Well, for people using a mouse there is no learning curve because all the normal editing features are in pull-down menus, same as everything else. And of course, when you use that menu it also tells you what the keyboard shortcut is.
The things people say about emacs are hilarious. I've been using it for decades and I'm still waiting to find this mysterious "learning curve." If you're not using it to script your workflow, you won't know about features or know to even want them. I'm just using it to write code, I don't need to use it to play tetris, so no need for "learning" anything. Just type code in, and save it. Remember a couple cut/paste keys, that's it.
You know, if you use a modern editor like emacs or vi you can have it do an "auto indent" on the current line when you press the tab key. There is no reason for that button to be inserting tabs when your build process has banished them. It is your fault. Do better.
Well, on my planet, there are those that are following the appropriate Best Practices including adopting a Style Guide, and those that are not.
The point is, somebody else already chose the correct way for the indentation to look, and everybody on the project does it the same way. And that way is spaces. Except when it isn't. But is usually spaces.
My advice, look up the word "hypocrite." Dictionaries don't hurt, man. But words have meaning. Your insults will sound a lot better if you select one that is relevant, instead of just using a medium-sized word that sounded impressive.
Those aren't actual bugs that exist, those are blah-blahs you heard on IRC and repeated. Don't be a dill weed, man, evolve, evolve!
If you read the actual email in question, this isn't some kind of bug being ignored but a disagreement over where rlimit should come from, in response to a certain type of attack that has to be dealt with. He's only saying he doesn't like any of the solutions, and the one he prefers is because he wants the kernel to have more control, rather than init.
At least try to understand the basics of the technical issues before you let your neckbeard try to explain them.
systemd is absolutely the emacs of init. I've been using emacs since the 90s and I would never switch to something else. All that time I was wish for a better init system. Now I have the init system that I want to keep using for the next 30 years.
The joke is, it isn't doing anything wrong, people just don't "trust" it because change is scary.
It was a brilliant version of the joke because both sides can laugh at each other.
And everybody gets to keep the init system they wanted, except for the people that don't know how, who will probably whine a lot even though it doesn't affect people not fiddling with it.
You don't need to wear inexpensive shoes as long as they are not expensive athletic shoes, or ones with PHB soles that make a clacking sound. Zombies can't tell the difference between nice regular shoes or cheap regular shoes. You only need to go cheep for poor neighborhoods if you insist on wearing an athletic shoe.
It does often work. I've had similar experiences. Just a couple weeks ago a guy was following me for awhile, and when he started speeding up to catch up to me, I turned down a really dark alley, and then slowed waaaaaay down, but didn't look back. He took a couple steps down that alley, paused, and ran away.
You don't have to be a bad-ass of any sort, you just have to be in the less desirable target category. Typically, smiling at them and showing no fear works best. You don't want to challenge them; they're probably operating from the "lizard brain." They would be willing to pick a fist fight with a grenade if it insulted their moms, so you don't want to be like "f* you." But you might get away with, "No thanks. No thanks, I don't want any." It is the real-life "these are not the droids you're looking for." Their weak minds just can't operate fast enough to fit it into their immediate task, so they move on to the next victim.
But for context, top chess engines added strong non-brute-force algorithms 20 years ago, and they've had pruning of bad lines for longer than that. So even when they're saying "brute force," it isn't really and doesn't add up to silly numbers like the atoms in the universe, which is just %$&^!*@. The problem with Go was always, according to the chess programmers, a problem of programming hours. There were simply more people working on chess software. The newer results are exactly as predicted; it is a matter of algorithms, and Go is more like a self-driving car than it is like chess. But still, they're also similar. The problem space isn't a list of every possible legal move, but rather whatever the list of known strategies is. In Go, as in chess, they had help from top professionals in the sport to get useful algorithms into the software. Then the software just drives through the strategies, and brute-forces the things that it "knows" contextually. But that is what all software does anyways, so it isn't even AI. It is just a sort of semantic calculator.
I remember in 1998 I downloaded a new chess program and somebody asked if computers were the end of chess. My father said, "No, and airplanes didn't end running."
I would use plain C or Ruby or something, but in any case, if you realize that speed is non-optimal and you decide it matters, you just move the algorithm into a library written in C/C++ and now your scripting language is as fast as anything again.
They solved this problem in the 1990s. Probably earlier, too, but it does get re-invented constantly.
If they have internet and still can't figure it out, there is no hope at all. They obviously wouldn't know what to do if their fantasies were available to them.
BatBoy has an exclusive media deal with Weekly World News, if you want to read about his latest exploits that is the only place that is going to have a clear shot. It is the same as Spiderman and the Daily Bugle.
You're legally shielded from having to testify against them, but that doesn't change your moral or ethical responsibilities.
The reason the law is that was is because of abusive prosecutors, and only that. If you let lawyers go after the spouse, they'd do it every single damn time.
There is certainly a moral responsibility to take action if your spouse is a serial killer, though going to the authorities is perhaps not a clearly acceptable solution. What people expect you to do in that situation is not something they will be willing to spell out for you.
I would take carry the first part of your analysis into the second and say that if he's a partner he is responsible, and so if he's not "accepting any responsibility" then he is already doing whatever "it" is, as an accomplice and that he has in fact been caught out.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for people using a mouse there is no learning curve because all the normal editing features are in pull-down menus, same as everything else. And of course, when you use that menu it also tells you what the keyboard shortcut is.
The things people say about emacs are hilarious. I've been using it for decades and I'm still waiting to find this mysterious "learning curve." If you're not using it to script your workflow, you won't know about features or know to even want them. I'm just using it to write code, I don't need to use it to play tetris, so no need for "learning" anything. Just type code in, and save it. Remember a couple cut/paste keys, that's it.
