gh-throw

> I'm not talking about different things. There are a lot of side projects on Github to replace various parts of a Linux system, and various parts of systemd. They exist. What else were you talking about?

So, we are talking about different things? Because most of the things I'm talking about pre-date Github.

> The "club" is people who were invested in that particular project. If you're just a free user and you didn't have an active investment in pushing the project forward, then you're not in that club. Sorry, I don't mean to be blunt and I'm not trying to insult you, but the honest truth is that your opinion doesn't really matter unless you have the resources or the clout to push it forward. And if you did, then you'd be the one running the company, and then people would be complaining about how you're marginalizing them. Again I don't meant to be rude here or shut down your opinions or anything but let's just be real. Someone's got to foot the bill eventually, and when you're that person you get to be the one who says no, and then everyone else gets to be mad at you.

Sweet, so I'm the everyone else who gets to be mad. Glad we agree I get to. For fuck's sake, I'm just pointing out a pattern of behavior a corporation is engaging in, which may be used to predict other things they may do. This is bizarre.

> These kind of comments are really baffling to me. If they have no interest or investment whatsoever in A, then what are they supposed to do? Can you blame any distribution for not wanting to put in all that extra work to package and maintain it themselves, for every single other piece of open source out there that someone might have a passing interest in? It's a business, they don't have infinite money to spend towards everyone's side project on Github. I wish they did but sadly, they don't.

Were my terms too abstract? Systemd is written such that it's a pain in the ass to keep the multiple options for the several systems it replaces around, if a piece of software that's very important decides to go all-in on Systemd. Gnome did exactly this. Before that happened this problem did not exist. Systemd + Gnome created the problem, for any distros that wants to package them, forcing them to choose between a bunch of extra work or marginalizing anything that's not systemd. I'm not talking about "side projects on GH" but the ability to, practically, not theoretically, replace important parts a Linux system at all, or to write a new implementation that does things usefully-different from existing options because the spec is reasonably broad and the system loosely-coupled. Those are on their way out, and that's on purpose. Side projects on GH indeed. Haha. I think I see where the disconnect is, yeah. Maybe we're talking about totally different things?

> I get that you feel excluded and marginalized but those may be misplaced emotions, if you were never a paying customer or a developer then you were probably never part of the club.

Rad, I'll stop having an opinion or even noticing things that are happening because I'm not part of... what club is this? HN posters couching insults in armchair psychology to try to evade downvotes? Is that the club?

> The really funny part is that people think there is some metaphorical gun to developers heads to use this technology. There is a choice, there always has been.

Of course, but when the choices are "support A and B for C" or "support A and B for C but now it'll be a ton of extra work to package and maintain because C deliberately cut out A (and every other alternative that's not B)... or drop A and only support B for C, which is becoming popular fast anyway because it has lots of money behind it" then those two sets of choices aren't exactly the same.

"There's a choice" doesn't mean the choices & options aren't being nudged pretty hard.

> You're bringing logic into this, please stop. The propaganda narrative is to just bash Red Hat for any work done. Of course the company that employs many opensource people across the world is going to have some effect on the ecosystem.

I used to like them a lot, but at some point noticed I dislike an awful lot of the ways they influence the Linux desktop, and the tech they push, often by intertwining the projects they have influence over and driving them in ways that practically exclude and marginalize alternatives. If they changed I'd change my opinion. But yeah, I'm probably just some sort of simpleton.

Gnome, systemd and its increasingly-tight integration with same, plus its eating everything in sight, wayland conveniently leaving everything up to the DE/WM (but gnome works, so why don’t you just use gnome?).

Ubuntu also tried to do a bunch of their own stuff, but not very well and without this apparent overall strategy that Red Hat has. They seemed to just be trying to differentiate themselves, not to also drive everyone else nuts as they’re forced to try to keep up.

