Taywee

I understand that. I am in a very similar position. I make time for my hobbies and it is often very difficult, especially as an active parent who makes a strong effort to be present regularly in my kids' lives. Sometimes, I don't get any time into my hobby projects for over a week at a time. Sometimes I get time in and it's unsatisfying because they're creative and intellectual hobbies and I'm already mentally drained, so I can't even appreciate them fully.

I wasn't making a judgment (though I wasn't explicitly not making one either), just saying that many people could use them. Hobbies are good identities, and many people feel a need to define themselves but struggle to do so.

That said, I do know people who complain about having very little time, but I know they spend 4 or 5 hours every day on television, video games, and social media. They don't own a home, they don't have kids, they get on the TV as soon as they get off their 40-hour-a-week job, and complain about how they can't afford the time to have hobbies. Excuses exist on a spectrum of reasonableness, and some excuses are more understandable than others.

The majority of people I know who really want to have fulfilling hobbies do have fulfilling hobbies. Many of them work long hours, also have kids, have to take care of their home, and the like. They'll still scrounge together a few hours a week to paint some Warhammer figurines and decompress.

Most people would also benefit from occasional therapy or a personal accountant. It's not accessible for everybody, but the fact remains.

> That's exactly what I (also) want, that is, knowing that the authors remained the same, whoever they are

The authors are often many people. You can have one person signing on behalf of all the others. PGP isn't going to tell you that the authors remained the same, only that the signer did (or that many people have access to the same private key and hopefully every one of them is completely trustworthy).

PGP doesn't let you verify that the authors remained the same. Only the key. If you wanted to actually verify authors, you'd have to have all of them sign their own commits, and you'd have to validate every commit, not just the release, otherwise you're just back to trusting whoever holds the key. Many projects very regularly get new committers, too, so you'd have to validate many new signatures with every single update.

> Nope, nobody really needs more of that, since that's what's your HTTPS certificate is for.

No it's not. Your HTTPS certificate will not tell you "this PyPi package release is actually built and uploaded by the same person who controls the GitHub repository linked on the package page". PyPi hosts distributions. It frequently has source distributions, but it doesn't necessarily host "source code", which would usually mean the source repository. Even with that, it's Transport Layer Security, or a Secure Socket Layer. It does not authenticate anything other than the Socket/Transport itself.

I'm fine with PGP, but most people don't really know how to use it. They add a key and think they're safe when it validates, but that only protects you if you already trust the key. PGP signing doesn't tell you "this is safe", just "this was signed by the person who has the private key for this public key", which isn't as useful without a lot of personal footwork or a trusted authority.

PGP key signing parties were a thing for a reason. Using PGP properly requires either an initial leap of trust (importing your distro's keys and trusting what they trust), a lot of dilligence (personally verifying identities), or a small amount of dilligence with a good web of trust (you sign keys that you know are good, and so does everybody you know, so a lot of what you find online you can validate through your links).

While impressive, that is a project that is basically perfectly suited to gain the most from this kind of optimization, and the fact that it already was incredibly fast means that there are fewer low hanging fruits for performance, and other projects would be less likely to have as big wins (as they're more likely to already have bigger bottlenecks elsewhere).

Interestingly close to a Seinfeld episode plot for a guy named "Cramer".

Bit of a tangent, I asked a friend if I could rip and burn one of his CDs about 15 years ago, and he looked at me in horror and told me that I absolutely could not, because he liked that disc.

It took me a bit to realize what he understood my words to mean.

The era is not the same. Our scribing in the margins is significantly less valuable than that of medieval scholars, because our mediums for recording, storing, archiving, and sharing information are significantly less restricted.

The levels of waste produced in the modern era are unimaginably higher than then, as well, so our responsibilities are completely different.

Many people I've met really could use more fulfilling hobbies.

Addiction is often extremely distressing. Dulled pleasure can be far better than drinking yourself into a stupor every single night.

You still have the right to complain, you just don't have the right for anybody else to care about your complaint.

The ability to complain doesn't need to be earned, only the respect itself needs to be earned.

When manually modifying JSON, it really helps avoid accidentally missing a comma when you add or reorder elements.

