exarch

"Weaponized marijuana" is neither a weapon nor marijuana.

"But the industry sure wants to convince us that scalability is the most important property of infrastructure, because then they can sell us complicated tech we don't need and support contracts to help us use it."

And lets not forget: replace any and all efforts at code optimization with "just throw another rack of blades at it".

It should be convincing, because the test specifies a time limit in the range of a couple of minutes.

What salient factors distinguish a cable company from a "mere" streaming video service? Demand programming? Nope. Time shifting? Nope. Advertisement? Nope. Other than the literal media the data flows over, what is the legally meaningful difference?

The (scientist approved) test for determining basic matter phases is very rudimentary. Put the object/quantity in question in a can. Does it fill the whole space of the can, no matter what size can you use? Then it's a gas. Does it fill just the bottom of the can? Then it's a liquid. Does it instead retain its shape? Then it's a solid.

This is what happens when dev teams hate ops teams. Troubleshooting a production bug without a terminal is a recipe for lengthy outages.

Amazingly few discotheques provide jukeboxes.

Not if the only measure of interest used is literally self-reporting a binary "interested/not interested", like it is here. This is deceptioneering through statistics.

>the correlation between the mix of men and women in a career with the self-reported interest in that career is 0.56

Low quality research detected. Self-reported interest in a trendy subject is a poor way to evaluate genuine dedicated interest in that subject.

something something coming to your town

>For some reason when we apply the same principle to being respectful to people who don't want to relive a trauma they themselves lived, it's ridiculous.

Part of the ridiculousness is that although it's relatively easy to know when you would be spoiling a show, anything can be a trigger. So it isn't even possible to supply a meaningfully comprehensive "trigger warning".

What a bunch of colonialist garbage. You're probably Israeli, right?

"Rational nations"? Get real. No nations are rational. Nations are driven by political systems that are driven by the emotions of the populations of those places. Are human emotions rational? Are human emotions more rational in Israel than they are in Ghana or North Korea?

>Because it's how 99% of websites get their funding, allowing them to survive.

So then, I'll unblock ads to help companies survive just as soon as those companies start giving me money to help me survive.

Not when the people who design the things are being paid to make them not-nice.

I won't pardon that, because it shows your bad priorities of style over substance. That kind of flawed reasoning has too many negative consequences for me to merely overlook. Sorry.

Whether or not a message is perceived as rude is irrelevant and a matter of selfishness. Whether or not it is true is what you should concern yourself with if you mean to get things done.

>FWIW this is the talk that got them (Ben Nagy and The Grugq) thrown out of Kiwicon

See, fuck this. We are all fucked if style begins to trump substance in infosec, like it has in most everything else. Fucking marketing turds. The Grugq is dropping pearls before swine.

>Though I don’t consider it legally practicable, as a moral matter I’d be fine if every such man were thrown in prison for life.

I was with the author right up until this. Mr. Aaronson here declares that, were it legally practicable, he believes that THOUGHT POLICE would be a very good thing. He proposes life imprisonment for "wrong" belief, not wrong action.

At that point, I ceased to care much at all about what Scott Aaronson believes.

What offended about his post, out of curiosity? The Rube Goldberg analogy (I found that rather apt), or the "Professor Lucifer Butts" aspect of it (which I'll also confess to finding not the least apropos nickname for a certain Red Hatted German)?

>You don't have to like it, you don't have to eat it but they're free in their choice just as you are free to build something else.

And I'm also free to correctly identify that their poor leadership decisions are ruining a wonderful piece of software and causing the community, including Ian fucking Jackson, to abandon the group that made it possible.

>I'm not disputing that there certainly are problems in systemd, but as a package I still think that systemd does more things "better" than sysvinit than it does things worse.

The community seems pretty evenly split on this point, with folks like myself taking the opposite view: systemd is a regression in so many fundamental areas that its improvements in things like boot times and init script syntax just are not worth the tradeoffs that it imposes. I don't care if the frogurt is free when it's full of potassium benzoate.

Safe, but seems like it's solving a problem that doesn't really exist, or at least exists as a mosquito not warranting a bazooka swat.

True, I was wrong here.

>better than sysvinit

Better in some ways, worse in others. If systemd were unequivocally better in all areas, nobody would be complaining. By saying what you said, you're subtly but deliberately telling every one of those people that their concerns are irrelevant and/or a result of their ignorance. This is the systemd developers' M.O. and a large part of the reason why there's so much drama over systemd.

>If you ever have written a /etc/init.d script for a python non-daemoning script running in a virtualenv, or something to the same effect, you'd notice the improvement over SysV init scripts.

These are solved problems. You're creating a bunch of low level OS spaghetti because you don't want to have to write a shell script for your software? That is not a responsible decision-making process, that's moving the mountain to you.

Oh shit, let me go recompile my chargen and telnet servers then.

We stopped using inetd for reasons. Modern services don't work this way, nor should they.

They don't buffer into /dev/null... until you fill the buffer.

And the purpose of systemd, as near as I can tell, appears to be making my system into a Windows box, complete with binlogs.

>the result of the vote is a clear majority of Debian developers saying "no more politics on this init topic"

No, it's a thin majority of devs saying, "lets not make a decision of any kind, so please continue fighting these political battles amongst yourselves".

Just wait for Jessie, you'll see. Package dependencies are going to become the next huge political football.

<i>Socket activation</i>

Because minimal boot time is way more important than predictable, repeatable functionality. It's totally cool if some other daemon lies about whether or not my service is actually listening while just happily buffering into /dev/null. This is all brilliant stuff and a huge step forward over UNIX.

Why make apples and oranges comparisons to the kernel? It isn't that hard to replace sysvinit. Why should sysvinit's replacement regress in this area?