A "whole Docker container" is not very heavyweight. Other than having their own filesystem view and separate shared libraries, container processes are nearly as light as non-container processes. It's not like running a VM.
919 karma · joined February 10, 2025
It's not just shrinking and copying over to the new `/home` because of the locality of the data. If your NTFS partition is taking the entirety of the disk (minus EFI and system partitions), shrinking it will then make it take up the first X% of the disk. Then you have to make the linux installation on the last (100-X)% of the disk, copy the files over, and then when you delete the NTFS partition, your Linux filesystem is on the last half of the disk with a big blank unallocated area on the beginning. BTRFS or LVM2 could help a little bit there, but that's far from ideal in any case.
Probably the best approach would be to shrink NTFS, create a new partition at the end of at least the right size, copy the files over, then wipe the NTFS partition, install Linux as the first partition (after system/EFI and such), then copy the files into the user's home, and then remove the documents partition. That's still not super reliable, though. You are at the mercy of your documents sizes, filesystem fragmentation (remember, even if your filesystem is mostly empty, you might not be able to shrink if fragmentation is in a bad place. You could defrag, but then the install time can balloon up many hours for the defrag process alone, just to shrink a filesystem that you're going to delete anyway), how big the Linux install will end up being, and many other factors. You'd have a lot of people who simply can't copy their documents over on install who will be simply SOL. I can't think of a situation where this kind of thing wouldn't be better served by just telling the user to backup their documents to a USB drive and move them back afterward, because many people are going to have to do that anyway.
You can't do this all on the same drive, because you need a place to copy the documents directory to. You need to delete the NTFS partition to create the place to copy the files to, but by the time you've done that, the Documents are inaccessible. You could do it in memory, feasibly, if you create a RAMdisk and are lucky enough to have enough memory for all your documents, but then you're still gambling on not running out of memory during the install.
So it is possible to copy the documents on the same device, and it's possible to even automate the process, but it's not possible to do it reliably or safely, and the reliability is so low that it's not worth even offering the possibility. If somebody has a handful of gigabytes of documents, it's already a nonstarter. To be safe you'd demand the user make a backup onto another device anyway, in which case they might as well do that and then copy the files into a fresh install themselves
Maybe I'll go back to normal eventually, or maybe I had a latent anxiety disorder that was triggered by the mushrooms and I'll just never be able to enjoy weed again. I don't know. My friends didn't have experiences as bad as mine, but they did have a bad time. Most of my friends love psychadelics, and I'd never take them away from them, but before we all tried them, they were talking the same way, and it's what made me excited to try them. I wasn't expecting it to do to me what it did.
I think many pro-psychedelic and pro-drug people in general underestimate how much these drugs vary with people. I have a friend who will make a gram of weed into cannabutter and eat the whole thing in 1 sitting, getting about 200mg of THC at once, and not have any major problems. He was a big proponent of "there's no such thing as too much" until he saw another friend of ours have an incredibly intense panic attack on 10mg of THC. My wife has intense anxiety on as little as 2.5mg of THC, regardless of CBD and CBG levels (whether via gummies or straight plant matter); no dose can be thereputic for her.
Based on the number of people I know who have experimented with these drugs, I think there's a smokescreen effect where people who have bad experiences don't talk about it nearly as much as people who have good experiences, so it seems significantly less risky than it is. Of the 10 or so people I know personally who had a psychedelic experience, about a third of them have had bad ones. They just don't really talk about it and never want to try it again. I wouldn't say that most people should try psychedelics at least once unless I knew what the actual numbers were, otherwise I'm pushing many people into having a horrible nightmare for hours on end.
Is this adjusted by amount of use? As in, is it possible that it's more likely to trigger latent mental illness with alcohol and cannabis not because they trigger it more effectively, but because they are significantly more widely available, significantly more widely used, and people who consume them consume them in significantly greater amounts?
If you get drunk once, I get high once, and our friend trips on psilocybin once, what is the comparative risk of activating latent mental illness for these events alone?
People don't join cults because of "dangerous information".
