Seriously, if we keep this up they'll be sending us pallets of punch cards before you know it.
339 karma · joined August 8, 2017
Assuming this is true (others have already addressed a few of the many reasons it might not be), wouldn't that imply that practically all existing tests are already flawed? If you want to grade on time, every exam should be graded with a formula taking both the time and the correctness into account. A binary "fast enough" vs "not fast enough" is about as useful as a pass/fail class grade.
The exams that felt like the fairest reflections of my own knowledge were proctored in-person, closed book, and time unlimited. Of course, being time unlimited works better for quantitative/engineering exams. I haven't put much thought into more qualitative/liberal arts type exams.
I think there's a pretty big difference between constructive criticism vs statements like "The development team seems to not care". To me, it seems pretty clear that the team absolutely cares, but they are also a small and very underfunded team, and things take time. Assuming the worst intentions of a team is the problem and is disappointing to see here.
> I’ve given Matrix/Element an honest try many times because some of the OSS projects I’m involved with use it, but month after month it’s the most troublesome of all of the apps in this space that I use, and it’s not even close.
I don't doubt that, but it does not resonate with me. There have been a few hiccups over the years, eg the database corruption earlier this year (unrelated to the protocol or synapse) resulting in stuck invites, but overall I've had quite a good experience. Far less problems than Teams, and even slack has had issues (mainly, notifications not happening) that I have somehow avoided with Element, although I am aware others have had issues in this area. There are even some things I do with matrix that are simply not possible/practical with the others to begin with.
0: https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/llvm-techniques-tips-...
This is ubuntu, purportedly targeting ease of use, good defaults, and new Linux users. How many Linux newbies are running with custom sudo configurations? By definition, basically none, and of those who do, it's only for passwordless sudo, which I assume can be trivially recreated in run0. For advanced or enterprise users, it is not difficult to install sudo manually or port their configuration over to run0.
> This resistance, IMHO, is moot anyways since the sudo maintainer himself is in support of sudo-rs and actually helped the project in a consultancy capacity (as opposed to directly contributing code).
I'm not categorically against sudo-rs, but use the tool for the job. If all you need is a simple way to get root privilege, sudo is overkill.
Based off his reputation, I would agree, but after reading a lot of his own words via blog posts, comments in github issues, etc, I wonder how he gained that reputation. He has solid reasoning behind many of his ideas even if you disagree with them, and his comments seem pretty respectful and focused on the technical aspects. Maybe things were different in the past, or maybe some segments of the community just never forgave him for the early buggy systemd implementations, or maybe I just happened to only read things he wrote when he wasn't having a bad day, who knows.
Yes, if you ignore all the bugs resulting from features that almost nobody uses.
> along with the rest of the systemd abominations
Not too interested in engaging systemd debates. I have enjoyed using systems with and without systemd, and while I understand the arguments against feature creep, I think you'd be throwing the banana out with the peel to overlook the idea behind run0.
For such a security sensitive piece of software like sudo, reducing complexity is one of the best ways to prevent logic bugs (which, as you mentioned in the sibling, is what the above bug was). If run0 can remove a bunch of unused features that are increasing complexity without any benefit, that's a win to me. Or if you don't like systemd, doas on OpenBSD is probably right up your alley with a similar(ish) philosophy.
For anyone who wants to read more about Lennart's reasoning behind run0: https://mastodon.social/@pid_eins/112353324518585654
I would have much preferred if ubuntu went with run0 as the default instead of trying to rewrite sudo in rust. I like rust but the approach seems wrong from the beginning to me. The vast majority of sudo usecases are covered in run0 in a much simpler way, and many of the sudo bugs come from the complex configurations it supports (not to mention a poorly configured sudo, which is also a security hazard and quite easy to do). Let people who need sudo install and configure it for themselves, but make something simple the default, especially for a beginner distro like ubuntu.
And yes, it allows you to disable network permissions for apps, among many other nice things.
The big thing this might be missing from your perspective is I don't usually have multiple tmux (or wezterm) sessions going on simultaneously. Not sure if or how that influences the wezterm side of things.
Locally - I far prefer wezterm now. The only issue for me was that getting persistent server side sessions seemed to come at the cost of some weird neovim gui refresh and latency issues which I'm not sure are fully solved yet, so I still use tmux for that. Looking at the issue tracker, maybe I should try again, seems that at least some refresh issues have been addressed since I last checked https://github.com/wezterm/wezterm/issues/4607
They didn't say anything about sudo, so assuming global filesystem/memory/device/etc access is not really a fair comparison. Many installers that come as bash scripts don't require root. There are definitely times I examine installer scripts before running them, and sudo is a pretty big determining factor in how much examination an installer will get from me (other factors include the reputation of the project, past personal experience with it, whether I'm running it in a vm or container already, how I feel on the day, etc).