JSON isn't English. The comma doesn't mean what it does in English, so I don't see why a period would be appropriate either.

In countries that don't force every citizen to file, you still can report things they aren't aware of and still can do your taxes manually if you choose.

The majority of the population doesn't know anything about their taxes that the IRS doesn't. Why force everybody through a song and dance that only is of service to the exceptions (and a couple very large tax filing corporations who lobby hard against automatic taxes)?

TurboTax doesn't charge for standard federal income filing, but they do charge for some forms of return, and for state taxes, and for audit protection.

Even with the "free" standard offering, it's been lucrative enough for them to lobby heavily to prevent taxes from being easier, just to funnel the majority of the country through their slow filing flow and try to upsell to all of them.

Less money to Intuit and H&R Block and more in my pocket and my government's is a win to me. I'm all for productive businesses, but I'm sick of these tax companies influencing public policy and collecting rent by solving a problem that they are intentionally keeping alive.

Imagine a landscaper doing doughnuts on your lawn and then telling you to pay him to fix it, and that's roughly how I view Intuit.

That is really interesting. I wonder if they considered Linux too late in development to shift to something platform agnostic, or just decided that Wine was reliable enough for them to depend on it.

It's interesting that anything other than MacOS and windows is even considered at all, even just in the instructions.

People care about what they're paying in taxes whether they're manually punching in the numbers or not. For most people, you just put the numbers in the right places when filing taxes, and don't consider the policy implications or causes at that moment, because it makes no difference at that point. You consider those effects when voting.

Removing manual filing won't stop people from voting on tax policy.

And it should be required to file a tax return only when those kinds of situations actually apply to you. The majority of the population doesn't actually have those concerns.

It's still almost entirely about consent and safety, though. Rubbing it in other peoples' faces violates their consent.

It's really not black and white, it's a spectrum. People have a right to have their sexualities safely, and other people have a right to not be exposed to sex they don't want. The extremes on both sides are unfavorable. On one one side, total suppression of all sexualities in any public place; should you be able to make two men in love not hold hands in public, because it bothers you to be aware of their sexuality? On the other, total sexual freedom, and being forcibly exposed constantly to every expression of anybody's libido.

It's not easy, because the actual middle ground does involve compromise on both sides. Some people don't want to have to be aware of sexualities that aren't their own at all, and it's unreasonable. Some people don't want to be made to hide their unusual kinks in public places and feel that it's wrong for them to not be able to sexually signal wherever they want, which is also unreasonable.

Either way, it still is about consent, and the consent of bystanders counts too.

Some pro-sex communities often forget that "consent" doesn't just apply to participants. Bystanders should also have the right to avoid being exposed to sex acts and concepts that they don't want to see. Call people prudes or "kink-shamers" all you want, but as a very pro-kink person, I find it extremely distasteful and disrespectful to shame people for not wanting other people's kinks in their life.

There was some stupid drama recently over people calling a certain emoji the "bottom face" emoji and then being bewildered when people didn't like the sexual signaling. There were names and accusations thrown around based on nothing more than "I don't want to see sexual things in a programming blog".

Sex makes some people uncomfortable. Sexual trauma is a real thing that should be respected. People should have the right to opt out of seeing sex for the sake of their happiness and comfort. Your sexual freedom still needs to respect bystanders.

Edit: That said, I feel that people should name their projects whatever they want to. I don't have a problem with this being called Vore, I just think it's weird to explicitly celebrate it, and I don't like when people are shamed for saying they don't like seeing sex in places they don't expect it. While we should only change so much to accommodate people's comfort, we should at least respect that they aren't necessarily evil, homophobic, or wrong just for being uncomfortable.

Weird title. The actual title is "Human activities and species biological traits drive the long-term persistence of old trees in human-dominated landscapes". Looks like the nonsense title here is the result of removing a bunch of words from the actual title. Maybe it was done automatically.

> identified which species were most likely to persist as old trees in human-dominated landscapes and where they were most likely to occur. We found that species with greater potential height, smaller leaf size and diverse human utilization attributes had the highest probability of long-term persistence. The persistence probabilities of human-associated species (taxa with diverse human utilization attributes) were relatively high in intensively cultivated areas. Conversely, the persistence probabilities of spontaneous species (taxa with no human utilization attributes and which are not cultivated) were relatively high in mountainous areas or regions inhabited by ethnic minorities.

