grive

Just because property can be used to artificially create scarcity, due to laws that were piled on by centuries of history and common use, does not change the nature of property.

You are not contradicting his idea of property, what you say only has an impact on how to use the current system. It's not relevant to the conversation.

The idea is to define property, to get the first principles before deciding how the Law should be to protect those principles.

To put it another way: that the current laws can be used to create a perversion of property that allows artificial scarcity, does not say anything about the nature of property itself.

> property—the legal exclusive privilege

There is a concept of property that predates and transcends your legal system, so this definition is insufficient.

I've only worked on one project (https://www.dpdk.org/) using meson+ninja. Overall it seems to be an improvement, barring the make idiosyncrasies that needs to be forgotten.

That being said, if the project had used make properly from the beginning (i.e. avoid recursive calls), it would not have been plagued by such latency for incremental builds. But then, make should not have made it so easy to fall for such mistake.

I'm still not a fan of having two steps (meson + ninja), but I guess it's always needed for multi-platform projects.

I'm wondering if there is a make rewrite project that tried to make the recursive make antipattern less painful? Maybe trying to recognize sub-calls and avoid creating a sub-process? I guess it would take creating a small internal shell with only make as a builtin command...

It's weird to conflate C as a language and its ABI, as the glue between other languages. The glue in question is the ABI, period. Rust does not interface with C, it interfaces with a C library (dynamic or static) that is in a standardized format.

C++ attempts something messy, which is to take C source and generate objects conforming to this ABI. In doing so, the only sane thing to do is to respect the C spec to transform C source in a binary blob that others can understand.

C++ should stop attempting to parse C. Just use a C compiler, create a binary blob and interface with it from the C++ compiler. Attempts to make both language compatible on some common subset makes them both worse off.

Yes, pretty much. I find an interesting paper, note its DOI, go to sci-hub to download it. Never tried to search on sci-hub itself.

In the systems I have seen:

  * Because the rules are generated. Building a subpart sometimes means invoking a generated rule.

  * Because make is used for other things: building binaries, libraries, examples, test suite, documentation -- then executing them, preparing a test environment, installing them, generating distribution packages, etc.

  * Because the system is a framework, and each rule relates to one of many plugins (Buildroot for example).

  * Because the system is just very large and complex (linux).

Now to go back to automake. It is still very useful to have automated checks of compliance -- either about some extended warnings supported only by some compilers and not others (clang vs GCC), allowing extensions, static analysis, coverage, etc. That being said, automake is terrible. The two passes to generate the actual build systems means most people are actually reading generated makefile and debugging that. As was said by GP, it is also sub-optimal regarding use of make.

Frankly, it is just much simpler to directly work with makefiles, or change build tool altogether (meson + ninja is nice). Autotools has always been a nightmare to work with in my experience.

Keeping with make, I much prefer musl way for example, where a POSIX shell script examines the dependencies and configures a single makefile giving the project state, then the actual makefiles will consume it to operate properly.

When you install bash-completion on your system, usually a function is defined to autocomplete make rules for you. It works with all projects, as it does not rely on the rules being specially marked. (https://github.com/scop/bash-completion/blob/master/completi...)

Before I knew about it, I had written a similar thing:

    # Autocomplete make rules
    _make () {
        local cur prev words cword cmdline
        _init_completion || return
    
        # command to generate the rules
        words="$(make  -pRrq |\
            awk -v RS= -F: '/^# File/,/^# Finished Make data base/ {if ($1 !~ "^[#.]") {print $1}}' |\
            sort | egrep -v -e '^[^[:alnum:]]' | xargs)"
    
        COMPREPLY+=( $( compgen -W "$words" -- $cur) )
    }
    if declare -f _init_completion > /dev/null; then
        complete -F _make make
    fi

It relies on `make -pRrq`, that is a very useful command to debug your makefiles, especially in a big project. The option `-p` prints the make data-base, -R and -r removes the implicit rules and variables, and -q indicates only asking make a question about current state, avoid executing anything.

