Looking at the pull requests, it's a whole lot more counterproductive to bitch and moan about it than the changes themselves.
The one possible exception is libregrtest changes a command line argument name. This seems like poor form to me, but maybe the usage of that utility is such that it can be ok, I've never interacted with it. Nothing else changes actual code nor does it modify documentation in a way to be inconsistent with the associated code or related code/documentation.
The pty request would have been bad, but that was not accepted.
If it contained API or script breaking changes for the sake of these sensibilities, that would be bad. As it stands, master/slave in human terms can create needlessly uncomfortable situations, and it doesn't seem such a bad idea to step away from that as compatibility and clear documentation permits. If alternative terms were less descriptive, that would be one thing, but here, it seems harmless. It may seem a bit needless, but that's the business of the submitter and reviewers, and people rolling their eyes at the change have created a whole lot more grief than the requested change ever would.
John Deere is a party equal in standing to any farmer.
John Deere being a bit *more* equal to any farmer by virtue of having laws *specifically* written in a way to cause problems for their customers for their benefit.
here was no complaint, that someone "sold out" anyone during the CueCat discussions, was there?
What is a bit egregious is that a group that names itself for and accepts money from farmers to nominally represent their interests are seemingly completely folding to what John Deere wants. John Deere wanted the legislation to not proceed and their first offer was what they ended up with. One would expect either for them to get more concessions or proceed with pushing for the law.
Is the government going to forcibly make me give up my current cable company?
I understand the sentiment that this is prison and this is a 'first world' sort of prison problem, but it's part of a pattern of private sector exploitation of prisoners. Prisoners should not be seen as a profit engine. There's debate about reform versus punitive, but in either case I don't see it as a good thing for private corps to have financial incentive to wish for more prisoners.
I think half-measures in this regard aren't a good way of getting there if that's a good thing, it's just a confusing middle ground.
If you *want* to 'pretty up' the url, then go all out and make it visually obvious it's not a url until clicked for editing/copy/paste. Don't present something that looks like a url, but has been modified to be potentially invalid. This is not something that has to be 'gradually' moved to, it's something you do in one go or just don't do.
Other than the 'amp' theory, I just don't see *how* this goes towards the end of helping people or manipulating people. It just feels senseless.
With the 'amp' theory, I don't see why they would need to 'ease in', they already treat amp differently than other things and already muddy the waters and don't make it obvious to users what's going on, so I don't see how this is a step toward further masking amp...
I think the issue is it seems pointless to do ('www.' and especially 'm.' doesn't make urls magically harder). There's no real benefit and in a way it's patronizing to people to think they would be confused by the presence/absence of 4 characters.
On the flip side, messing with the display of urls can cause confusion. If a site doesn't have a 'mydomain.tld' and just has 'www.mydomain.tld', then someone verbally directing based on what they see in their browser would potentially be confused. Admittedly this isn't a common sort of situation, but why bother making things more complicated when there isn't any substantive benefit to be had?
Rinse and repeat for most psychological disorders. So many people are self-diagnosed all sorts of things.
It's a field that is needed to cope with extremes, but attempts to objectively label every little facet of human behavior can be terrible with nuances of just day to day life.
Your comment does remind me of someone who is so clearly an impostor. Says the wrong thing all the time. Claims to understand something in the same breath they totally prove they have no idea but throws out vaguely related terms to sound it anyway in ways that are wrong to anyone knowledgeable in the area. However it's good enough to the decision makers who have no idea, at least for a short while (he also works to move on from team team, basically before his charade can fall down to even the most oblivious leaders by staying in one place too long).
Some people are better than they think and that's roughly the usual impostor syndrome, but there is also people who are straight out genuinely impostors, and that's not so much 'imposter syndrome'. I will say that in my career, the people who are outright impostors are pretty rare, but that may just be my luck.
The tech industry is filled with falsely grandiose claims about overwhelming awesomeness on so many fronts. Most people rather than calling things out for the way they are assume they *must* be wrong and smile and nod. As they go with the lofty words and in real terms see something they continue to not really 'get' despite using it for a long time, they have to decide is all the discussion and media coverage wrong, or am I personally wrong? A lot of people assume that if they called it out, *they* would be betrayed as the morons. So not only do they refrain, they'll actually jump in, to blend in.