Red Hat would never participate. Their current (and for like the last decade or more) strategy seems to be to run toward various goals in convoluted and incompatible ways such that they're always "ahead" of everyone else, using their weight and the combined power of several projects they head to force the rest to burn resources playing catch-up with their meandering path to sub-optimal-but-sufficient solutions.

Every company's actual status page (and news feed) is on Twitter, no matter what else they say. I don't know where Twitter hosts their real status page. Probably Facebook.

Notably, Facebook hasn't updated theirs, though.

Isolationism's probably not a great idea, sure, and there might be room to argue that protectionism is typically bad policy for the US, but the argument that protectionism is bad for all states in the modern economy, or that it's bad for every trade relationship the US maintains, is much harder to support.

The cheap ones are all petroleum-based, and if you get an unscented one you can really tell. Gross. Cheap scented ones still smell of it, even. Beeswax smells nice, even unscented, but is really expensive (if you're using them more than occasionally). Soy's OK and priced in between. A little harder to find than the petroleum ones, but that's not an issue if you're shopping online.

Anyway, as another poster noted, rarely is anything burning healthy to be around, even if it smells nice.

This is similar to what happened with studio-owned movie theaters. The right solution is to outlaw exclusive distribution deals and production-company ownership of streaming platforms (yes, that means Netflix would have to split up).

Ever read Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar? There’s a certain speech you might find enlightening if you think Trump was trying to cool things off with those tweets.

This is what open protocols were for, but those stopped being viable when trapping users to spy on them became more valuable than selling good services and software.

Amazon: author

YouTube: Youtuber

Twitch (as discussed elsewhere in the thread): eSports tournament competitors

For three different “jobs”, though.

You'll find normal room lights obnoxiously bright and wonder what the hell we're thinking if you try exclusively candles or very, very dim handheld lights/lanterns after sundown for a while (think, medium-bright night lights at the very brightest, and even that's kinda too bright) and entirely avoid glowing screens. Might find the insomnia or night-owl tendencies that're "just how you are" disappear in a hurry, too. Go figure, if it's not actually dark and there's an incredible amount of flashy entertainment on tap it's really hard to sleep like you're supposed to. Wonder why we have problems with that, as a society. Guess we'll need a whole cottage industry of books & magazine articles to mis-explain it.

I'm expecting the only thing that'll keep me on it in old age is VR chats with the grandkids or whatever. The rest of it's not worth the money, except that it's de facto required for work and (for the kids) school these days.

Please tell me "keeb" isn't "keyboard".

Clicks link

Yes, it's keyboard, but occurs only in the title. Bad, but could be worse.

The rest all demonstrably eat battery like it's free on every other platform? IDK, maybe Edge doesn't, but FF and Chrome sure do.

[EDIT] Let me put it this way: I see no reason to expect the FF or Chrome engines to perform better on iOS than they do on Android, especially since that's the closest to a "home" platform that Chrome has (ChromeOS aside).

Not sure about the SAT, and maybe the test has changed since I took it, but the ACT was mostly a knowledge & skills test. Math: did you pay attention through at least high school trig? Reading: how literate are you? English: how well do you understand the mechanics of SWE? Science: Can you read intentionally-shitty graphs to extract the correct information (yes, seriously, that's what it was, not anything to do with science, really) and so on.

You can change browsers, just not browser engines. This might bother me if any other browser engines seemed to give a damn about battery life, but since they don't, it's justifiable for the reason of preventing people from "mysteriously" having terrible battery life because ads on Google properties convinced them to install Chrome, at least.

Having written for both platforms at the time, I don't know about 2010 but by around 2011 or 2012 it was sure as shit easier to program for than Android. By a long shot. And a breeze to maintain an actively-developed app in the field, by comparison. Maybe there were also-ran mobile platforms that were easier, or not-apples-to-apples comparisons with, say, desktop development, where that's easier, but if you wanted native mobile dev Apple was a piece of cake (pie?) compared to its main competition.

