temporal828

The original Lemmy developers are hardline Marxist-Leninists, they make no secret of this.

https://dessalines.github.io/essays/dessalines_marxism_study...

On rock solid functionality:

https://github.com/domoticz/domoticz/issues?q=crash

segfault, leak and hang are also fun ones. Apparently the massive memory leaks in the python integration has never been fixed. Not surprising, one look at hardware/plugins/Python*.cpp is bad for your health.

> payment processing

This is outsourced.

> customer support

"Can't find the solution you're looking for? Here's how to get help from our experts. Note: We currently don't offer support by phone."

And half of what they do have is outsourced to "community members".

> regulatory environment of music licensing

This, this is what they do. So that's something. Is it 9600 people something? Apparently not since they already shaved off 6% of the work force earlier this year. It would seem their own CEO appears to agree with the take they are overweight.

Selling hardware around the world has tremendous regulatory burden as well. If you can't imagine the complexities of designing, sourcing and selling hardware products around the world maybe think harder?

Let the chips fall where they may. It isn't like it's the first or even biggest layoff for Spotify this year.

> Simple, rock solid functionality.

Don't ever open that C++ code base unless you have a barf bag.

I started making contributions and gave up because I have better things to do with my time then ruin my soul.

I will also note that they stole the MQTT protocol from Home Assistant - so at least they need ideas from elsewhere. (ie openzwave died so domoticz needs to rely on the same NodeJS subsystem infrastructure of HA)

I love the concept of domoticz - lua, but my god the architecture and implementation is a tire fire.

> In the 90s I used to edit out CSAM related groups, from the downloaded list in Netscape's built in NNTP client.

This list gets downloaded from whatever server you configure and is then local to your machine. Editing it would only affect what you see on your own client.

> After a time I got unhappy about this and went to see if I could determine a physical hosting location of the content.

Usenet is a distributed system - every server that didn't filter the group was hosting the content. They were typically viewed as common carriers.

(It sounds like you were tracing your own ISP's server?)

On that note some from upstate New York may remember that the attorney general tried to garner votes by raiding and seizing servers from a few local ISPs (Dreamscape, RIP), which in the end didn't work out.

> I wasn't willing to reach out to the FBI blindly and couldn't locate anyone who know anyone in the bureau.

The FBI was quite well aware of the content on Usenet and very adept at navigating it in its heydey. They used it in a number of investigations to track down producers including breaking into trusted rings that communicated with PGP encrypted communications on Usenet. You wouldn't have informed them of anything they didn't know.

> alt.binaries killed usenet.

In 2023 Usenet is solely commercially viable for alt.binaries.

Some of us work/worked for organizations doing hardware, marketing, sales to every corner of the planet and dealing with supply chain with 1/8 of that workforce though (more than 2 decades ago - productivity should be better now). Spinning this as anything more than gross overhiring that is going to correct either in dribs and drabs or spectacularly sounds like complete bullshit to those that had been around a few bust cycles and worked in other industries.

> To me, this why AVX didn't get widespread use.

This is flat out false. The rest of the comment is therefore superfluous.

> Can simulated hospital simulate efforts by staff to quickly add into many charts a medication Rx - by taking one patient note and copying 1 note, then pasting that into several?

What CPOE system involves notes? None of the handful I've used in the US.

No modern EMR here involves any copy pasting for orders.

reposurgeon. It was what was ultimately used to transition gcc to git.

Just to be clear, ESR is still a tool: https://np.reddit.com/r/lisp/comments/1b1wbl/clos_is_an_ugly... http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8730

He's also mostly an ineffective, unlikable idiot, which we should all be thankful for because he could actually be somewhat dangerous if he weren't.

Sort of goes with the territory with proclamations including words like "everything" and "everyone". "almost" feels like meaningless filler.

You don't have to go by anecdotes, you can go by published testing then. Dust may be a special case, and perhaps certain occupations may be better off with a top loader for work clothes, but for everyday stains and body secretions front loaders work better and wear out clothes slower.

I'm not in the anti top-loader Speed Queen cult at all... but it is that on the internet, a cult (when I hear things like mold is "unavoidable", and basically you'd have to be an idiot to consider anything other than a Speed Queen top loader that is my conclusion) -- but most people are simply better served with a front loader.

> is they unavoidably have mold and mildew problems due to the design.

Keep the door open. The water evaporates. Never had a problem avoiding mold.

> Cool. How about brain surgery? Clarification: how about brain lobotomies?

Many of the indications for open heart surgery are no longer valid or standard of care today, replaced with either vascular access or medical management... and brain surgery is a more fair comparison then a specific procedure (open heart surgery is not a single procedure either), for which plenty of lives have been improved.

