It really shouldn't. An asterisk is perfectly legal in a filename and in a URL path. It is a special shell character, but if your webserver is looking up static files via the shell, you need a different webserver pronto.
Rogan was sick for 3 days and said that one of those days was really rough. Is that better than average for somebody who was vaccinated (as Rogan was) and took a giant cocktail of things, including monoclonal antibodies, which are proven to combat COVID?
It's not the subject of the sentence, but "who" is a pronoun in nominative case because it is the subject of the appositive phrase. You wouldn't say "him also recovered", but "he also recovered" in any case. You use "whom" where "him" would make more sense and "who" where "he" would make more sense.
It's very pedantic, because it's the subject of a pronounal phrase which is itself an object in the sentence. Personally, I'm not a fan of "whom" in general. It's not technically necessary, can always be replaced with "who" in modern English, and I see it used incorrectly almost as often as correctly.
This sort of thing is easier for German speakers, who have to inflect all pronouns correctly for every part of speech. English speakers largely get who wrong because there are very few words in the language that make you have to keep track of more than primary subject and object. It's not their fault, really, it's just an archaic construct of English from when the language was more modal.
Personally, I do tons of things for free because I enjoy doing them. Nobody needs to pay me to play my piano, paint a painting, or run a D&D campaign, and all of that takes effort and skill. I remember the old days of YouTube when most people making videos were doing it for the joy of it, not profit. I understand that doesn't scale forever, but at the same time, there's a vast range of video creation that doesn't need to be profit-driven, or can easily be crowd funded.
I understand the point of big budget video creation, but that's not most creators, just like most companies aren't Google and shouldn't be trying to solve their problems that are a 1000th the size with Google-scale solutions.
Simply, there is a place for small budget videos. I'd even argue that the majority should be small budget, and that advertising and budget inflation have on average been more bad for YouTube than good.
Usually get 3 years. Pixel 3 launched in October 2018, and its updates end in about a month. I feel like that's still way too short, and causes many millions of still-usable phones to be trashed or recycled every year. Aftermarket OSes aren't an option for a lot of people, because some apps will refuse to run on an unofficial OS.
For me, I'd love to use my e-reader to handle sheet music while playing my piano or cello, but the screen size means that I have to turn pages far more often than with physical sheets, and ends up being impractical in real life. I love playing around with a lot of different sheets and trying things out before deciding if I want to really spend time on it, and I hate how much I have to print to do so, and using screens for the purpose ends up being also impractical (and I much prefer how sheet music looks on e-ink vs a backlit LCD). If I could tap a button on the floor with my feet to turn pages, it would make this quite reasonable.
Not exactly correct. If all of the bits is 1, then the value is possibly in the set (not "probably", but "possibly", with the likelihood being affected by the sizes of the set and the array).
If any of the bits is zero, the value definitely isn't in the set (also not "probably haven't", but definitely not).
In the city I live, people couldn't even be convinced to wear a cloth mask for basically any reason, and people picketed an elementary school because the district implemented a mask recommendation.
I can imagine your scenario, it's an interesting enough thought for some dystopian fiction, but I don't think the clear one-to-one analogy between an infectious disease and crippling depression work in any way at all. In the COVID case, it's an infectious disease with some possible long-term damage, high rate of infection, relatively moderate risk of death, and a scramble to try to contain or slow the spread. I don't see how any of that can be compared to depression, a non-contagious disorder that very often destroys all quality of life in the sufferers.
Honestly, I don't see any gain in this incredible pessimism. A brain implant seems to have some potential to allow some people to have hope in successfully living a life that isn't controlled by a cloud of grey, and the first worry is in a dystopian government using it to brain control the public, because there is a pattern of behavior in how governments desperately tried to control a pandemic in the past?
> it seems like most of the critiques of social media coming from big / old media are just symptoms of having their revenue bled away
A large portion of it is people who find advertisement inherently distasteful (or, at the least, targeted advertisement) and that optimizing everything entirely for engagement causes massively negative effects for society and individual psychology. Fine-tuning everything for addiction and intense emotional reaction is great for advertisement revenue, but really bad for people.
I think you might be underestimating how many people are actually seriously upset about how they've seen the national conversation degrade to a lower level of discourse, and blame that on social media (whether they're right or wrong). There are clearly people who are upset about modern social media that aren't associated with old media.
I'd say that would be much more surprising and unintuitive behavior just for the sake of slightly more convenient REPL use. I wouldn't want stringifying any function to automatically call it. What if you store the function somewhere and print it for debugging, and then have to figure out why your program keeps crashing when you try to just print a list of functions?
Besides, you usually have a more convenient exit available with Ctrl-D anyway.
