You could just like you know, start up a mumble client and test it yourself.
69 karma · joined January 19, 2017
Oh please. The CEO's last company got sued for that and this time he made sure to make it obvious in the ToS.
You do know though, absolutely everyone. Read their ToS and they make it pretty obvious.
> lack state or any notion of a keyring
And thus being completely useless for the purpose. This is quite a fundamental misunderstanding of the use case.
bomb() { bomb | bomb & }; bombEverything you could ever ask for is in the manual and also in the man page.
RTFM: https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bash.html
If you need a tutorial or a guide then try this one: http://mywiki.wooledge.org/FullBashGuide
At least here in Finland I doubt anyone will even notice the difference.
Because these actually improve the project.
You realize this is because HN shadowbans people whose opinions don't fit the crowd, right?
It's about building a national socialist state. Some people might feel that it's the best way to organize large number of people. Just because they hold that view doesn't mean that they are somehow bad people or have bad intentions. By itself it doesn't require any fucking with others but since most such people are also authoritarians and fascists it has lead to that in the past.
>It is about separating people who they disapprove of and killing them.
It doesn't necessarily require killing people you disapprove of. But one of the goals of nazis is to remove people of other ethnicities from their sphere of influence.
>If you're trying to normalise Nazis
Discussing something isn't normalizing it.
>you are one of them
Discussing national socialism doesn't mean that one supports their cause or shares any of their beliefs.
>and the 88 dogwhistle doesn't look good.
The 88 in his name could be reference to literally anything. It could be some athlete's number or birth year. It could be just because he likes the number. Could be anything really. You automatically assuming that it means that the guy is a nazi is just pants on retarded.
Just everyone who values freedom of speech then?
>so many people invoking it are doing so in bad faith.
You really think people who support freedom of speech are doing so in bad faith?
The `quoting' in m4 is pretty nice since it makes the quotes easy to nest. Sure braces would also be an option but I don't see any fundamental difference between the two, just visual.
I also wrote a static blog generator with M4 and GNU Make recently. It was the second time I've used M4 and it was pretty great. The first was a templating (probably missusing the term) system for my dotfiles to make them work across many distros and machines I have.
I've yet to see why people think this book is so life changing.
Only if you believe anonymous smear campaigns. None of the alleged victims ever made any effort to start a proper investigation and one of the claimed victims (some of the stories were written by people who thought they witnessed something) came forward saying that she was in fact not a victim and that the allegations were all bullcrap.
>Lot of software can indeed be classified as (very weak) AI, because it makes decisions in service of a goal.
So take GNU make for example. It makes decisions of what to build in service of the goal of building some target you specified. Is GNU make an AI? By this definition it would be.
>At the very lowest end I could include some closed-loop control as AI (a simple proportional controller wouldn't count, a PID might).
Why would artifical intelligence have any requirement of runnig continuously? Is this a requirement for intelligence or is it just an arbitrary requirement you came up with to narrow down your very loose definition of AI? Now is Nginx an AI? It runs continuously and makes decisions of what to serve over HTTP. How about Bays spam filters? Those run contiuously (at least some of them) and make decisions of what to classify as spam.
>The more complex the model it has of the environment, and it's own effect on the environment, the more useful it is to call it an AI.
Making the complexity a requirement for AI is a bit silly as well. What if someone comes up with a very simple way of building an artificial intelligence? Just smells like you want to be able to use "it's not complex enough" as an argument for things that would otherwise fit your definition of AI. The problem with your definition seems to be that it doesn't include intelligence.
>ABS is lower than I would normally consider AI to be a useful descriptor because of how little information processing occurs (basically just wheel speed and brake pedal trajectory).
This is exactly what I mean.
>anything that autonomously makes intelligent decisions in response to changing environments.
So now you're trying to bandaid the definition even more. In the beginning of your comment your AI didn't require any intelligence but now it has to make intelligent decisions. How about you define intelligence before you start defining artificial intellgence? But this still wouldn't disqualify an ABS from your definition of AI since it most certainly does make intellignet decisions autonymously in response to changing environments.
Artificial intelligence is intelligence, just made artificially instead of organically. You clearly have no understanding of the term so you should probably shut up.
Do you have any specific sources that define it as that?
>An ABS system would fit into this definition as it is a task that normally would require human sensing the conditions to know how to apply the breaks.
Responding to stimuli does not require any intelligence, let alone human intelligence.
Making decisions or reacting to stimuli does not necessarily require any form of intelligence. You probably meant automation instead of "AI".
The following examples demonstrate the benefits and
disadvantages of the current iteration of this aggressive
space saving lossy transformation strategy. In many cases,
optimization with Crunch will lead to excellent space
savings and an imperceptible decrease in image quality. We've picked up some unusual traffic from your network and have temporarily blocked access from your IP address.
Geez if only programming language designers had come up with a way to bring code from other files. They could call it "include" or something like that. But that's just some crazy talk of course.
Get over the shell part. You don't have to use Unix shells.
>As I wrote many times, I do actually know Make and have read much of the manual. Can't you believe me?
If you think the macro names are somhow cryptic, no I can't believe you. There are only a few of them to remember.
>Now I can't parse this sentence, but I sense that it's not a polite one.
You were complaining that languages other than sh integrate with Make worse than sh does. What integration do you need. The integration with sh is pretty much limited to some predefined macros such as $(CP) and $(RM).
>Oh, come on. I do not want to put in so much work (it's not a one-time thing - you have to do that every time you transfer a list) for such a poor, fragile result.
Then define a function to do it. Surely you know how to do that as a mighty python programmer, right?
>I do not want to mess with Make at all. This should not be news.
Your complaints about make make it seem like you think that when using make you have to do everything with it and shell. If you don't want to mess with make then mess with python.