WHA8m

I did a quick search. Names were named by him here [1] in 2024 - but not as successors per se. More like candidates for important roles in the future. This [2] interview from 2020 touches the subject as well.

I interpret it in a way that he tries to cultivate an environment where a good leader/successor/main-whatever emerges somewhat naturally.

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/990534/ [2] https://itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/torvalds-say...

(Prime example of my personal behavior which I really don't like: Put a half-baked assumption/hearsay on the internet. Get 2 replies. Start actually researching the topic only afterwards.)

Security is my top priority (even above privacy) when it comes to internet browsers. My impression has always been that browser technology is a very hard subject and incredibly difficult to do right. This approach is the main reason I keep a distance from any software that is not widely adopted. Even if it's innovative and novel. This being said: If I switch to ladybird today, am I a beta tester or is this a project I can count on?

Isn't the Linux ecosystem much more healthy and decentralized than Mozilla? We're so so blessed with Linus and everyone is afraid of the moment the project has to stand without him. But I'm confident he's aware and working towards that point in time. I'm not too much into it though, so this is more or less assumptions.

If in doubt, search the Arch forums for posts about the model you consider to buy. Best case: Some threads come up, but all problems could be solved. Worst case: No threads, or a lot of threads about obscure errors.

This is a duplicate command to increase my chance of getting a late reply :) Hope that's fine.

When I read comments like yours "Arch is a minefield" "With Arch it is so easy to shoot yourself in the foot", I never know what this could be specifically. How could this look like? Can you give me something more concrete? I'm really eager to know what everyone is talking about.

Imagine me: I'd consider myself a Linux noob, although I probably aren't anymore. I use Arch Linux for about 3 years now as my daily driver. I'm not young anymore - I didn't grew up with computers - I don't have it in my blood. I don't have formal education in anything computer and have never worked in the field. During Covid I learnt Linux from the Arch wiki. Now I'm using it. I configured some things and can control my computer through the command line.

Everytime I read comments like yours, I get the shivers. Did I miss something integral? What do I not know about? Especially network stuff is a blind spot for me. I didn't touch network stuff beyond the default wiki pages.

Hey, I might be too late to the party, but I'd love to get some more info to your comment.

Imagine me: I'd consider myself a Linux noob, although I probably aren't anymore. I use Arch Linux for about 3 years now as my daily driver. I'm not young anymore - I didn't grew up with computers - I don't have it in my blood. I don't have formal education in anything computer and have never worked in the field. During Covid I learnt Linux from the Arch wiki. Now I'm using it. I configured some things and can control my computer through the command line.

Everytime I read comments like yours, I get the shivers. Did I miss something integral? What do I not know about? Especially network stuff is a blind spot for me. I didn't touch network stuff beyond the default wiki pages.

When I read comments like yours "Arch is a minefield" "With Arch it is so easy to shoot yourself in the foot", I never know what this could be specifically. How could this look like? Can you give me something more concrete? I'm really eager to know what everyone is talking about.

Agreed. Extra: I'd generally say, that comments on HN are often interesting and insightful (that's why we're here, no?). With the current state of social media, I'd wish for a little more HN flavor. But at least credit your source. The information you provide doesn't get less valuable only because someone else did the work.

Just a quick note on the Youtube channel you mention: I follow his videos for a while and it seems to me, that he's half a shill. My impression is, that he re-models popular HN threads into Youtube videos. Just watch the latest video on the MrBeast topic and you'll basically get the same info as all the popular 'root' comments (was on HN front page last week). Not the first time I noticed a suspicious connection.

Smooth enough on my X201 with library wifi. Not a fan of those flashy websites though

I don't want to translate titles, so you'll have to figure it out yourself. Anyways...

Tolstoi, the 2 most important books. Dostojewski, the 2 most important books. Don Quijote. Umberto Eco is good. Frank Herberts Dune. Hermann Hesse. Lolita. Pinoccio. Frankenstein.

Is this what they do with the Fedora i3 spin? Sounds (looks) a lot like it. I'm very new to Linux and I was wondering about "that other DE" when I just wanted i3. Maybe I have to go for Fedora Core + i3 separately then.

Sometimes it's just fun to see what all this fuss is about and delve into it. I used TikTok for a couple days and paid the zoo a visit. Like most people here (I'd assume), I closely observed myself using this app and wondered how it would effect my behavior. After a few days I got the feeling that I've seen everything this platform has to offer and left. Everything for the experience!

That's the point and the title is misleading. If you buy goods from an organization because you'd like to support their cause, that's not a donation but a simple purchase. Even though 'donation' is not mentioned here, it is implied in many of the comments I read in this thread. But that's far from what it actually is and how the transaction is worked. The story would actually be outrageous if some vendor took x % from a 'donation'. But that's not the case here. These are 'purchases' with the intention of helping someone. Nevertheless, the intention doesn't matter at all here. If you want to donate, you'll have to look for a place to 'donate'. And then your transaction will be handled accordingly (hopefully).

Very interesting conversation for me. Thank you! Specifically I want to encrypt a folder with VeraCrypt for my data.

I am wondering wether this is a (considerably) secure method of generating passwords in general. The example I made was very simple and not creative. It only tried to illustrate what I am thinking about.

Edit/ Addition: Can you share the tool you used to estimated the time? I knew there is a way to see how random something is, but search results are cluttered with generators and I couldn't find something.