You know, if you use a modern editor like emacs or vi you can have it do an "auto indent" on the current line when you press the tab key. There is no reason for that button to be inserting tabs when your build process has banished them. It is your fault. Do better.
Well, on my planet, there are those that are following the appropriate Best Practices including adopting a Style Guide, and those that are not.
The point is, somebody else already chose the correct way for the indentation to look, and everybody on the project does it the same way. And that way is spaces. Except when it isn't. But is usually spaces.
If you're choosing, you're doing it wrong.
My advice, look up the word "hypocrite." Dictionaries don't hurt, man. But words have meaning. Your insults will sound a lot better if you select one that is relevant, instead of just using a medium-sized word that sounded impressive.
Nobody uses POSIX, but everybody maintains some amount of POSIX compatibility. Welcome to 1995. Oh, wait...
Those aren't actual bugs that exist, those are blah-blahs you heard on IRC and repeated. Don't be a dill weed, man, evolve, evolve!
If you read the actual email in question, this isn't some kind of bug being ignored but a disagreement over where rlimit should come from, in response to a certain type of attack that has to be dealt with. He's only saying he doesn't like any of the solutions, and the one he prefers is because he wants the kernel to have more control, rather than init.
At least try to understand the basics of the technical issues before you let your neckbeard try to explain them.
systemd is absolutely the emacs of init. I've been using emacs since the 90s and I would never switch to something else. All that time I was wish for a better init system. Now I have the init system that I want to keep using for the next 30 years.
The joke is, it isn't doing anything wrong, people just don't "trust" it because change is scary.
It was a brilliant version of the joke because both sides can laugh at each other.
And everybody gets to keep the init system they wanted, except for the people that don't know how, who will probably whine a lot even though it doesn't affect people not fiddling with it.
pew pew pew pew pew pew pew pew
BTW, your chance of death in a mugging is higher if you have a gun than if you just say "no."
That's not a hooker bouncing on the cop's knee, that's a vice cop.
Also, cops don't have to pay hookers, that is just not how that works. They just have to corner them when the vice cop isn't looking.
About the same percentage as the Norway Rats or Kangaroo Mice, to be sure.
You don't need to wear inexpensive shoes as long as they are not expensive athletic shoes, or ones with PHB soles that make a clacking sound. Zombies can't tell the difference between nice regular shoes or cheap regular shoes. You only need to go cheep for poor neighborhoods if you insist on wearing an athletic shoe.
I'm pretty sure there is theft protection on that.
It does often work. I've had similar experiences. Just a couple weeks ago a guy was following me for awhile, and when he started speeding up to catch up to me, I turned down a really dark alley, and then slowed waaaaaay down, but didn't look back. He took a couple steps down that alley, paused, and ran away.
You don't have to be a bad-ass of any sort, you just have to be in the less desirable target category. Typically, smiling at them and showing no fear works best. You don't want to challenge them; they're probably operating from the "lizard brain." They would be willing to pick a fist fight with a grenade if it insulted their moms, so you don't want to be like "f* you." But you might get away with, "No thanks. No thanks, I don't want any." It is the real-life "these are not the droids you're looking for." Their weak minds just can't operate fast enough to fit it into their immediate task, so they move on to the next victim.
But for context, top chess engines added strong non-brute-force algorithms 20 years ago, and they've had pruning of bad lines for longer than that. So even when they're saying "brute force," it isn't really and doesn't add up to silly numbers like the atoms in the universe, which is just %$&^!*@.
The problem with Go was always, according to the chess programmers, a problem of programming hours. There were simply more people working on chess software. The newer results are exactly as predicted; it is a matter of algorithms, and Go is more like a self-driving car than it is like chess. But still, they're also similar. The problem space isn't a list of every possible legal move, but rather whatever the list of known strategies is. In Go, as in chess, they had help from top professionals in the sport to get useful algorithms into the software. Then the software just drives through the strategies, and brute-forces the things that it "knows" contextually. But that is what all software does anyways, so it isn't even AI. It is just a sort of semantic calculator.
I remember in 1998 I downloaded a new chess program and somebody asked if computers were the end of chess. My father said, "No, and airplanes didn't end running."
I would use plain C or Ruby or something, but in any case, if you realize that speed is non-optimal and you decide it matters, you just move the algorithm into a library written in C/C++ and now your scripting language is as fast as anything again.
They solved this problem in the 1990s. Probably earlier, too, but it does get re-invented constantly.
Indeed. Envy not thy mule dear friend. Envy not thy robot slave.
Wait, but EFF does have an app?
Thanks to political correctness, you can't even comment about someone "looking nice" anymore without
being written up. Women, [blah blah blah].
I assume you're a guy. How often do you tell another guy that he's "looking nice"?
When he wants to harass somebody for wearing cargo shorts, presumably.
If they have internet and still can't figure it out, there is no hope at all. They obviously wouldn't know what to do if their fantasies were available to them.
BatBoy has an exclusive media deal with Weekly World News, if you want to read about his latest exploits that is the only place that is going to have a clear shot. It is the same as Spiderman and the Daily Bugle.
You're legally shielded from having to testify against them, but that doesn't change your moral or ethical responsibilities.
The reason the law is that was is because of abusive prosecutors, and only that. If you let lawyers go after the spouse, they'd do it every single damn time.
There is certainly a moral responsibility to take action if your spouse is a serial killer, though going to the authorities is perhaps not a clearly acceptable solution. What people expect you to do in that situation is not something they will be willing to spell out for you.
I would take carry the first part of your analysis into the second and say that if he's a partner he is responsible, and so if he's not "accepting any responsibility" then he is already doing whatever "it" is, as an accomplice and that he has in fact been caught out.
You've got some derp on your chin. No, other side.