Unsurprising results, but it's interesting seeing it quantified.

Most compression algorithms don't take more work to decompress at higher levels, and actually perform better due to having less data to work through. Gzip consistently benchmarks better at decompression for higher levels.

It's not just about bottlenecks, but aggregate energy expenditure from millions of decompressions. On the whole, it can make a real measurable difference. My point was only really that it's not so cut and dry that it's a good trade off to take a 5% file size loss for 20% improved compression performance. You'd have to benchmark and actually estimate the total number of decompressions to see the tipping point.

mysite.localhost works fine for very simple development, but can easily fall down with containers, VMs, or multi-machine development. Technically, you can point it to a non-loopback IP, but I wouldn't do that. .localdomain is used some places as well, but I don't know how reliable it is.

.test is a bit more flexible, and what I use now. I'd prefer if .dev was reserved as well, but that ship has sailed.

I get it, but I don't agree that the defense is having a smaller number of tldns. I think the problem is with an omnibar in the first place, because it has to heuristically guess what you want. I preferred having a separate search bar from address bar.

For a technical professional, I fight with the behavior of my web browser's address bar far more often than I really think I should. Maybe the average person would be far better served if the browser only assumed you meant a URL if you explicitly included a scheme, and otherwise just did a search.

I don't think the top level comment was inherently about money, though. "Contribute back" can mean non-monetarily, or even be implying an indirect monetary gain from them contributing non-monetarily to their families.

Economics is devilishly difficult to really efficiently predict. More reliable lifespans and a larger elderly population can affect the total flow of money in ways nobody can properly imagine, positively or negatively.

From a younger perspective, the effect of eliminating cancers from the equation implies a lot. What is more expensive to the world, years of cancer treatments and palliative care to somebody in their 70s, or somebody living healthily through to 90 years old before dying from heart failure? What about the family cost of caring for a sick elderly relative?

An additional personal counterpoint: I know three very productive knowledge workers over the age of 70 who all say they'll stop working when they're dead.

My wife and I can only both work because our elderly parents take on childcare responsibility for us (because paid childcare is very often extremely expensive and very often very overcrowded), and our parents teach and enrich the lives of our children immeasurably.

Take care of the elderly. Build systems and habits of care and compassion that you want to be able to rely upon when you get old.

The way social media acts as an echo chamber and may intensify extreme viewpoints and isolation from fellow citizens isn't extremely controversial. It has also been leveraged as a tool for good, helping prevent many people from being effectively suppressed, but it's hard to deny the harm that comes from engagement-driven advertisement algorithms systemically stoking people's anger and sense of personal victimization.

The trends of polarization and politically extreme positions in America in particular over the past 30 years are profound and striking.

I don't disagree with you, and I find Switzerland a really interesting example. Building good education, good culture, and good social values is often a much healthier outcome than regulation. In my experience, trying to build effective, reproducible education is not just expensive and difficult, but nebulous as well. A lot of American attempts to better their education systems have been expensive for questionable benefit.

I'd much rather have a good culture than good regulations, if I had the choice. I think most people would, but there's no sure path to get there. Switzerland has some magic sauce that other countries would be hard pressed to replicate at scale.

Economics of scale come into effect as well. Gzip decompression speed is slightly better at higher levels as well. A one time higher cost of compression can pay off pretty quickly when you are decompressing it a lot of times, or serving it to enough people.

It is still a regulation, and supports the argument that a tool that can be used to do damage should have rules to reduce the risk and severity of damage where reasonable.

There are already laws governing phone use while driving in many places. In my experience, people using phones while driving can be extremely dangerous, and I've often wished that people couldn't do so.

My AK-47 example was intentionally silly, and was framed as something silly and extreme, as a direct comparison to you accusing me of believing that government was infallible. I'm not sure why you're pointing out that something I explicitly pointed out as extreme and unreasonable is extreme and unreasonable. That was the entire point: that we will get nowhere by attacking straw men.

I would like to see this research.

Who banned AI? This discussion is about regulation of AI to reduce its capability for harm, not to ban it outright.