I had been happy with mint for a while... right up until I had to do a presentation and my laptop mysteriously could no longer connect to an external monitor. Every time I tried, it would go into what appeared to be an infinite loop of trying to set the resolution of both built in and external monitors. Didn't matter what I plugged in. Projector. A monitor that had previously worked perfectly fine.
Luckily I had tested things early enough to quickly install LO on a MBP and was able to do my presentation. I found out afterwards that it was an obscure bug that could be solved by a reboot, but I had no way of knowing that at the time, and I didn't have time to troubleshoot. Regardless, the damage was done, and my trust in Mint being a solid product was shattered, and I won't be installing it again.
I can sympathize with developer frustrations, and ${DEITY} knows that dealing with the public is damned exhausting, especially when they're Dunning-Krugering up the wazoo. I could go into a long diatribe about the problems I see with OSS software, etc etc, but in the end the product needs to reliably do what it says on the tin, and everything else is moot.
Same here. The only way this can happen is by sheer ineptitude.
This is the double-edged sword of empowering people by making things simpler and more accessible. While it streamlines things for pros, it also allows dunning-krugers to think that they can punch above their weight, with the end results being what we see today.
I've run into these kinds of people now and then, and... just wow. It's not even the incompetence that bugs me. It's the surety that they know what they're doing, and the completely obliviousness of their own lack of skill. One of these people cost me my vacation last year because they managed to cause a massive security incident which I then had to mitigate before things got even worse.
It's why I despise things like Javascript and Visual Basic. Stop enabling people to code when they don't have the skills for it. Just because you can vomit some text into a browser that somehow manages to work despite your best efforts, doesn't make you the next rock star programmer that will change the world.
Oh no it's the video game! Video games are bad m'kay!
I mean, it couldn't possibly be that we have an entire generation of parents that can't be bothered to actually do what they're supposed to and be.. you know... parents? Parents have gotten into the habit of treating electronic devices as babysitters. I was in a restaurant the other day and was stuck beside a family with a toddler. The toddler wouldn't stop making a scene until they dropped a tablet in front of them and played some annoying youtube video. I ended up having to move to a different table cause it was so breathtakingly annoying.
It's called disciplining your child. They won't stop play to come eat, you make them stop, by whatever reasonable means necessary. Your children are not your friends. They're your effing children. YOU are responsible for teaching them what it means to be a healthy well-functioning adult. If you can't handle that, then don't have children.
There is literally *always* something for a child to obsess about. Fortnite is nothing special.
But naturally people won't take responsibility for their actions, so "blame everything but me" circlejerk resumes anew.
The only problem is that at least two of the countries (I don't know about India...) are led by "fuck you I do what I want" people, and have large military complexes.
So the best the rest of the world can do is implement trade sactions, and even then you're playing a game of chicken.
I'm so glad I'm not in politics cause I don't have the foggiest idea of what could be done.
Come up with some objective criteria. For example:
1. How factual do the articles tend to be? 2. How inflammatory does the language of the articles tend to be (ie: How much do they inform vs manipulate readers) ?
According to that, Washington Post is doing pretty good. A hell of a lot better than Fox is, at any rate.
Of course, this means nothing if you care more about justifying your personal opinions rather than basing your opinions off of objective facts.
I know that, having seen this site, I now view articles from HuffPo with a lot more skepticism than I used to, and I preferentially prefer articles from the sources in the green square.
Because that's where we're headed. No one will be anonymous anymore. We must all think and act the same.
Right, it's all about enforcing groupthink. It couldn't *possibly* be people getting frustrated by anonymous people popping up out of the dirt, intentionally conflating different issues to generate outrage and anger, while they walk away singing Dennis Leary's "I'm an asshole" to themselves.
The answer to crazy theories and disgusting rhetoric is intelligent debate. It is not shouting people down, getting people banned, or preventing speech.
I see this on a regular basis, but it conveniently ignores two very critical details:
1. That's not actually happening. People are instead sitting in their own little echo chambers and doing what they can to ignore counter arguments. By the time it gets to venues where opposing positions may be heard, the people have gotten so polarized that there is no hope of convincing them otherwise. You would think that technology would help prevent this, but it hasn't, and it won't. It's exacerbating the problem instead.
2. The effort required to counter bullshit is multiple orders of magnitude than what it takes to make the initial bullshit. This assumes that the original bullshitter is even open to counter arguments, doesn't have an agenda that is making them willfully lie, etc.
If there are any options to counter this besides censorship, I'm very interested to hear them.
Or people who don't have any understanding of what free speech actually means.