It's actually a supremely ripe segment for marketing people, who love manipulating this sense to their ends. There's a lot of subjective facets to things and a lot of vagueness to make it very difficult to confidently declare something either a fraud or a big self-delusion.
So I'm not surprised most people are filled with self-doubt that runs counter to their outward behavior and a result feel like impostors.
It depends on what is outside that window. At my workplace, the majority of what is out the window is forest viewed from above. It's pleasant, but also not interesting enough to be actively distracting.
If it were a cityscape, that could be a bit more to pull your attention.
It's a matter of the ability to manage the light appropriately, and matching good quality display.
All other things being equal, I find an environment with copious amounts of natural light on average is less glare than places relying upon many light fixtures to try to get the same level of light. The light source is much more diffuse from large windows than fixtures.
However, if the sun is directly hitting me directly or my monitor without adequate or poorly implemented shade, that's terrible.
If you have a monitor with terrible brightness, then nothing beyond a dark cave is usable, but that's pretty miserable.
I second this. Have an X1 tablet, normal screwdriver to open up, no heatgun to melt glue, no jewelers tool to pry open impossible plastic latches.. Of course most parts are soldered to board, but the disk is a removable m.2 and the battery could be replaced. Anything else goes on that... Well at least I can salvage the M.2.
T480s has that and also two more serviceable pci slots (one for wlan, and one that can be wwan or a short m.2 drive) and a serviceable memory slot, and they are not particulary big either.
I have never seen a *phone* be that serviceable though.
So if hypothetically you needed more transactions than you have mining interest and adjust mining difficulty to compensate, you have another problem,smaller mining pool controlling more of the economy would make an interested party willing to invest to get to majority to control the whole thing. Mabye they can't prevail because of the resultant 'arms race', but be sure the arms race will ensure that *way* more energy than is appropriate will be expended, and that arms race would go further the bigger the pot would be.
Well, less anonymous than cash in practice. The transactions are out there for all to see, and with cash you can to some extent stuff it in mattresses without too much risk versus BTC where you really have to get the value out of BTC quickly if you really want to know how much worth you have.
The problem is so long as it realistically must be exchanged for something more stable to mitigate risk for it to work as an exchange when it is too rough to be an investment vehicle, it becomes easier and easier to trace. Bitcoin transactions are transparent, though anonymous (everyone can see X BTC moved from wallets A,B,C to X,Y,Z, but those stable value alternatives are tracked and correlations are easy).
Further the act of moving BTC from some wallets to another requires relatively huge amounts of energy (and for there to be adequate interest for miners to operate to allow movement to happen..>) If you instead move some indirect representation of BTC correlated to partial ownership of a wallet, well that would address the energy issue but then it could be any made up number.
Do you actually use it as the negotiated salary? As in 'X' number of bitcoins a year? Presumably you do a last minute calculation based on a more stable currency and by the same token she presumably cashes it out pretty quickly. That's a problem for what is ostensibly a 'currency'.
It sounds like you may have had a positive experience, purchased X bitcoins, but by the time payday came to pass, you probably needed a lot fewer due to boom, so you had spare. Conversely, if you paid what *should* be enough for her salary, using X USD to acquire them, say a week in advance, but on payday your account is suddenly short, that's a big problem. As it stands, the only way to have predictable income/spend relative to real goods is to minimize the time from when it's a stable currency, to cryptocurrency, and back to stable currency again.
There's some interesting (albeit too wasteful of energy) technology things going on, but the non-technical context does not bode well for the current cryptocurrencies.
The referenced strategies only come into play to accomplish tasks that were pretty much out of reach of traditional programming. Essentially a last resort. For the problem set that has been feasible for programmers to tackle, it almost always remains the better way.
Further, it's really about bringing taming complex, chaotic, unstructured data into a structure so that programmers can address it. Generating these routines never speaks to how to apply the approach to solve a problem. Human's are required. As far as I have seen, once the image recognition or similar trained system is ready, it needs a programmer to actually do stuff with the resultant model.
I disagree with their assessment (it's not as bad to support linux *and* you can largely ignore most distributions and still be better situated than ignoring it entirely).
However I will say that free software has a significant advantage, to the extent possible they declare the software to be 'as-is' without warranty and disclaim liability. Commercial software may be on the hook for damages in excess of the revenue from the user.
Filesystem, agreed, that's dumb to bring up in the context of Adobe software.
Ubuntu/Fedora - While the code is likely to be able to work, it does suggest a bigger testing and packaging effort.
