2,543 karma · joined June 8, 2016
As for what can be so resource intensive that it's worth to wait for startup time instead of running everything at the same time - a bunch of specialized LLMs is the obvious example. Or maybe you're a hobbyist cramming a hundred services into a tiny computer.
On that note, trust-busting is also worth discussing as a counter to the modern concentration of wealth.
Is that your actual objection? It sounds more like a smear by association.
Famously, the USA under Eisenhower had a top marginal tax rate of 90% on income over $200K - "merely" a few million dollars in modern-day money.
Was the Eisenhower administration Communist? If it wasn't, would it have become Communist if they had gone a bit further and added a marginal rate of 99% for income over oh, let's say $20M (a few hundred million dollars nowadays)?
I think if you traveled back in time and proposed such a bill, the reaction from folks like Senator McCarthy would not have been "that's Communism" but more likely "that's a ridiculous and useless bill, how could anyone ever accumulate that much personal wealth? It would be absurd".
> Club 33 is the name of a number of private dining clubs located within Disney Parks. The first opened inside Disneyland in 1967, and was modeled after sponsor lounges at the 1964 New York World's Fair. At the time it opened, Club 33 was the only location within Disneyland that offered alcoholic beverages.
> The initial cost of membership at Disneyland and Walt Disney World was previously reported to be $35,000, followed by an annual due of $15,000–16,000.[8] In 2012, the reported cost of membership increased to $50,000 initiation fee and $15,000 annually for individuals, more for corporations.[9][10]
Interesting, I would never have guessed that Disneyland had a luxury club hidden inside.
I wonder what the members are like, and how they may have evolved over the years. "Ordinary" (if extremely wealthy) visitors, who are accustomed to fine dining and don't want to lower their standards even during a family trip? Or is it an entirely separate crowd, that travels to Disneyland specifically to have dinner and smoke Cubans there?
The most notable example is probably Wabbajack, a tool that manages modpacks for many games but is best known for TES games, where modlists consist of hundreds of mods and are a pain to manually install. Ironically it is a WPF app written in modern C#, so in principle _could_ run under Wine just fine, and could even be ported to a native GUI app via Avalonia UI or similar.
Unfortunately, it is apparently quite fragile in its path management and relies on both Edge WebView to download mods and Windows Steam to install them, so the maintainers think it's not viable to make it run under Wine [0], although of course someone has bashed together a script to work around it [1]. That last one is quite recent so I just discovered it while writing this post!
[0] https://github.com/wabbajack-tools/wabbajack/issues/2521
[1] https://github.com/Omni-guides/Wabbajack-Modlist-Linux/blob/...
Nevertheless, for living in this world while preserving your privacy, my advice stands. Separate the devices that you control, which you will use for personal and private purposes, from the devices that global corporations and institutions control, which you will use to access the services those institutions provide - services which, by definition, you would not control anyway.
It is far, far simpler than having to get proprietary, frequently-updated software to play nice inside a secure sandbox. If they do, great, but separate devices ensures it isn't a capital-P Problem for you if they stop.
(FWIW, I lived in three different European countries over the past decade and so far the governments all offered TOTP-based web alternatives to their apps. When it comes to private banking, only one (Lunar) was available only via app, but it was also the only one that ran without Play Services.)
That said, the recommendation I always give, and personally follow: keep a spare phone in a drawer somewhere, with official Android installed, a Google account, and use it exclusively for business purposes - banking, government services, and the email account you use for those (separate from the one you use for everything else). Nothing else, no messaging, socials, browsing, or games.
Then you're free to keep your personal phone FOSS and as private as you like, without fear of getting locked out of important stuff due to a crappy Google® SafetyNet® upgrade.
I am not aware of any firewalls that enforce the rule 'only attempt to connect to massively-shared cloud IPs that can't be easily subject to a reverse DNS lookup'.
(a) the hypothetical non-argv0 busybox being discussed, and
(b) a POSIX shell of the maintainer's choice, with built-in aliases for 'ls=busybox ls'
be sufficient to make the system POSIX complaint?
"Sir, the results are in: this weapon causes mild headaches and sleep difficulties lasting a few months."
"Excellent! Deploy it against American embassies immediately. Surely this will absolutely cripple their espionage efforts."
The idea that it's a side-effect of directed- energy _surveillance_ seems a vastly more sensible hypothesis in every way.