Even if we completely disregard the details of what "Free Speech" actually means and go by the definition that you are employing, there is not one "freedom" that is unlimited. Not. A. Single. One.
Last I checked, it's still illegal to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, for example. Incitement to riot is another. Or libel laws.
These anti-vaxxers are no different, IMO. They are deliberately spreading misinformation, and that misinformation is directly responsible for people either dying or the next best thing to it, from diseases that were declared eradicated for decades. If it was the anti-vaxxers themselves that were killing themselves off, then I'd have no problem with this. But they're not. They're injuring completely unrelated people.
If you think it's acceptable for this to happen, then you must also agree that all existing laws that restrict any form of speech should not exist. People should be free to scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It should be legal to publicly and prominently lie about basically anything. Hell, It should be legal for companies to falsify their quarterly reports, because otherwise you'd be denying them the right to "free speech".
But I'll say it again since you and presumably others seem unable to understand this basic concept:
Free speech does exactly one thing: It protects you from criticizing the government. That's it. It does NOT give you a divine right to say whatever idiot thing pops into your head, without any repercussions from other people.
Google basically throws services at a wall and sees what sticks. No actual plans. No strategy. And they throw it away as soon as it stops sticking, even if it's been around a while.
To me, this means one very simple thing: Don't use anything by google that doesn't already have a massive following cause you may find the rug pulled out from under you at any moment.
Apart from Android, AdSense and maps, there's really nothing Google makes that I would trust to depend on as a critical service.
The key point is right there: "if used as a complete substitute for regular cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products."
Nobody is saying that they are completely safe. Or if they do, they're lying. From everything I've read, they *are* substantially safer than cigarettes.
That in no way says that if you don't currently smoke, you now have the green light to start. If someone IS saying that, they should be appropriately charged with false advertising.
I think there needs to be school classes or something that teach 'internet defense'.
We're beyond any shadow of a doubt that we cannot trust *any* company with our data. People need to understand to use password managers instead of reusing passwords, not to share the details of their personal lives, etc.
The gov't doesn't seem to care about these privacy abuses and failures, and until that changes, people need to take precautions to defend themselves.
This is so much bullshit. The telecoms arn't doing it cause they can't be bothered to, for a variety of reasons.
All the calls I've recieved have been from "local" numbers. I refuse to believe that it's that difficult for them to come up with a hashing function that takes a number, figures out the telecom that "owns" that number, and see if the incoming route is from that telecom. If not, it's fake. Done. It's an O(1) operation.
The only hard part is keeping the database updated as phone numbers get shuffled around, but even that isn't that bad, provided they just freaking work together and commit to a standard protocol.
As much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree with thegarbz. Apple used to be amazing. But now? They are an insult. OSX is still ok-ish but it's less reliable than it used to be... and wow... don't get me started on their hardware.
Non repairable. Not upgradable. You're basically forced to buy a $5000 toaster. The only way out is to not buy their computers at all, and lease them instead.
And it's not even a *good* toaster. They took what was IMO the best keyboard in the industry and made it the worst. It's barely better than typing directly on a glass screen, which is seriously painful if you're a good typist. Only USB-C ports, so you better hope that you didn't forget your docking station or dongles, or that they haven't failed on you (as VERY many reviewers on the apple store have complained about...) as you're about to do an important presentation. Gimmicks like the touchbar that shoot the unit cost through the roof, are unreliable, and provide negligible benefit.
And funnily enough, every single method to work around all the various compromises just so happens to net apple more money. Buy more dongles. Interest from leases and you don't even keep the hardware.
Despite their claims to the contrary, Apple has abandoned the entire professional market that supported them for so long.
And the biggest killer of all? They can get away with it because at least it's not Windows 10.
I can't think of another time when Linux on the Desktop was not just desired, but desperately needed, than now.
That's the thing... it's *not* "cloud-based". It's still just plain old desktop software. The only part that is cloud-based is that the software constantly phones home to Adobe's cloud servers to assure itself that you still deserve to use it. There are some extra bits like stock photos and some shared storage bits, but the majority of the suite is just as hackable/pirateable as it used to be. You just have to somehow bypass the phoning part.
I think the saddest part for me is the fact that the marketing is winning, and people actually think Adobe's software has this special sprinkling of fairy cloud dust rather than what it is... Adobe forcing everyone to a rental/subscription model because "Eff the consumer, we need bigger yachts!"
Believing in a meritocracy isnâ(TM)t a bad thing. I *wish* things were that way.