Agreed on desktop environment. It *can* matter, but only for certain fringe environments that either can take care of themselves or at the very least know they only have themselves to blame and don't make a big fuss.
Agreed on init system.
Photoshop is a *terrible* example of a project that would be affected by the proliferation of choice in the Linux desktop. Systems management software, drivers, and server software do have to care a bit more about meaningful differences between distros.
If you are a userspace application (which are the *vast* majority of applications), then the multiple kernels and multiple file systems don't matter. If you touch the kernel, the diversity of the kernels may be at some level equivalent between Windows and Linux, but Windows has a certain set of sensibilities about kernel API and ABI, but in Linux APIs and ABIs can change at will. Source code that compiles under RHEL 7.4 might not compile against a 7.4 hotfix kernel (though in RHEL, ABI is such that the old build will work even if the source can't compile). It *could* be argued that Linux has ultimately benefited by being successful and inflicting pain on kernel space, forcing people to do userspace if at all possible (a healthy choice) and to try to get their drivers in tree instead of inflicting the pain of users chasing drivers from the vendors, but the fact remains that this is a challenge in Linux that is not in Windows.
Multiple desktops matter less than they used too, you support.desktop files according to freedesktop and the maintstream desktops honor it. There do exists desktops that don't abide by those, but that's the problem of the adherents of that desktop and generally they can sort themselves out.
The *two* init systems have been something to navigate, though not too terrible to support both if you support SysV.
The thing is that they *were* funded. Same thing is going to hold true for Magic Leap, funded by VCs doing lottery-ticket type investment, going to be left out to dry in the reality of the market.
At least Oculus has *some* funding to keep lurching along, I see Magic Leap as having to fold up shop sooner.
The VR market has seemingly plateaued (at about 10m units/year), so I don't anticipate a whole lot of enthusiastic investment, but on the flip side there seems to be enough there to maintain the state of the market.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at the pull requests, it's a whole lot more counterproductive to bitch and moan about it than the changes themselves.
The one possible exception is libregrtest changes a command line argument name. This seems like poor form to me, but maybe the usage of that utility is such that it can be ok, I've never interacted with it. Nothing else changes actual code nor does it modify documentation in a way to be inconsistent with the associated code or related code/documentation.
The pty request would have been bad, but that was not accepted.
If it contained API or script breaking changes for the sake of these sensibilities, that would be bad. As it stands, master/slave in human terms can create needlessly uncomfortable situations, and it doesn't seem such a bad idea to step away from that as compatibility and clear documentation permits. If alternative terms were less descriptive, that would be one thing, but here, it seems harmless. It may seem a bit needless, but that's the business of the submitter and reviewers, and people rolling their eyes at the change have created a whole lot more grief than the requested change ever would.
John Deere is a party equal in standing to any farmer.
John Deere being a bit *more* equal to any farmer by virtue of having laws *specifically* written in a way to cause problems for their customers for their benefit.
here was no complaint, that someone "sold out" anyone during the CueCat discussions, was there?
What is a bit egregious is that a group that names itself for and accepts money from farmers to nominally represent their interests are seemingly completely folding to what John Deere wants. John Deere wanted the legislation to not proceed and their first offer was what they ended up with. One would expect either for them to get more concessions or proceed with pushing for the law.
The provider of the electronics/music is however a private corp.
It just shows that even state run prisons are subject to questionable initiatives by private corporations.
Is the government going to forcibly make me give up my current cable company?
I understand the sentiment that this is prison and this is a 'first world' sort of prison problem, but it's part of a pattern of private sector exploitation of prisoners. Prisoners should not be seen as a profit engine. There's debate about reform versus punitive, but in either case I don't see it as a good thing for private corps to have financial incentive to wish for more prisoners.
I think half-measures in this regard aren't a good way of getting there if that's a good thing, it's just a confusing middle ground.
If you *want* to 'pretty up' the url, then go all out and make it visually obvious it's not a url until clicked for editing/copy/paste. Don't present something that looks like a url, but has been modified to be potentially invalid. This is not something that has to be 'gradually' moved to, it's something you do in one go or just don't do.
Other than the 'amp' theory, I just don't see *how* this goes towards the end of helping people or manipulating people. It just feels senseless.
With the 'amp' theory, I don't see why they would need to 'ease in', they already treat amp differently than other things and already muddy the waters and don't make it obvious to users what's going on, so I don't see how this is a step toward further masking amp...
