devnonymous

Ah ok, so TikTok has voluntarily disabled across to Indian users due to a government order which is not a ban. Interesting.

Two observations about your comment. The ^average^ Indian, the masses whose vote sway elections in India, isn't the person discussing politics around dinner tables. They come from the houses where literal dinner tables don't exist. They are the ones who votes are coerced by gifts, muscle power and increasingly propoganda.

Secondly, of course the things that matter to the citizens in different countries would be different and of course the medium of propaganda in the countries are different (as an aside IMO, WhatsApp is the more influential medium in India). The topics like gun violence, abortion rights, race discrimination, health care, taxes ...etc are definitely things that get discussed about dinner tables and hold political sway in the US. The US style of 2 party system of presidential democracy and the role of electroral college are a bit problematic but the average US citizen isn't less political aware than the average Indian.

My point being, your assertion that Indians are somehow less immune to propoganda, is potentially arising out of some unconscious bias (one or more of confirmation or conformity or affinity..etc biases)

> Indians are tough audience to sway that way from my experience.

You underestimate the power of propoganda. The fact that you think the tiktok ban was in anyway related to the attack or even if was, it served as an commensurate retaliation for the attack just proves this.

Ehe who is the 'They' in your statement?

Perhaps because most countries do not want to be like China ? You can apply your reasoning to almost any Chinese policy internal or external but that doesn't justify the policy.

There's a difference between the officially stated reason and the real one. The government still tries to keep up the pretence of a functional democracy, so it can't outright say they are banning things that they don't like.

You're free to buy the party line but at least question whether the reasoning makes any sense. Does banning a handful of apps while increasing Chinese investments and imports really aling with the official stand that this was a retaliatory action?

By magic I mean the complexity brought on by the heavy use of metaclasses, patterns employed via convention rather than enforced by code (implying that you have to read enough of the code before you understand the patterns) and other similar leaky abstractions.

Don't get me wrong, I do think Django is one of those deep modules[1] where the interface makes it a pleasure to work with but the internals do need effort. Especially the ORM layer.

[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=deep+modules+John+Ousterhout&t=fpa...

The differences you speak about arise due to the nature of their design. PHP was created for the web whereas web programming support in python wasn't part of the language design. When you speak about web programming in python, the seam between the language and the web is usually a wsgi/agsi layer. This is where all the things you mentioned come into play. There's a whole lot of benefit imo to using python over php beyond that seam.

IMO, DRF is one of the few libraries that can be considered stable and complete. The code is well structured, without a whole lot of hidden magic under the hood (as compared to say Django itself), yet providing immense functionality. I've learnt some neat patterns from digging into the code while working with it

To the devs : well done an Congrats on the release!

Exactly ! What's worse that we seem to have developed this all-in-or-none-at-all approach towards cloud services. Whatever happened to a hybrid approah of using the cloud only for things that you wanted ?

It would be fine if it wasn't just a teensy bit hypocritical https://x.com/garrytan/status/1515225506450272256?s=20

Great head fake of an article! These are exactly the things that make smart people smart!

True. I recognize that my statement was a bit simplistic.

That said, in the context of what the OP was saying, unfortunately, this is a chicken-and-egg situation. For someone, like the OP, who would like to get paid to do OSS, they'd need to have a reasonably active OSS presence prior to being hired at places like Red Hat. Which is another aspect of my original point of contributing to FLOSS being the pursuit of the privileged.

The ^community^ here are people like you - those who also have to pay bills but contribute anyways, in whatever way they can by using the software and occasionally contributing code.

While yes it would be great if a community could raise funds, that coordination job itself would have to become someone's not-paying-the-bills work.

As much as I love Open source/Free/Libre software and am grateful it exists (and contributing to it, when possible), I've a long held belief that it is the pursuit of the privileged. You need to have the privilege of free time and then the privilege of being able to choose to spend that free time on something that doesn't improve your standard of living and then the privilege of being able to do it consistently.

My understanding from reading the post is that this is a shell in the same way python or perl or php or pgsql or mysql prompt is a shell. This isn't an interactive shell afaict.

For instance, Haven't tried it out but could someone who has tried this on Linux tell me what happens when I type Ctrl-Z in Bun when it is in the middle of running a command or pipeline ? Do I get a Bun shell prompt?

> No! A set of bits exists on disk. A piece of software (git) interprets those bits as a branch

I call what you describe there an abstraction. So, feels like I'm going full circle here to my original comment.