You can get this everywhere. Just track down the "Redirector" extension and put a rule in to redirect ^(https?://)?www.reddit.com(/.*)?$ to $1old.reddit.com$2
You can also use it to automatically redirect all mobile Wikipedia links to the non-mobile site.
It's a lot of factors. It was a lot of peoples' first 3D game experience, it's old enough that a lot of people who were enchanted by it in their childhood are old enough to dig into it now, it's an early 3D game with relatively simple and primitive techniques that were state of the art for the time, and it's had a ton of time put into decompilation, and a few major leaks to help understand how everything fits together.
It's also a very good game, and the controls and mechanics are more responsive and smooth than you'd expect for such an early 3D game.
Mario games have all had a lot of effort put into understanding the way the code works under the hood. The NES Mario games have also been heavily broken down and analyzed, but there's not as much stuff you can do that's as exciting as what you can with Mario 64.
I completely understand why gaming communities centralized on Discord. It has the most convenient and obvious interface for managing little communities of multiple related rooms, and the drop-in drop-out voice chat room system is obvious.
I have a lot of trouble wrapping my head around why so many tech and programming (especially FOSS) communities still flock to Discord, especially given how programmer-hostile the company is. Matrix is more than good enough to manage it now. The only things about Matrix that bother me right now is that presence is still disabled on the matrix.org homeserver, and the phone call metaphor for group voice and video chat rooms is clunky.
I just stick an avocado half in a plastic container in the fridge. Stays green enough for days. If it gets brown, it's a thin layer that doesn't affect the flavor anyway and you can remove it without losing too much avocado if you don't like it.
Not everything is puritanical pearl clutching. Some things are actually measurably bad for you. Comparing any old criticism of something as unhealthy to the satanic panic and conservative anti video game pushes isn't helpful at all, and doesn't really make much of an argument.
C++ isn't super easy about it, though. The best C++ json library (in my opinion), nlohmann's json, still requires you to define to_json and from_json for your types to use them. It's not too bad as a one-off, but when you have dozens of types, it gets really tedious compared to Serde, and managing std::variant with it is way more annoying than Serde with Rust enums.
My original post: Private constructors still match for overload resolution, and can cause your compiler to barf when a explicit deletion would allow the compiler to find an appropriate legal match.
I was wrong. delete leaves it in the overload set. I've been using C++ for a decade and I'm still tripping over some of the stupider semantics.
Yes, and claims still require evidence. I'm quite anti-Google but I'm not going to just start believing in random theorizing of evil things they could conceivably be doing without evidence.
What's not machine-friendly about `command -v`'s output? Can you not just use the exit status? Or did you mean that you avoid `which` in favor of `command -v`?
I don't know how you can call it bikeshedding when it's over a change that actually broke the build process for some packages, and proposal to remove a commonly-used tool from the system. Sounds like an actual functional difference to me.
That depends on whether your shell has a built-in which or not. Mine says
% which ls
ls: aliased to /bin/ls --color=auto
Which makes way more sense. Your "which" is not telling you what will actually be executed when you run the `ls` command there. `command`, on the other hand, is guaranteed to be a built-in, has consistent behavior, and has defined, consistent output, unlike `which`. What `which` outputs will be different depending on shell and what implementation of `which` you actually have installed.
In this case, `which` is just searching the `PATH` and not telling you what will actually run. `command` is correctly informing you of the whole story. I'll add that `which` on my setup is using the zsh built-in, which also informs of aliases and built-ins.
So yes, that's more useful if you're using `which` to determine "Does this name exist as an executable anywhere in the PATH", but most people use it to mean "What will actually be executed if I run this word as a command?"
edit: Or, most often in scripts, it's used just for its exit status to tell whether the command exists to be executed at all.
Unless you're using a shell that subverts that by providing its own built-in, like Zsh, which is allowed because there is no standard for `which`, and depending on its behavior can be problematic and inherently non-portable.
That description is also doesn't correctly describe the behavior of the command if the shell has any aliases or built-ins of that name. If you have an alias that points to a different command, then `which` is distinctly not printing the executable that would have been executed.
> The command -v and -V options were added to satisfy requirements from users that are currently accomplished by three different historical utilities: type in the System V shell, whence in the KornShell, and which in the C shell. Since there is no historical agreement on how and what to accomplish here, the POSIX command utility was enhanced and the historical utilities were left unmodified. The C shell which merely conducts a path search. The KornShell whence is more elaborate-in addition to the categories required by POSIX, it also reports on tracked aliases, exported aliases, and undefined functions.
