fast and break things,"
It's such a bad saying that even Facebook has discarded it.
Everyone does, as they grow up.
Python was initially released in January 1994, almost 23 years ago. Since then, some libraries have been deprecated, first producing warnings, and later being removed. That process gave users and developers time to update the code without completely breaking following an upgrade. Backward compatibility was reasonably well maintained until 3.0, which was released in parallel with 2.6. Python 2 is still maintained while developers port code to Python 3.
That's a big contrast from Swift, which was initially released almost exactly 2 years ago, and made significant backward-incompatible changes without an interim version that retained compatibility. Python's not perfectly backward compatible, but it's a whole lot better than this.
You sound like a Fedora admin.
Aren't there better things to do than play with a 30+ year old computer? Don't you dorks have better things to do with your time? There is no practical use for the Apple II in the modern world, nor has there been for at least two decades. You can get a newer computer if you just leave your parents' basement.
Yes, rather than bringing a little bit of extra polish to a piece of hardware/software that's simple and elegant, and does everything that it needs to, he could be spending that time completely ripping out tech in the most obnoxious way, like developing systemd.