Well, it worked for a time, but the bash-completion one is nicer (though much, much more complex). Very nice however to know about `-pRrq`, definitely helps when working on big projects.

> Most western countries have proper regulation regarding waste disposal.

> wont be solved while big economies decide to export their waste

Western countries do not have proper regulations if one of the possible outcome for waste is to be exported where those regulations do not exist.

This is a good story, but the title seems needlessly clickbait. The flaw was fixed rather quickly, the process for communicating the issue did not seem to be a hassle.

It does not really say that the app is "super not secure". Just that people make mistakes, and it's not even shameful the way they reacted to it.

I'm guessing you found the passive-agressive one here:

> Losing control of our data was unacceptable, as was paying for a tool that was not part of our core offering for the CERN community; therefore, we will end the trial of this platform.

I don't see it. The statement seems matter of fact and not relaying any opinion on the matter of Facebook choosing to end the free trial.

Were you referring to another part?

The business disappears, people turn to a competitor or create new ones if the need is still there.

Business are allowed to fail, that's healthy for the overall system.

The RGPD wall of Techcrunch is a real put-off (Choice partners that cannot be deactivated, IAB partners that must be unsubscribed from the third party website (which of course does not work), seriously?). No reason to accept this cancer, I will read about this subject elsewhere.

e.g. -- fossil.

This is exactly the issue with it: its author(s) lament that git has not all of these things integrated, but they are ignoring that this is exactly why fossil cannot gain a wider adoption.

It has opinions about how the team and the project should be run / managed / documented. This is not for the tool dev to have these opinions

GDPR-wall to access (part of Oath network).

Oath is really a cancer regarding GDPR. It is definitely non-compliant and makes it as worst an experience as possible to control your data.

I hope they will get the harshest fines for this.

> when they lost $38 billion the union workers didn't get bills in the mail instead of checks.

They reduced their paychecks and benefits, so they actually shared part of the losses. Which entitle them now for a share of the profits.

This is asinine, there is no "other hand" here. At +8C, most of humanity is dead. You can be "12 times richer", it won't save you or anyone else.

> and increased wealth can be used to build seawalls, sequester carbon, and implement climate control on a large scale.

This is fantasy. The elites having captured that much wealth will never give it up for free. Populations will have to take it from their dead hands, which is very costly.

Rest assured: if the status quo is not moved, there will be violent uprising from people feeling the heat (figuratively: it will be water wars and famines). The economies will tank then, with or without mitigation in place.

This is not journalism. This is a hit-piece on EasyList, with a clickbait and false title.

It seems even plausible, reading it, that the author knows about uBlock origin but avoids naming it, instead listing the two sellouts that are morally shady.

Then find "eco-friendly" investments that are not green-washing. It takes research.

I'm thinking supporting tree-planting NGOs might be a good start for example. This goes directly towards carbon-sequestration.

They mostly think that incinerators need to be modernized first, and old ones should be forbidden to use. This is costly, and the whole "desupply" chain is not transparent: people do not know whether their local incinerators is recent or not. I do not know, even if I try to find info.

Authorities are not incentivized to be transparent about it, and waste management companies neither.

This is just so far out. "AI" is currently expert systems and we are seeing its limitations (see setbacks in autonomous driving). It has nowhere near the potential to drive the search and extraction of energy sources in landfills.

That's just magical thinking. Nothing suggests that it is in the realm of possibility.

What is the energy potential in the materials in a landfill? How much is wasted by scouring them and trying to properly extract it? Compared to preventing the capture of those materials there in the first place?

Putting the survival of our species on the possibility of some pixie dust is not rational. It is hard to face the truth, but burying your head in the sand is counter-productive.

I consider the main issue to be the first point: that they are purely consumption-oriented platforms. This might evolve for the better though with a little imagination(°).

However I disagree with the second point. Smartphones were optimized for power consumption, while PC were optimized for stability and functionality (depending on your operational flavor, the platform can be quite flexible, allowing such seemingly contradictory directions).