I think the issue is it seems pointless to do ('www.' and especially 'm.' doesn't make urls magically harder). There's no real benefit and in a way it's patronizing to people to think they would be confused by the presence/absence of 4 characters.
On the flip side, messing with the display of urls can cause confusion. If a site doesn't have a 'mydomain.tld' and just has 'www.mydomain.tld', then someone verbally directing based on what they see in their browser would potentially be confused. Admittedly this isn't a common sort of situation, but why bother making things more complicated when there isn't any substantive benefit to be had?
Rinse and repeat for most psychological disorders. So many people are self-diagnosed all sorts of things.
It's a field that is needed to cope with extremes, but attempts to objectively label every little facet of human behavior can be terrible with nuances of just day to day life.
Your comment does remind me of someone who is so clearly an impostor. Says the wrong thing all the time. Claims to understand something in the same breath they totally prove they have no idea but throws out vaguely related terms to sound it anyway in ways that are wrong to anyone knowledgeable in the area. However it's good enough to the decision makers who have no idea, at least for a short while (he also works to move on from team team, basically before his charade can fall down to even the most oblivious leaders by staying in one place too long).
Some people are better than they think and that's roughly the usual impostor syndrome, but there is also people who are straight out genuinely impostors, and that's not so much 'imposter syndrome'. I will say that in my career, the people who are outright impostors are pretty rare, but that may just be my luck.
The tech industry is filled with falsely grandiose claims about overwhelming awesomeness on so many fronts. Most people rather than calling things out for the way they are assume they *must* be wrong and smile and nod. As they go with the lofty words and in real terms see something they continue to not really 'get' despite using it for a long time, they have to decide is all the discussion and media coverage wrong, or am I personally wrong? A lot of people assume that if they called it out, *they* would be betrayed as the morons. So not only do they refrain, they'll actually jump in, to blend in.
It's actually a supremely ripe segment for marketing people, who love manipulating this sense to their ends. There's a lot of subjective facets to things and a lot of vagueness to make it very difficult to confidently declare something either a fraud or a big self-delusion.
So I'm not surprised most people are filled with self-doubt that runs counter to their outward behavior and a result feel like impostors.
It depends on what is outside that window. At my workplace, the majority of what is out the window is forest viewed from above. It's pleasant, but also not interesting enough to be actively distracting.
If it were a cityscape, that could be a bit more to pull your attention.
It's a matter of the ability to manage the light appropriately, and matching good quality display.
All other things being equal, I find an environment with copious amounts of natural light on average is less glare than places relying upon many light fixtures to try to get the same level of light. The light source is much more diffuse from large windows than fixtures.
However, if the sun is directly hitting me directly or my monitor without adequate or poorly implemented shade, that's terrible.
If you have a monitor with terrible brightness, then nothing beyond a dark cave is usable, but that's pretty miserable.
There's too long, but then there's also indecipherable.
URL shortening services are actually another problem for phishing, since it obfuscates the link by design.
I second this. Have an X1 tablet, normal screwdriver to open up, no heatgun to melt glue, no jewelers tool to pry open impossible plastic latches.. Of course most parts are soldered to board, but the disk is a removable m.2 and the battery could be replaced. Anything else goes on that... Well at least I can salvage the M.2.
T480s has that and also two more serviceable pci slots (one for wlan, and one that can be wwan or a short m.2 drive) and a serviceable memory slot, and they are not particulary big either.
I have never seen a *phone* be that serviceable though.
So if hypothetically you needed more transactions than you have mining interest and adjust mining difficulty to compensate, you have another problem,smaller mining pool controlling more of the economy would make an interested party willing to invest to get to majority to control the whole thing. Mabye they can't prevail because of the resultant 'arms race', but be sure the arms race will ensure that *way* more energy than is appropriate will be expended, and that arms race would go further the bigger the pot would be.
Well, less anonymous than cash in practice. The transactions are out there for all to see, and with cash you can to some extent stuff it in mattresses without too much risk versus BTC where you really have to get the value out of BTC quickly if you really want to know how much worth you have.
The problem is so long as it realistically must be exchanged for something more stable to mitigate risk for it to work as an exchange when it is too rough to be an investment vehicle, it becomes easier and easier to trace. Bitcoin transactions are transparent, though anonymous (everyone can see X BTC moved from wallets A,B,C to X,Y,Z, but those stable value alternatives are tracked and correlations are easy).