Even if you hold that you need that genetic predisposition, and that a perfectly sane person can never become "insane" as a result of an experience (not a position I agree with), there is still the very real possibility that many people with the predisposition would never have had this "already insane" condition ever triggered or exposed. Think about the suicide cults that have formed, notably Jonestown. It's easy to consider the mass suicide (and murder of the members' own children) as "insane" behavior. What are the odds that every single person was genetically insane? Comparatively, what are the odds that an extremely persuasive and charismatic personality can rewire a person's reasoning to believe something "insane"?
If you think of ChatGPT as capable of being an automated Jim Jones, I think the danger becomes more clear. These tools are not incapable of being dangerous.
Agreed.
> Do you really think it makes sense for your basic assumption to be that your user is dumber than a token generator?
Absolutely. Users will fuck up basic things. I wrote a simple inotify wrapper and half of the issues I got were that it didn't work on Windows and MacOS.
You can use `PRAGMA data_version` on a dedicated thread to watch for changes and notify other waiters via a condition variable. It's not the nicest solution, because it's just a loop around a query, but it gets the job done.
A req-rep pattern can be done by doing a `INSERT ... RETURNING id` and having the the other side re-push into the same or a different message queue with an annotation referring to that id. Alternatively, you could have a table with a req, rep, and status column to coordinate it all.
It's far from everything you'd need from a complete, robust message broker, but for small single or multi-process message queue with a max of a few dozen readers and writers, it gets the job done nicely. In a single process, you can even replace the data_version loop thread with `sqlite3_commit_hook` on writers to notify readers that something has changed via the condition_variable.
CXX[0] is fine. Personally, I just always use a C ABI to communicate between the two. I've had to do it for every other language anyway. Languages that have native C++ interop are significantly more rare than ones that don't. Most languages have some way of talking to C, though.
[0]: https://cxx.rs/
There is also the fact that copyright holders will pressure your ISP into sending threatening letters and shutting off your Internet for piracy, even without you seeding. I haven't gotten the impression that you are in the clear for pirating as long as you don't distribute.
Copyright is about control. If you know a song and you sing it to yourself, somebody overhears it and starts humming it, they have not deprived you of the ability to still know and sing that song. You can make economic arguments, of deprived profit and financial incentives, and that's fine; I'm not arguing against copyright here (I am not a fan of copyright, it's just not my point at the moment), I'm just saying that inheritance does not naturally apply to copyright, because data and ideas are not scarce, finite goods. They are goods that feasibly everybody in the world can inherit rapidly without lessening the amount that any individual person gets.
If real goods could be freely and easily copied the way data can, we might be having some very interesting debates about the logic and morality of inheriting your parents' house and depriving other people of having a copy.
In my observations, the average software engineer is more likely to be persnickety, caught up in small details, and obsessive than the average person. We're more likely to split hairs than most people would care to, and proper labeling and categorization is much more important to us than average person.
It's not that software engineers are somehow magical or special, it's that there is a selection bias to become a software engineer. It's extra not special, because the same thing happens for virtually any specialized field. There are famous stereotypes about the personalities of psychologists, for instance.
> $ZEREBRO penispillreviews.com And yeah, that looks like an actual crypto website. This is bizarre. It's like they're rolling with the "we're totally a scam" angle.
This is illegal for a reason. It does NOT benefit consumers to make it impossible for anybody to compete with you. This is anti-competitive, not competition.
Then how do they still manage to mistakenly deport the wrong people and have to cover it with a smoke screen of lies? If this is what their "careful and thoughtful" planning looks like, I'd hate to see what their recklessness looks like, because it all looks like the same level of shit show from my angle.
There are many difficult-to-estimate costs for monopolies, especially ones like this. That does not mean that the costs do not exist. That's the entire point in making people believe that things are "free" or "cheap", you rob them of even the opportunity to even evaluate alternatives to realize how much better it could be. There are very good reasons that these kinds of things should be illegal.
If the parents were slowly siphoning off enough of the teen's money through a convoluted set of channels such that the teenager indirectly paid for the truck anyway and the parents ended up effectively taking a share of the money, that would be definitely worth hating.