e-v

For some reason, after reading the title of the article, I immediately thought the culprit was Emacs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33524683

I think the author of the post was referring to the fact that Belgium is a multinational state, comprised of Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia.

I could just upvote your comment (which I did), but I'd like to tell you explicitly that your comment was particularly informative. Thanks!

Lucky you! I tried learning with examples generated by ChatGPT and none of them worked at all. I then learned the basics of the API by reading this excellent tutorial: https://osm-queries.ldodds.com/tutorial/, and realised that, in hindsight, ChatGPT's answers weren't even close to being correct.

I don't know if you went to a French-speaking school in Belgium, but I was told the same thing in a French school. The French "continent" certainly refers to a large mass of land and its surrounding islands [1]. Hence, the continent is Oceania rather than Australia.

[1] https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/continent/186...

Indeed (I guess you meant "much better to have it with ZFS support already enabled"). I simply mentioned this for people unaware of the existence of this script who don't have network issues with the Arch ISOs.

The script available there: https://github.com/eoli3n/archiso-zfs makes it extremely easy to add ZFS support to any Arch ISO after it has booted. You can copy any standard ISO to a USB drive, boot off it, then run `curl -s https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eoli3n/archiso-zfs/master/... | bash` and you'll have ZFS support in a few seconds, without having anything to worry about.

This is ridiculous. If anything, California tends to be liberal - nothing to do with Socialism (let alone Communism). What does being a "woke" State (whatever that means) have to do with Socialism?

California has very little in common with Nordic social-democracy. Even when looked at relatively to the rest of the US. And this is particularly true when one looks at the subject at hand, which is social safety nets. The "relative" approach has its limits.

Donald Knuth is (fortunately) still alive.

There's no high horse. Your message doesn't answer the argument. The fact (A) that one wouldn't buy music if Spotify weren't available is not related to (B) not caring about how Spotify treats artists.

Even if A is true, it doesn't imply that one has no empathy for artists.

Does it make it more true?

I think you missed the OP's point. This is precisely not about "being useful to you" or "useless to someone else". The point is that not everything has to be useful, and that it is ridiculous to have to have to find some economic (in the broad, neoliberal sense) incentive to do this or that. Just do things for the sake of doing them (or not doing them), not as part of a strategy.

It is a universally accepted fact that physical exercise is good for you, and a lot of people enjoy it. If you don't exercise, it's either because you don't have the time to do it or you can't be bothered (or a bit of both). If you do have the time, then just go for a walk and stop finding excuses not to. I'd rather see people not go for a walk because they can't be bothered than convince them to do it because it'll make them more productive, better adapted to the job market, improve their "human capital", or whatever ridiculous reason "life hackers" come up with.

This is mostly very silly and is not backed by facts.

1. On "pedophilia in Algeria": a. You are probably referring to the rumors started by Guy Sorman which mention crimes allegedly taking place in Tunisia, where he lived and taught, rather than Algeria. b. As described in a report (in French) published in the Obs[1], Foucault was under strict police surveillance when he lived in Tunisia, because of his political activities. The State was desperate to find a reason to convict him. One would think that allegations of rape and pedophilia wouldn't have gone unnoticed. Moreover, Sorman himself admitted that his allegations were not founded[2]. c. Even if these allegations were true (which they don't seem to be), I failed to see what they would have to do with the argument you are answering to. This would make him a criminal and a despicable person; it would not imply that nothing he wrote was philosophically and historically pertinent.

2. On the age of consent laws in France: your argument is simply dishonest. At the time, the age of consent for heterosexual relations was 15 (and it still is), whereas homosexual relations were forbidden until the age of 18, which was (rightfully) seen as discriminatory. However, some of the people involved in that movement were indeed despicable. 3. "most of his books are extremely anti-historical" That makes absolutely no sense. What does "anti-historical" mean? a. "filled with literal falsehoods". This is a gross overstatement. The accuracy of some facts described in some of Foucault's books have indeed been disputed, it doesn't make them "filled with falsehoods". b. "anti-scientific": that's ironic, because, for reasons that I cannot explain in much detail here (do study Foucault and make your own opinion about his work rather that believe what random strangers say on the Internet), it is, to some extent, precisely the point (but it is dealt with in a much more complex manner than what your comment leads one to think).

Think whatever you want about Foucault and his work, but please do your homework and don't spread ridiculous rumors and over-simplifications.

[1] https://www.nouvelobs.com/idees/20210506.OBS43714/michel-fou... [2] https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/idees-et-debats/michel-fou...

He's thus probably exactly what they are looking for.

So it makes them better?

I am not sure I want to know about your political opinions if you consider Mitchell as being "far-left" (not that I'm a great fan of hers). That is certainly not what the far left is, neither historically nor in the contemporary world.

> Arch is a full time job to maintain

I've never understood that sentiment. Are there things I don't know about I should be doing?

I installed Arch probably four years ago on my laptop, and have never had to do anything but install updates and read the announcements on archlinux.org since.

I do understand the appeal of Manjaro - I did use it briefly when it first came out - but I don't see how maintaining Arch Linux would appear as being particularly complicated. I literally don't do anything with it I wouldn't do with any other OS.

The plugin you are referring to is evil-args (https://github.com/wcsmith/evil-args), which is included in Doom Emacs by default.

Please don't patronize me. I am responding to claims, not judging you and will ask you to please do the same.

The difference between Open Source and Free software (incidentally, I am in favour of the latter, but this is irrelevant) has to do with ethos and values, not copyleft.

From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html:

"Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not free."

From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....:

"The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand."

Just because the OP was not specific enough (as they indeed weren't) doesn't make your claim true.

I was simply pointing out the fact that your claim that '[u]sually "open source license" equates to MIT license and BSD licenses' is simply completely untrue. There are no 'might's or 'usually' here. Both Open Source and Free Software licenses have very clear criteria. There are no licenses which are 'usually' one or the other. They are mostly strictly equivalent.

The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft. The vast majority of open source software licenses are also free software licenses, and vice versa.

Not all 'open source' licenses are 'non-copyleft' or 'permissive' licenses.