The problem is that *nothing* works that way. Literally nothing. If things were based on merit, Microsoft wouldnâ(TM)t have dominated the computer industry for several decades. A spoiled rich kid with a big mouth wouldnâ(TM)t be president of the US. There wouldnâ(TM)t be entire movements dedicated to the planet being flat, anti-vaxxinations, etc.
Every day we are reminded of the fact that we are absolutely not living in a meritocracy no matter how much we wish it could be, and the people who insist that it is just make the problem worse because they ignore the actual problems.
The problem is that it is very easy to make that happen. You can only fight so much before you burn out, and for something as relatively unimportant as ads, people are going to have a very low threshold before they throw their hands up in the air and decide fighting 'the man' isn't worth the effort anymore.
Everyone already has enough going on in their lives, and fighting with something that is supposed to be entertainment, isn't high on the priority list.
Right, because that worked really well for Blackberry, Microsoft, Jolla...
I can't fathom how your post was modded insightful.
There's a huge difference between running a music service and building up an entire hardware ecosystem.
Apple spent well over a decade building up iOS before it decided to just jump into music subscription. And you think it's reasonable for Spotify to just jump into the hardware market willy nilly?
The problem is that Apple carved out a monopoly position with it's infrastructure and is now abusing that position to introduce new products at the detriment of existing ones. Just like Microsoft did with Internet Explorer. The difference is that Apple is trying very hard to keep itself from being declared a monopoly by keeping it's base small compared to competitors like Android, to hopefully avoid the circus Microsoft went through.
Slashdot Mirror
I had been happy with mint for a while... right up until I had to do a presentation and my laptop mysteriously could no longer connect to an external monitor. Every time I tried, it would go into what appeared to be an infinite loop of trying to set the resolution of both built in and external monitors. Didn't matter what I plugged in. Projector. A monitor that had previously worked perfectly fine.
Luckily I had tested things early enough to quickly install LO on a MBP and was able to do my presentation. I found out afterwards that it was an obscure bug that could be solved by a reboot, but I had no way of knowing that at the time, and I didn't have time to troubleshoot. Regardless, the damage was done, and my trust in Mint being a solid product was shattered, and I won't be installing it again.
I can sympathize with developer frustrations, and ${DEITY} knows that dealing with the public is damned exhausting, especially when they're Dunning-Krugering up the wazoo. I could go into a long diatribe about the problems I see with OSS software, etc etc, but in the end the product needs to reliably do what it says on the tin, and everything else is moot.
Same here. The only way this can happen is by sheer ineptitude.
This is the double-edged sword of empowering people by making things simpler and more accessible. While it streamlines things for pros, it also allows dunning-krugers to think that they can punch above their weight, with the end results being what we see today.
I've run into these kinds of people now and then, and... just wow. It's not even the incompetence that bugs me. It's the surety that they know what they're doing, and the completely obliviousness of their own lack of skill. One of these people cost me my vacation last year because they managed to cause a massive security incident which I then had to mitigate before things got even worse.
It's why I despise things like Javascript and Visual Basic. Stop enabling people to code when they don't have the skills for it. Just because you can vomit some text into a browser that somehow manages to work despite your best efforts, doesn't make you the next rock star programmer that will change the world.
Oh no it's the video game! Video games are bad m'kay!
I mean, it couldn't possibly be that we have an entire generation of parents that can't be bothered to actually do what they're supposed to and be.. you know... parents? Parents have gotten into the habit of treating electronic devices as babysitters. I was in a restaurant the other day and was stuck beside a family with a toddler. The toddler wouldn't stop making a scene until they dropped a tablet in front of them and played some annoying youtube video. I ended up having to move to a different table cause it was so breathtakingly annoying.
It's called disciplining your child. They won't stop play to come eat, you make them stop, by whatever reasonable means necessary. Your children are not your friends. They're your effing children. YOU are responsible for teaching them what it means to be a healthy well-functioning adult. If you can't handle that, then don't have children.
There is literally *always* something for a child to obsess about. Fortnite is nothing special.
But naturally people won't take responsibility for their actions, so "blame everything but me" circlejerk resumes anew.
Is cross-compilation not working out for you? Or something else?
I've been curious about setting up arm-based servers so I'd love to know what pitfalls you've encountered.
The only problem is that at least two of the countries (I don't know about India...) are led by "fuck you I do what I want" people, and have large military complexes.
So the best the rest of the world can do is implement trade sactions, and even then you're playing a game of chicken.
I'm so glad I'm not in politics cause I don't have the foggiest idea of what could be done.
Same here. I now refuse to buy Macbooks unless a project specifically requires it for whatever reason.