This "optimization for (reducing) power-consumption" is the only times it seems to have happened, and it is actually a good contribution to network design. We should actually embrace this process in general, not only mobility-based computers.

°: A future where your smartphone will be your transportable workstation, only docking on controls changing depending on your activity (screen + keyboard + mouse in general, screen / speakers for media consumption, joysticks for gaming). You'd arrive to work and dock your phone, start working, take it with you and being able to work from another office, another location, remotely (at home), etc.

Transforming a problem into pattern recognition seems like a good way to use your brain natural inclinations.

Very neat little article.

Does unlisting means removing the entry?

Unlisting to me seems like they only stop advertizing that they know your profile.

Unlisting does not mean that the info is removed.

If they have full access on anyone having installed the app, it means they also have mined the conversations with your contacts.

So they might not advertise what they know anymore, but the privacy concern remains anyway.

Producing value has no externalities? That's new!

> As for landfills being cheap, that isn't a bad thing. That means the externalities at those sites are low.

No, that means that most of the actual price is not accounted for and is dumped on the public instead.

Okay

> People move to the city because of things to do which includes nightclubs, restaurants, museums, theater, sports venues, cultural events, etc.

Now remove nightclubs from this list, and you still get a list of attractive reasons to settle in a city.

You don't have to infringe on the night of others to still have an enjoyable city. To repeat myself: you could close all the nightclubs in a city and you would still have plenty to live for there.

Given their field, it is safe to assume this is a joke.

False dichotomy. You can close all the city's nightclubs and you wouldn't have a city with only housing.

Only a very small subset of people living in the city will use nightclubs. It is reasonable that they are not given priority over things essential to living (housing, accomodations, transport, public services, etc..).

Your high-level description resemble a cover letter used on some open-source project to introduce a patch series, justifying the changes.

You could achieve the same by using an empty commit, or tracking those in the bug tracker.

DCVSs are already complex enough, this just seems like scope creep, trying to emulate a feature that is actually part of another tool (the bug tracker or the mailing list, depending on the structure).

Another issue is that it would foster a mentality where people would simply don't care about the exact history and push really badly structured commits, relying on the second-level history to explain their work. Except that if someone publishes something, it's not for this person, it's to be read by other people. The dev could keep a local branch with all their commits if they are so inclined, but that should never be sent to a shared server.

Most people are already bad enough at writing proper commits and dividing their work, I think your feature would make it worse.

Citing Black Panther as an example of a departure from

> Well-known artistic depictions of the future [...] showing a marked lack of diversity.

Black Panther was a purely american product, Comic book superhero is the most stale and rehashed sub-genre of science-fiction from the last century, and this author uses it to show a "blossoming" of new diverse and imaginative production from "around the world"?

Afrofuturism, reaching back from W. E. B. Du Bois with The Comet to Black Panther, Nnedi Okorafor, ALL of them american products, would not be considered the "West"? African-american culture is not western?

> “But this phenomenon, which is now making its voice heard from areas like China or Africa, also has a much longer history that precedes today’s boom.”

This whole article seems to be written from the point of vue of someone who have been blind for decades, discovering that other culture exists all around. Reaching outside their bubble seems progressive and forward-thinking, but this surprise and this impression of being so avant-gardiste only serves to show how bigoted they were for so long.

> Well-known artistic depictions of the future have traditionally been regarded as the preserve of the West, and have shown a marked lack of diversity.

I can appreciate the prudent use of "well-known" here, because science-fiction has been extremely diverse and progressive from the beginning. If anything however, there is a backlash from alt-right cliques to colonize the genre, with the recent attempts to subvert the Hugo Awards[1]. This seems to go against the narrative of this article, but I think this is more important (and disturbing). That Cixin have won the award recently does not mean that science fiction is becoming more diverse, only that foreign authors have been welcomed into the fold.

So typical, the only boom that matters is the one playing into the US cultural codes, one face of imperialism. Only there it is pretending to be diversity.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/17/hugo-award-nom...