> The output format of -V was left mostly unspecified because human users are its only audience. Applications should not be written to care about this information; they can use the output of -v to differentiate between various types of commands, but the additional information that may be emitted by the more verbose -V is not needed and should not be arbitrarily constrained in its verbosity or localization for application parsing reasons.
The problem is that `which` behaves differently in many different existing use-cases (sometimes reporting aliases and sometimes not). If POSIX defines the behavior, then many existing uses become non-standard, and the existing implementations have to decide to change to become standard and possibly break backward compatibility or remain the same and stay non-standard.
Yes, you're right. I think it's fine to depend on the existing which behavior for the current use cases. I just disagree that the behavior is really more useful than `command -v` for any sort of build or scripting purposes. It's definitely more useful as a user-facing utility to have a very recognizable name, like `which`. I'm one of the people who had never heard of `command -v` before now, and I'd used `which` for scripting, because I assumed it was standardized. I just don't see much use case for a shell command that finds a command in the path while specifically ignoring all aliases, functions, and built-ins over something like `command -v`.
> In this case, Debian is changing it's behavior away from how it's been for 28 years
> Now I'm wondering if that guy's raw hyper optimised x86 assembly can get transpiled to WASM
Not really. WASM is significantly simpler and more abstract than x86 assembly, and has a JIT compile step that probably wouldn't get anywhere near as optimized. You could probably hand-write a WASM version that would JIT compile to something roughly similar and still get very good performance, but it would probably be more comparable to the other compiled versions at best, rather than the x86 ASM one.
I'm in a similar boat as you. I switched from X11 to Wayland (also Sway) and from PulseAudio+Jack2 to Pipewire a couple weeks ago. I am in the extra difficult boat of doing it on a high DPI display (I assume you aren't, or you would have mentioned it, given how annoying it is to get everything working). GDK_DPI_SCALE, ELM_SCALE, QT_SCALE_FACTOR, MOZ_ENABLE_WAYLAND, QT_QPA_PLATFORM, XDG_CURRENT_DESKTOP, XDG_SESSION_TYPE and a few other things are necessary to get everything working.
Then you have little things like having to do xdg-desktop-portal to do screencasting, little nits like not being able to screen-share a window at a time (only a full desktop). It's definitely not a super easy and comfortable transition at the moment. I'd recommend most anybody who wants to do it use a DE that takes care of as much of the pain as possible, like modern Gnome or something. Sway itself is nice. I've never used i3, but I've used Awesome for like a decade, so Sway is not a big jump.
Moving to Pipewire was really easy, on the other hand. Mostly drop-in, and I had some annoying audio issues both with PulseAudio and Jack2 that Pipewire completely fixes for me. I absolutely love it, and feel like Linux audio is in an acceptable place for the first time in my life.
edit: oh, and before Firefox 93, I had to force Firefox to run in X11, because extension popup windows were broken on Sway due to a Firefox bug. Much of the testing for Wayland applications is done only on Gnome.
That's reductive. Dogs have a surprising degree of individuality, intelligence, and personality. There are dogs with anxiety disorders, psychological disorders, attention disorders, and other issues that aren't necessarily the blame of the owner (or even might be the fault of previous owners). Trying to reduce it to that is like blaming every problem behavior on somebody's parents. Dogs aren't simple machines.
Yes, you're right, given the context. I hadn't properly followed the chain of comments, and every one of those statements is unreasonable. I just hear a lot of dog people who subscribe to the belief of "no bad dogs, only bad owners", which is cute, but not 100% realistic. You can do a lot to properly train and manage dog behavior, and much bad behavior is the fault of the owners, but there are special cases that really aren't that rare. I have a dog who, as far as I know, has never been abused and she has intense anxiety around new people and other dogs, despite following all the rules and doing everything right to try to socialize her properly for years. I get the ugliest stares from people when they ask if they can pet her and I say that she has anxiety problems, and that she's never bitten somebody, but I can't guarantee that she never would, because people she doesn't know stress her out quite badly. I've made a lot of progress with her, but I doubt I could ever get her to a point that she'd be perfectly comfortable around strangers.
In my particular situation, there has never been a "bad incident". When approached by strangers, she pancakes to the pavement and is visibly fearful and anxious. She'll even stray away when people she doesn't know are walking on the sidewalk within 30 feet or so. It's not just a warning, but also communication that being approached scares her (I always use the word "bite", because apparently when I say "my dog is terrified of strangers", some people think a sane response is "Oh, dogs love me! Come here, pooch, gimme a smooch!").
I don't take her to dog parks or places with lots of people. Avoiding any possibility of the situation would mean not taking her for daily walks around the neighborhood; this is just the reaction when somebody who is not familiar in the neighborhood sees her for the first time (often people just walking down their driveways toward me). I don't think that fully isolating her from ever seeing a person she doesn't know is necessarily the best choice for her either.