This new keyboard is not only insultingly poor quality, but it's an ergonomic nightmare too.
I'm waiting for the Macbook Wheel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I never ceased to be amazed by Trump's sheer pettiness and immaturity. Doesn't matter what it is, if Obama had his fingers in it, Trump wants it gone.
Apparently even something as ridiculous as lightbulb regulations.
It's a shame Obama didn't set high-tax-bracket taxes to 0%. I'd be interesting to see if Trumps head would physically explode.
That's actually not too difficult to answer.
Come up with some objective criteria. For example:
1. How factual do the articles tend to be?
2. How inflammatory does the language of the articles tend to be (ie: How much do they inform vs manipulate readers) ?
There is at least one site that I know of that is attempting to do exactly this. http://www.adfontesmedia.com/
According to that, Washington Post is doing pretty good. A hell of a lot better than Fox is, at any rate.
Of course, this means nothing if you care more about justifying your personal opinions rather than basing your opinions off of objective facts.
I know that, having seen this site, I now view articles from HuffPo with a lot more skepticism than I used to, and I preferentially prefer articles from the sources in the green square.
Can you say the same?
Because that's where we're headed. No one will be anonymous anymore. We must all think and act the same.
Right, it's all about enforcing groupthink. It couldn't *possibly* be people getting frustrated by anonymous people popping up out of the dirt, intentionally conflating different issues to generate outrage and anger, while they walk away singing Dennis Leary's "I'm an asshole" to themselves.
The answer to crazy theories and disgusting rhetoric is intelligent debate. It is not shouting people down, getting people banned, or preventing speech.
I see this on a regular basis, but it conveniently ignores two very critical details:
1. That's not actually happening. People are instead sitting in their own little echo chambers and doing what they can to ignore counter arguments. By the time it gets to venues where opposing positions may be heard, the people have gotten so polarized that there is no hope of convincing them otherwise. You would think that technology would help prevent this, but it hasn't, and it won't. It's exacerbating the problem instead.
2. The effort required to counter bullshit is multiple orders of magnitude than what it takes to make the initial bullshit. This assumes that the original bullshitter is even open to counter arguments, doesn't have an agenda that is making them willfully lie, etc.
If there are any options to counter this besides censorship, I'm very interested to hear them.
I agree. Screaming fire in a crowded theatre should not be illegal either, since the person may sincerely think that there was a fire.
The fact that innocent people are suffering grievous injury or death as a direct result, is completely tangential to the issue.
Or people who don't have any understanding of what free speech actually means.
Even if we completely disregard the details of what "Free Speech" actually means and go by the definition that you are employing, there is not one "freedom" that is unlimited. Not. A. Single. One.
Last I checked, it's still illegal to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, for example. Incitement to riot is another. Or libel laws.
These anti-vaxxers are no different, IMO. They are deliberately spreading misinformation, and that misinformation is directly responsible for people either dying or the next best thing to it, from diseases that were declared eradicated for decades. If it was the anti-vaxxers themselves that were killing themselves off, then I'd have no problem with this. But they're not. They're injuring completely unrelated people.
If you think it's acceptable for this to happen, then you must also agree that all existing laws that restrict any form of speech should not exist. People should be free to scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It should be legal to publicly and prominently lie about basically anything. Hell, It should be legal for companies to falsify their quarterly reports, because otherwise you'd be denying them the right to "free speech".
But I'll say it again since you and presumably others seem unable to understand this basic concept:
Free speech does exactly one thing: It protects you from criticizing the government. That's it. It does NOT give you a divine right to say whatever idiot thing pops into your head, without any repercussions from other people.
Please don't make me pull out the XKCD reference.
Google basically throws services at a wall and sees what sticks. No actual plans. No strategy. And they throw it away as soon as it stops sticking, even if it's been around a while.
To me, this means one very simple thing: Don't use anything by google that doesn't already have a massive following cause you may find the rug pulled out from under you at any moment.
Apart from Android, AdSense and maps, there's really nothing Google makes that I would trust to depend on as a critical service.
The key point is right there: "if used as a complete substitute for regular cigarettes and other smoked tobacco products."
Nobody is saying that they are completely safe. Or if they do, they're lying. From everything I've read, they *are* substantially safer than cigarettes.
That in no way says that if you don't currently smoke, you now have the green light to start. If someone IS saying that, they should be appropriately charged with false advertising.
I think there needs to be school classes or something that teach 'internet defense'.
We're beyond any shadow of a doubt that we cannot trust *any* company with our data. People need to understand to use password managers instead of reusing passwords, not to share the details of their personal lives, etc.