On the desktop side, if there were a client as good as SchildiChat maybe that would work, but last time I tried one of the Element desktop clients I wasn't even able to log in (it either crashed or hung, can't remember), and most of the time I'm fine with Fractal anyway. Fractal is actually a very nice client for what it does, it just has a limited feature set: missing spaces, copy/paste doesn't quite work like you'd expect, no search (I'm not sure there are any clients with fully functioning search for encrypted rooms), and my memory is that heic image previews weren't supported. I can fall back to nheko for some of the other things when needed.
As far as I know, there aren't any clients that support the new element call unless you enable the labs feature in element x.
All that said, I can't overstate how much I appreciate all the work the matrix devs do, and it is still fine for my daily use. Even if I sometimes disagree with Arathorn's conclusions about how ready matrix is, I have to appreciate the optimism and I imagine it is part of why he's been able to continue through all the negativity :) and it's not entirely wrong to say that matrix beats the competition - I'd say it easily beats teams and imessage (teams does not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as anything else), and it is mostly comparable with messenger and whatsapp. Slack probably has it slightly beat, and discord is leagues ahead of everything else.
This isn't quite what you said, you asked a question
> why does it have to specifically be the back?
and then got an answer to the question
> Where does your index finger sit?
This answer was presumably meant to imply that your index finger naturally sits at the perfect spot for unlocking the phone if the sensor is on the back. At least for me (and I always assumed everyone else, but you are showing to be an exception), my index finger is on the back of the phone both when taking it out of the pocket and when holding it, so it's the perfect spot for a sensor.
Your assumption of using the thumb to unlock the phone is apparently so strong that maybe you didn't realize others in this thread are assuming index finger is the most natural to unlock, and I guess that is where the confusion comes from. Since I have a sensor on the back of my phone and unlock it with my index finger while taking it out of my pocket, this statement is very odd to me:
> The original topic was about unlocking your phone while taking it out of your pocket, which is done with the thumb.
First, it's not true for me, since I use my index finger, and second, I'm not even sure how I would have to contort my hand to have the fingers and thumbs on the side of the phone while taking it out of my pocket such that the thumb could unlock via a side sensor. Even putting my hand in at a 90 degree angle is tough because pockets are usually too tight for that. But I suppose if you have always unlocked your phone with your thumb while taking it out of your pocket, I can see why you might think they're pulling your leg.
I never thought about this before but is it possible that there was an employee who donated, and the $500-$999 was just the portion that Apple gave as the employee charity match? It would make a lot of sense, but it does make the donation look kind of hilarious.
> “it should be abolished and everyone should do what I say.”
The original and the (mis)quote are not the same thing at all.
I must have missed that quote, I seem to be unable to find that text in the post.
> This wasn’t phrased like “I prefer to use UTC time and here’s why I like it,”
I don't know, it kind of seems like it was:
> Here’s Adam’s story of how living by UTC transformed his productivity, and why it might work for you, too.
and
> Give it a try, you might find it as liberating as I do.
They're making it sound awfully optional if their intent was to put you in jail if you didn't do it.
> Give it a try, you might find it as liberating as I do.
Did you miss these quotes, or are they also part of the absolutism? Here are some ways I read it, which seem like fair interpretations and also don't make the author stand out as being particularly dogmatic or authoritarian:
Considering the quotes I provided, it seems likely that the author may have been suggesting that we stop using timezones as a society in order to mitigate the only two downsides that they listed, since those downsides only exist as a result of society still using timezones while they as an individual stopped using them.
Another way to read it could be that the author made a statement they believe is probably true ("timezones should be abolished") but they were not fully convinced. To gain confidence, they decided to gather further information: "I began with myself...To my surprise, it was easy" and then ended with two downsides of their experiment, suggesting that they realize it may not be a perfect solution, at least right now.
A third way one could read it is to consider that the author didn't propose fines, jail-time, or any other specific penalties for continued use of timezones in their hypothetical world. Without enforcing a penalty, what does it even mean to "abolish" a timezone? In the context of the whole post, it seems to be more of a thought experiment imagining what could be if society as a whole switched, rather than a prescription of what must be.
The unwillingness to engage with the author's thought experiment strikes me as more dogmatic than anything the author wrote, but perhaps I am not fully considering other possible interpretations.