> and then you have to protect that resource as well.

That's what I want to avoid.

I'm more afraid of some mathematical patterns I unintentionally get into my string that turns all of this useless. Not sure if I can obfuscate enough to break the pattern. That's basically the question.

(1) I am certainly not the first one to think about that. (2) The example was just that and not very creative. There is an infinite amount of possibilities. Also I imagine it to be crutual to involve personal data somewhere (like the birth year).

That's always an important question to ask when we discuss new ideas. New ideas doesn't arise for no reason. There are problems and people will ignore (not negate) them to defend the status quo when discussing alternative paths. As always, the truth lies somewhere between and that's why we love HN. We're not twitter.

It's an odd choice, I agree. It just doesn't sound like something that is going to succeed as a social media. This is 100% subjective and exclusively based on a feel.

Edit, PS: I'd be glad to be proven wrong here. It's a great project!

Remember, this was not intended to be public. You read this as a public statement when it's really just a leaked chat conversation. Your version might still be true, but this is not proof for it.

Not a designer, but curious. Just comment a link.

Yes I know. No one likes these guys /s

I agree. As I've just stated in another comment, it's hard to say something with substance about philosophy in general. There are just a lot of different fields with individual axioms and scientific methods.

That said, if these 'languages and meta-languages' fields would have found something viable (usage and usability), eg. a good tool to use, we would already use it.

I agree.

[I overlooked the "much of" in your first sentence. This would have been my reply:

Yes with limitations. As I implied there are more kind of sciences. Philosophy itself has very diverse fields which have their own sets of scientific methods. So it's hard to say something with substance about the general field of philosophy.

The philosophy I was talking about is more compared to math than empirical evidence based sciences.]

Thanks for the reply! Indeed it brings something to the table that I have not paid enough attention in my previous comment.

I acknowledge that more often there are updated versions of previous arguments that hold their content 'better' and put them in meaningful context. I wonder where the line is wether we call that 'history of philosophy' or not. Nevertheless this is how students at universities spent most of their time learning philosophy. They rarely read whole original works, mostly just relevant paragraphs and summaries.

You already touched on this in your last sentences, but it's a stronger point that you seem to make out of it. 'Truth' doesn't really exist in this space. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' that hasn't been proven opposite. What you propose here can, if not cautious, lead to 'philosophy on rails'. People will turn into 'intellectuals' (whatever this is), but not into 'philosophers' (whatever this is). So even though I agree with you, this can't be the only approach to philosophy.

Important here is the differentiation between 'doing philosophy' and the 'content of philosophy'. Regarding the second one, this might be a somewhat viable approach. But I highly disagree with phrases like: "philosophy should not be presented/ offered [in a certain way]". This leads to dogmatism. Sure, strong point shall be emphasized and weak spots visible, but implying there is something absolute here surely is to be avoided. But you touched on that in your last sentences anyways.

> just in a different environment

This is more than you think. Humans not only evolve through evolution, but also culture. We're able to change culture quickly and it has a huge impact on our being. Culture responses very sensible to the environment. So even though there was not much time for evolution, we 'evolved' quite a bit and might be more different that one might think.

As I said, culture can change quickly. This applies for all directions, so maybe we actually are very similar. Who knows.

[I used 'evolution' as how we use the word in day to day usage. The term 'culture' might be involved in 'evolution']

This is not an alternative to philosophy. This is philosophy. I'm afraid you have not escaped yet, sir.

I agree. Even though I think the comparison to physics doesn't fully found what you want to say.

Physics is an empirical science with a rather neutral language to communicate its content. Arguments (much more 'findings') can be translated to this language and be understood on their own.

The language of philosophy isn't so clear (or it is, but everyone has their own). Therefore an argument might not be fully understood on its own. The author/ philosopher might have tried to do so, but eventually it is easier to understand an arguments if you know what the state of the art was back then.

My point basically is, that this goes beyond 'motivation' - which is hard to illustrate if we look at physics for comparison.

-

Unrelated: What's better: "My point basically is, [...]" or "My point is basically, [...]". If I knew how to ask this, I'd google it.

> It is sensible to read other philosophers I guess, but I think people should be encouraged to argue on their own.

With your first part of the sentence you already put your second statement in a nuanced context. But I'd argue that "it is sensible" puts too little weight on this side of the argument.

We've all been there: You're new to a field and climb the Dunning Kruger Graph. At some point you're standing on the first hill and start "argue on [your] own".

Most things have already been said and argued. And most probably so by people more knowledgable and intelligent that me and you. And exactly those arguments are the 'history of philosophy'.

We're probably all better off if we learn to move within this tightly knit web of knowledge and be very cautious and conscious every time we leave those trails and 'go on our own'.

That being said, it is mandatory to view the history of philosophy not as the whole ball park but jump over the fence occasionally. Whether we hurt ourself by doing so is almost certainly dependent on how comfortable we are with what has been said and argued before, eg. history of philosophy.

> Reagan

I don't consider this 'recent'.

What came to mind in the meantime is the "spying on friends" that was published by Snowden. But there wasn't some physical damage done which I think marks a different boundary.

I like this thread. A bunch of possibly above average intelligent people going all in on discussing why and how such an attack was done. Very entertaining to read.

What struck me, was that a few of you seriously think about the US as a contender for this attack. Does anyone has an recent example of the US being that hostile to friend nations?