The gov't doesn't seem to care about these privacy abuses and failures, and until that changes, people need to take precautions to defend themselves.
If they suck, then so be it. But they should fail because they suck, not because Google is using deceptive business practices.
This is exactly how Microsoft managed to effectively take over the computer industry.
This is so much bullshit. The telecoms arn't doing it cause they can't be bothered to, for a variety of reasons.
All the calls I've recieved have been from "local" numbers. I refuse to believe that it's that difficult for them to come up with a hashing function that takes a number, figures out the telecom that "owns" that number, and see if the incoming route is from that telecom. If not, it's fake. Done. It's an O(1) operation.
The only hard part is keeping the database updated as phone numbers get shuffled around, but even that isn't that bad, provided they just freaking work together and commit to a standard protocol.
As much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree with thegarbz. Apple used to be amazing. But now? They are an insult. OSX is still ok-ish but it's less reliable than it used to be... and wow... don't get me started on their hardware.
Non repairable. Not upgradable. You're basically forced to buy a $5000 toaster. The only way out is to not buy their computers at all, and lease them instead.
And it's not even a *good* toaster. They took what was IMO the best keyboard in the industry and made it the worst. It's barely better than typing directly on a glass screen, which is seriously painful if you're a good typist. Only USB-C ports, so you better hope that you didn't forget your docking station or dongles, or that they haven't failed on you (as VERY many reviewers on the apple store have complained about...) as you're about to do an important presentation. Gimmicks like the touchbar that shoot the unit cost through the roof, are unreliable, and provide negligible benefit.
And funnily enough, every single method to work around all the various compromises just so happens to net apple more money. Buy more dongles. Interest from leases and you don't even keep the hardware.
Despite their claims to the contrary, Apple has abandoned the entire professional market that supported them for so long.
And the biggest killer of all? They can get away with it because at least it's not Windows 10.
I can't think of another time when Linux on the Desktop was not just desired, but desperately needed, than now.
That's the thing... it's *not* "cloud-based". It's still just plain old desktop software. The only part that is cloud-based is that the software constantly phones home to Adobe's cloud servers to assure itself that you still deserve to use it. There are some extra bits like stock photos and some shared storage bits, but the majority of the suite is just as hackable/pirateable as it used to be. You just have to somehow bypass the phoning part.
I think the saddest part for me is the fact that the marketing is winning, and people actually think Adobe's software has this special sprinkling of fairy cloud dust rather than what it is... Adobe forcing everyone to a rental/subscription model because "Eff the consumer, we need bigger yachts!"
Why are you purposely trying to confuse two completely separate concepts?
Right to Repair, and Dealers trying to protect their business models, are only very superficially similar.
Maybe you would be less confused by the response if you yourself weren't trying to muddy the issue.
I've never heard this term before, and a quick search finds a whole bunch of stuff that I'm pretty sure arn't related to what you're talking about.
I think I get what you're saying based on the context, but I want to ask anyway just to be sure. What is Access Culture?
Believing in a meritocracy isnâ(TM)t a bad thing. I *wish* things were that way.
The problem is that *nothing* works that way. Literally nothing. If things were based on merit, Microsoft wouldnâ(TM)t have dominated the computer industry for several decades. A spoiled rich kid with a big mouth wouldnâ(TM)t be president of the US. There wouldnâ(TM)t be entire movements dedicated to the planet being flat, anti-vaxxinations, etc.
Every day we are reminded of the fact that we are absolutely not living in a meritocracy no matter how much we wish it could be, and the people who insist that it is just make the problem worse because they ignore the actual problems.
The problem is that it is very easy to make that happen. You can only fight so much before you burn out, and for something as relatively unimportant as ads, people are going to have a very low threshold before they throw their hands up in the air and decide fighting 'the man' isn't worth the effort anymore.
Everyone already has enough going on in their lives, and fighting with something that is supposed to be entertainment, isn't high on the priority list.
Right, because that worked really well for Blackberry, Microsoft, Jolla...
I can't fathom how your post was modded insightful.
There's a huge difference between running a music service and building up an entire hardware ecosystem.
Apple spent well over a decade building up iOS before it decided to just jump into music subscription. And you think it's reasonable for Spotify to just jump into the hardware market willy nilly?
The problem is that Apple carved out a monopoly position with it's infrastructure and is now abusing that position to introduce new products at the detriment of existing ones. Just like Microsoft did with Internet Explorer. The difference is that Apple is trying very hard to keep itself from being declared a monopoly by keeping it's base small compared to competitors like Android, to hopefully avoid the circus Microsoft went through.
Ilsa