My (possibly incorrect or incomplete) understanding is that abstraction is when some complex underlying mechanism is presented in a manner that serves a specific purpose. In essence the difference between an abstraction and a social construct is that an abstraction deals with simplification of ideas and presenting them in a manner that makes it easy to interact with them.

While social constructs are about shared understanding of ideas regardless of whether these are reified in any manner or whether there is are ways to interact and engage with them.

Sure, so a development process is perhaps a social construct (or rather, using the term scocai construct to describe a development process is not entirely incorrect).

However, the idea of a git branch exists independent of the manner a certain population agrees on its use. It doesn't cease to exist just because you haven't agreed on how to use it.

...and some people use them to describe things you can't touch (ba dum tss)

Abstraction is not the same as social construct. A branch as a term is very much a part of git porcelain (which is an abstraction of the plumbing, ie: the 'git branch' command exists), it's not just some term that organically evolved and was agreed upon by convention. Furthermore, the meaning of it isn't going to further evolve into something different as people learn more about it. Unlike social constructs

Heh, no, I don't and that doesn't change the assertion, if you think about it.

This is laughably incorrect!! The net-worth of an average millionaire is closer to that of an average minimum wage worker than that of an average billionaire.

People really don't grok generational weath and scale of money.

If you use bash I'm assuming you don't have ...

export HISTCONTROL=ignoreboth:erasedups

Somewhere in your rc files.

If you do, ehe, that's some serious variety of work on the CLI !

This looks good and I'm sure it was created to scratch a particular itch but a simple approach to this (in bash) is changing the $HISTFILE depending on 'context'.

I personally have a custom shell function inspired by virtualenvwrapper's 'workon' that sets the stage, so to speak, based on its arguments. One of the things it does is export various env variables including HISTFILE.

For me this is a more flexible way to introduce customisation (for instance one of the last thing my function does is look for a project specific function (name of which is env derived) and execute it ...and then it's turtules all the way down )

I'm willing to bet that beyond a certain threshold there's no use for an incremental backup. You either would use (delayed) replication[1] to have an 'incremental' copy or would take full backups. I don't think any large database users rushing to use incremental backups when they have full redundancy.

[1] for example https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2019/02/13/delayed-replication...

What do you mean? Why is it weird? Did you mean to imply that you're surprised that he was old or that Pearl Harbor happened around an average lifetime ago ?

I have a pet peeve about the term perfectionism - it assumes the target of the idealized 'perfect' state is something other than the absolutely guaranteed limited resource in the world - time.

Every self-proclaimed perfectionist should start caring about time as much as they do about the object they are obsessing over. They'll then see the tradeoff in being less of a ^perfectionist^ in that thing and being more ^perfectionist^ about time.

This was posted recently here and i found it very interesting

https://spectrum.ieee.org/quantum-computing-skeptics

Related HN discussion

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38745970

Ah right, capitalism hasn't ever come in the way of the steady march of technology. This is the reason why we don't have monopolies controlling energy generation. Nor are we limited to a couple of choices of OSs or phones...etc and books, art, movies, music consumption and creation are perfectly aligned... Right? /s

IMO, what's most likely is some sort of licensing model between the AI companies and the 'big content providers' (remember most content on the web these days is not owned by the person who created it, wasn't always like that). The smaller companies then would be forced to live with either being scraped or ending up being 'invisible'.

Since links are being posted, here's Walker's clarifications

https://sleepdiplomat.wordpress.com/

... where he first links to the takedown before addressing the issues.

This is a nothingburger. If we were to hold this blog post to the same standard that they expect to hold the book to:

  * The email exchange goes on about a single claim from another rebuttal from the reading of a single chapter that indulges in nitpicking on the interpretation rather than general ideas

  * The WordPress blog, where clarifications were posted, is Matthew Walker's blog and this can be trivially verified[1]. Yet, the author first claimed no such clarification existed and then when directly linked to it, claimed no indication that it indeed was Matthew Walker's blog. Who is being lazy / disingenuous now ? (Note that Walker's blog directly links to Alexey Guzey's takedown).

As an aisde, the omission of a bar that is clearly an outlier (indicating non optimal buckets, rather than invalidation of a trend) and imo is not enough to have the author spend so much time and energy into this, in the absence of malintent.

[1] linked from his website https://www.sleepdiplomat.com/author