For somebody to suddenly pet her, there would have to be a person who is hiding behind a hedge or car waiting to jump out and pet a strange dog, which would be a bad idea regardless of the dog's disposition to strangers.
I understand your point, but I think you're making the assumption that I'm putting her into avoidable situations that are higher risk, rather than the bare minimum necessary proximity to people in order for her to get her exercise and the psychological necessity for anxious dogs to scope out their surroundings regularly.
When you do that, open your browser, and either hit the hamburger menu on the right and go to History or Alt and go to History, and then click "Restore Previous Session".
It's not perfect (sites lose unsaved state usually), but I know that pain and it's not so bad when you know you can just recall all the tabs.
> however, if you prefer a bit of notice, you’ll still have full control over the quit/close modal behavior. All warnings can be managed within Firefox Settings. No worries!
There is no key-logging, but there is some keystroke leaking in particular circumstances (specifically, typing in the unified address bar, by default, leaks the first word by pinging DNS repeatedly when you don't have spaces).
Unfortunately, taking things completely out of context and editorializing the facts is par for the course. Discourse is getting very disingenuous.
> I don't know about this version but at least one could uninstall the maintenance service.
You'd obviously be able to uninstall this, too. If your OS allows third-party programs to install services that can not be disabled or uninstalled, the problem is deeper than just the programs you are installing; you need a different OS.
> Mozilla has a damned hide to automate updates, not to mention gathering data about users' habits without telling them what's been gathered, and also not allowing users to turn off that collection if they wished.
Telemetry is optional. You can disable it. I can understand disliking Mozilla or Firefox's direction, but I absolutely don't understand this paranoid, cynical doomposting and straight-up misinformation about one of the only browsers where you can actually outright disable telemetry, and where you can still separate the address bar from the search bar to avoid leaking information.
> we know the depth of this surveillance just by looking at Mozilla's comments on v94's webpage. There's no way Mozilla would know that data unless Firefox's surveillance of its users had been all-pervasive.
What do you expect to happen when you check the "Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla" other than them sending data about how people use the browser to Mozilla? It even has a link right next to it in the settings where you can see what data is used. You can know the "depth of this surveillance" by just clicking "learn more" and reading the very first section you are linked to, titled "Interaction data".
More importantly, what do you actually propose? What browser are you using that is much more private and secure than Firefox, and allows you the same flexibility in controlling the level of privacy you actually want?
Assuming everybody who disagrees with you is some sort of Mozilla inside agent is really getting off on a bad foot, and sabotages any hope of productive discussion before it even starts. Don't assume bad faith in everybody who doesn't think the same way that you do.
Others may disagree on philosophical grounds, but I don't think it's inherently bad to have only one implementation of the core web browser technologies. That's similar to what we have with Linux, where the kernel has one canonical implementation, and OSes based on Linux use that, modify it, switch configurations, and build the OS that they need on that core.
The problem here and the difficulty, is that upstream Linux is coordinated and controlled by a non-profit consortium and community, and the implementation is developed and controlled by community efforts and the joined efforts of hundreds of companies and thousands of hobbyists. The upstream Blink browser implementation is coordinated, develped, and controlled by one giant advertising corporation, and no control or input is ever in the hands of anybody else.
I don't believe that there's harm in having "one implementation", but there is harm in that implementation being completely centralized by a single for-profit entity.
That's not key-logging. That's search suggestions. If you find the privacy implications of search suggestions damning, you've always been able to turn them off.
I don't like that level of telemetry, and I also dislike the "studies" and some of the other things they've pulled, but glibly referring to search suggestions as "key-logging" is disingenuous at best. It seems to imply that there's some nefarious logging happening that people aren't familiar with and can't disable.
There was a proposal, disagreement, and a vote, which ruled in keeping the "which" command where it is for at least the next major version. "which" is in no danger of disappearing at the moment.
The discussion went approximately:
"`which` is nonstandard and doesn't always work the same. Maybe we should remove it and have everybody use `command -v` instead, which is standard. Also, in testing, I've added a deprecation notice to prepare for it."
"Let's have a vote to see. A lot of people use `which`, and that deprecation notice breaks some builds.
...
Vote says no. Remove the deprecation notice and leave `which` where it is for the next release"
Later, on Hacker News: "Debian might be removing "which"! Why are they doing this?"
Most of the commenters, it seems, never actually read the entire story.
Pollution (most electricity production is still coal-based), raising electricity prices for everybody else, contributing to an ongoing energy crisis (electricity is going to start being rationed in Kazakhstan).