Suppose you are a nation-state, hostile to the USA, that has developed a directed energy weapon. Do you test it:
A) on your own citizens (whether willing, deceived, or coerced),
B) on citizens of some remote, poor, and/or war-torn country that is unlikely to retaliate against you,
or C) on diplomatic personnel from the country with the greatest military and intelligence resources by far, and with a proven history of bombing or invading other countries on both true and false premises?
I had never heard of Havana syndrome before, and I have nothing to comment either way on whether the physical symptoms are real and/or have a common cause. But the idea that an enemy state is using a secret weapon prototype to... randomly give headaches to American diplomats? Is bizarre, to say the least.
Drawing on my experience: perhaps the high-paying customers are being represented by dedicated buyers/executives who do not actually use the product themselves day-to-day. So they're happy as long as it _can_ perform its tasks, even if it's slow or clunky to use - they're paying the workers for 40 hours/week regardless, after all.
Meanwhile, the more tight spenders are more likely to be small businesses where the person making the purchase is also a regular user, and any UX flaws will drive him mad every day.
IIRC, they were in a sort of PHP-looking scripting language? I had very little coding experience before then, so it was kind of a trip trying to debug why the lyrics panel would freak out under certain scenarios :D
Dev toolchains are infamous for pulling a ton of stuff into your system, and certain languages make switching versions a pain as well. So you install your IDE and whatever flavour of the month tools you need in a distrobox container, using regular dnf packages, and keep your base system clean. With distrobox you can give those tools a separate $HOME as well, in case they litter your main one with dotfiles and dotfolders.
If you work on a certain project long-term, you can then clone the distrobox and keep it around as-is, to ensure against breaking changes in some of your tools.
Oh, it's definitely intentional. Sure, pre-industrial cities had narrow streets that were poorly suited for car traffic, so you could say that walkable cities were technically the default.
But a lot of those European cities were intentionally changed towards car transportation in the middle of the 20th century, when cars became widespread and a symbol of post-WW2 wealth, widening street and turning historical squares into parking lots.
And most of those cities were turned back into walkable (or bikable) cities since the '80s onwards, by banning cars and reusing the parking lots for other purposes.
Here's [0] an article about the Netherlands's intentional policy in that regards, and here's [1] a more recent effort in Spain. A lot of Reddit's popular "then and now" posts show this off [2].
[0] https://www.distilled.earth/p/how-the-netherlands-built-a-bi...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/11/barcelona-laun...
[2] https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1cv555r/my_hometown...
Buying put options on NVidia & co.
Won't step 2 increase the supply of houses for sale, thus lowering the prices, thus decreasing the demand for rentals?
> And also more likely, someone they talk to will forget to switch it on and just blab everything into cleartext anyway.
I expect that if you enable a Telegram Secret Chat with Bob, Bob cannot unilaterally un-secret it. I would be very surprised if that was the case.
Of course Bob can then share the contents with Carol via an un-encrypted channel. But every encrypted channel has that weakness.
Let's discriminate more.
Their first project, smoothing out and equalizing the process of creating a new legal entity, seems like an unqualified good thing. Nobody likes notaries, outside of notaries and aspiring notaries. Having Estonia's level of simplicity in business creation would be a good thing for reckless 'disruptive' startups, but it would be a good thing for small brick-and-mortar artisans and shops too.
If one of their subsequent projects is going to be 'let's make tax laws nicer for billionaires', then yeah, screw those guys. But the first one is already a tall order and I frankly think they're unlikely to get political momentum (see: first paragraph.)
If you use KDE, your default icon theme will be KDE's breeze-icon, not Gnome's adwaita-icon-theme, and the problem won't appear.
> *Grant of copyright license*. You give HashiCorp permission to use your copyrighted work in commercial products.
Unless that text was recently changed, or unless Hashicorp went out of its way to verbally reassure people that they didn't intend to ever exercise that option, I feel very little sympathy for any open source contributor who clicked that link and then was dismayed to find Hashicorp using his work in a commercial product.
Read what you sign, and take responsibility.
> I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on occasion I've suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has made it possible for important programs to become free software.
> [..] [S]elling exceptions permits limited embedding of the code in proprietary software, but the [non-copyleft] X11 license goes even further, permitting unlimited use of the code (and modified versions of it) in proprietary software. If this doesn't make the X11 license unacceptable, it doesn't make selling exceptions unacceptable.
> I consider selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, and I will suggest it where appropriate as a way to get programs freed.