Further the act of moving BTC from some wallets to another requires relatively huge amounts of energy (and for there to be adequate interest for miners to operate to allow movement to happen..>) If you instead move some indirect representation of BTC correlated to partial ownership of a wallet, well that would address the energy issue but then it could be any made up number.
Do you actually use it as the negotiated salary? As in 'X' number of bitcoins a year? Presumably you do a last minute calculation based on a more stable currency and by the same token she presumably cashes it out pretty quickly. That's a problem for what is ostensibly a 'currency'.
It sounds like you may have had a positive experience, purchased X bitcoins, but by the time payday came to pass, you probably needed a lot fewer due to boom, so you had spare. Conversely, if you paid what *should* be enough for her salary, using X USD to acquire them, say a week in advance, but on payday your account is suddenly short, that's a big problem. As it stands, the only way to have predictable income/spend relative to real goods is to minimize the time from when it's a stable currency, to cryptocurrency, and back to stable currency again.
There's some interesting (albeit too wasteful of energy) technology things going on, but the non-technical context does not bode well for the current cryptocurrencies.
Let's not forget that the power consumption is crazy high for what is really a minuscule fraction of the global economy.
If it *were* to scale to significant portion of the economy, we'd have to magically find more energy than the rest of our uses combined.
The referenced strategies only come into play to accomplish tasks that were pretty much out of reach of traditional programming. Essentially a last resort. For the problem set that has been feasible for programmers to tackle, it almost always remains the better way.
Further, it's really about bringing taming complex, chaotic, unstructured data into a structure so that programmers can address it. Generating these routines never speaks to how to apply the approach to solve a problem. Human's are required. As far as I have seen, once the image recognition or similar trained system is ready, it needs a programmer to actually do stuff with the resultant model.
Irrational Google fanboyism....
I really don't like the 'hey, let's jump from one monopoly to another" in the tech industry rather than foster inter operable norms.
I disagree with their assessment (it's not as bad to support linux *and* you can largely ignore most distributions and still be better situated than ignoring it entirely).
However I will say that free software has a significant advantage, to the extent possible they declare the software to be 'as-is' without warranty and disclaim liability. Commercial software may be on the hook for damages in excess of the revenue from the user.
Filesystem, agreed, that's dumb to bring up in the context of Adobe software.
Ubuntu/Fedora - While the code is likely to be able to work, it does suggest a bigger testing and packaging effort.
Agreed on desktop environment. It *can* matter, but only for certain fringe environments that either can take care of themselves or at the very least know they only have themselves to blame and don't make a big fuss.
Agreed on init system.
Photoshop is a *terrible* example of a project that would be affected by the proliferation of choice in the Linux desktop. Systems management software, drivers, and server software do have to care a bit more about meaningful differences between distros.
If you are a userspace application (which are the *vast* majority of applications), then the multiple kernels and multiple file systems don't matter. If you touch the kernel, the diversity of the kernels may be at some level equivalent between Windows and Linux, but Windows has a certain set of sensibilities about kernel API and ABI, but in Linux APIs and ABIs can change at will. Source code that compiles under RHEL 7.4 might not compile against a 7.4 hotfix kernel (though in RHEL, ABI is such that the old build will work even if the source can't compile). It *could* be argued that Linux has ultimately benefited by being successful and inflicting pain on kernel space, forcing people to do userspace if at all possible (a healthy choice) and to try to get their drivers in tree instead of inflicting the pain of users chasing drivers from the vendors, but the fact remains that this is a challenge in Linux that is not in Windows.
Multiple desktops matter less than they used too, you support .desktop files according to freedesktop and the maintstream desktops honor it. There do exists desktops that don't abide by those, but that's the problem of the adherents of that desktop and generally they can sort themselves out.
The *two* init systems have been something to navigate, though not too terrible to support both if you support SysV.
The thing is that they *were* funded. Same thing is going to hold true for Magic Leap, funded by VCs doing lottery-ticket type investment, going to be left out to dry in the reality of the market.
At least Oculus has *some* funding to keep lurching along, I see Magic Leap as having to fold up shop sooner.
The VR market has seemingly plateaued (at about 10m units/year), so I don't anticipate a whole lot of enthusiastic investment, but on the flip side there seems to be enough there to maintain the state of the market.