[Edit: Nb my perspective is that of someone who'd never used a Mac full-time before working in mobile development, had never even looked at Obj. C before, was quite familiar with Linux and to some extent Windows, and had a passing familiarity with Java, so if anything my background should have biased me toward Android, slightly. Last time I touched native on the two platforms was, oh, 2017 maybe, and it was still true.]

This is why the pat answer of "capital is rewarded for taking risk, that justifies their pay" doesn't ring true to me. Your downside is... still being rich and never, ever having to work if you don't want to? Hot damn, give me some of that risk!

I think you're considering a broader set of things a "corporation" than I am. Wikipedia:

> A corporation is an organization—usually a group of people or a company—authorized by the state to act as a single entity (a legal entity recognized by private and public law 'born out of statute"; a legal person in legal context) and recognized as such in law for certain purposes.[1]:10 Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature).

Webster's 1913:

> A body politic or corporate, formed and authorized by law to act as a single person, and endowed by law with the capacity of succession; a society having the capacity of transacting business as an individual.

Modern Merriam-Webster's retains essentially the same definition.

That's why I hold that position about their relationship with the rest of society, and in particular with their parent government. I'll grant some other kind of organization, not being definitionally a creation of government, may not have the same relationship.

Is Drone useful if you need to build anywhere other than Linux? Yeah Docker can run elsewhere, but it's still Linux.

I'd love an excuse to leave Jenkins for self-hosted multi-platform jobs, but nothing else seems to have the flexibility and to project confidence that it'll still be around and well-maintained in, say, five years.

Repulsion? Where do you get that idea?

Corporations wholly creations of the state. They have no meaning or existence absent it. We shouldn't empower our government to grant the privileges of incorporation unless it's in the polity's interest, surely? There's no repulsion. They're not bad. But we don't owe them anything whatsoever, either, and we shouldn't hesitate to ask what we think we can or should in return.

Lack of choice in tax regimen is entirely fine for corporations. They're creations of the state. We should bring them to heel, if they're finding ways to avoid what we're trying to get them to do. Don't like it, don't incorporate, and don't enjoy the state-given benefits thereof. I don't care a bit about increasing choices for corporations, unless doing so improves our ability to harness them to generate whatever we're trying to get out of them (economic growth, infrastructure development, taxes, whatever). I'd surely entertain arguments against this in those terms, though (i.e. "actually this will cause us to be less able to harness corporations to our benefit, for reasons X, Y, and Z")

There exist reasonable arguments against term limits for members of legislative bodies, which arguments hinge on term limits greatly increasing the power of lobbyists, by effectively lowering the average skill and expertise of lawmakers.

Counterpoint: corporations are creations of the government, and a polity (and its government) ought to do whatever generates the desired outcome they want from these creations, including bringing in more tax revenue, if that's what they want. Ain't no corporation without government. They serve us. Or should.

> I mean, you call it "worst", but I'd call it a blessing, and one we ought to enjoy while it lasts. The moment the powers that be realize that they can capitalize on self-criticism and entirely preempt dissent is the moment escaping said powers will be effectively impossible.

This is already the norm. That’s coming from Brooker’s own experience. The much-less-good episode The Waldo Moment plays with some of the same stuff, and the divisive first episode borrows someone’s quote re: the 9/11 attacks, that the event in that episode was “the first real art of the 21st century” (or something to that effect) because the only thing that’s meaningful as criticism (i.e. not born basically already captive to the system) is so outsider that it’s likely illegal and horrifying... and yet some art-provacateur is trying to bring even that inside the system.

The sequence at the end is definitely... melancholy, at best, and depressing at worst. At least I think it’s fair to say that’s what they were going for, choosing to put that there. It’s up to the viewer whether that comes through as intended.

One of my kids was reading 500 page novels (not difficuly ones, but, like, later Harry Potter books) before 2nd grade. Another will be lucky to do that by 4th grade (which would still be “early”). The kids track themselves and there’s little school can do to speed them up. They can sure slow them down, though—our earlier reader regressed for most of kindergarten.