Which by the way, lobotomies (temporal lobectomies, but a rose by any other name) are still an accepted treatment for epilepsy. Sidebar: Frontal lobotomies were not without controversy over their well known effects even when they were contemporary.

Neither is "clearly" good nor harmful. I never sought to engage in this black and white thinking.

And to my original point it is completely obvious to me and many in my field why it is beneficial that we should be researching alternative treatments to epilepsy other than lobectomies (which doesn't feel like the final word on epilepsy, as helpful as they have been for some), and this goes for a whole host of neurological and psychiatric treatments in general. Unfortunately the technology hasn't gotten us there yet - that doesn't mean it isn't obvious to me why work in these areas would be net beneficial. And some of those ideas are not going to pan out in the long run, no shit. This is the limitations of technological progress, not some issue of vision.

I don't think the metaverse is comparable as no one has ever explained to me how, let alone Meta, how it is not Second Life with more bells and whistles.

> The fact is, everyone only obviously knows an idea was crap or obvious in hindsight.

Well I have plenty of hindsight for all that shit.

Gold has been around a lot longer.

> I think the tricky part with innovation, is almost everything innovative looks like a bad idea to almost everyone.

No. No. The steam engine, modern refrigeration and open heart surgery all probably had some naysayers but I don't think they looked like bad ideas to almost everyone. A lot of what qualifies as innovative from your tech community really just might be crap.

From the beginning the complaint with crypto and blockchain is that it didn't fix any problems other than maybe assisting as a tool in laundering/illegal transactions, and it wastes energy to boot. I don't see how the naysayers were wrong.

The metaverse idea didn't even get to the point of hyping a purpose. Nobody even bothered to explain what useful human need or want it fulfilled (beyond what has already been fulfilled for years in gaming).

> But comparing to current state of AI, is sort of comparing to a different stage, where there is the beginning of an early majority

Early majority? That is a bold affirmation.

I think these large language models are pretty neat. I also lived through the first AI winters. I would say the hype at this moment isn't even as great as it was then (especially in the 80s). It is a bit tough to explain for those that weren't there - but numerous knowledgable and intelligent people were convinced that the AI singularity was just moments away.

> But I think many efficient machines do a poor job at cleaning.

Not in my experience. A good high efficiency front loader tends to get the clothes cleaner - and notably with much less wear than conventional top loaders. The money savings also come from clothing replacement as well.

Water use aside it's just better technology. Complexity is an issue, but I've had good luck by staying brands and models proven for reliability.

Well, sure it's related (and MacinTalk is still builtin to modern macOS and iOS - you can use them for the system TTS voice). But DECTalk and MacinTalk weren't the only speech synthesizers available in 1999 by a long shot.

I had to chuckle about the genius of being able to program C and Lua as if typing English - I mean that's pretty much any reasonably proficient dev.

Whew boy -- the reminder of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect is powerful on this one.

I can't imagine it would not be more than a few minutes of downloading the image from archive.org and running it on any VM - I would be a bit surprised if this had any kind of sophisticated VM countermeasures in it.

Meanwhile, I can believe there is some 4 million line code of something (maybe it was written in assembly!) - in any case a horrible unmaintainable mess that nobody at this software company wants to deal with anymore. Rather just rewrite it in some web based shit like half of this site does for a living.

Also on actually reading TFA - it's rife with errors - at no point in history was the DECTalk the only game in town for speech synthesis - let alone 1999! - and the idea that it was the only one with controllable pitch is hogwash as anyone with a early 90s Mac can attest.

> Maybe instead of criticising us, you could have helped us.

I mean, I did? While the reply was brusque I did name what the topic was about: boolean satisfiability, "It's pretty damn clear from the context of complexity theory that this is about boolean satisfiability."

The comment I replied to on the other hand was not constructive at all.

This is a link aggregator site and not an editorial site, the content linked to is varied and is not going to meet a single standard, or this site will become monotonous very quickly. I don't even click or read the majority of links here because they don't sound that interesting to me, which is fine. Not everything has to be aimed at the beginner or a particular audience.

When slightly less accessible content or just personally uninteresting content is posted I don't see how a content free snarky comment is at all constructive.

I interpreted "introductory post" to mean that it is introductory within the blog and possibly a lead in to further articles as the author hasn't written on the topic before. Not that it is necessarily an introduction to the topic.

People on this site are so full of themselves thinking that random technical bloggers on the internet have to satisfy some unwritten Hacker News style manual.

Then maybe go read one of the many introductions on the topic? Not every blog post has to start at the beginning to be interesting here. There is nothing condescending about not starting every piece of technical writing from grade school arithmetic and the author makes it very clear who the audience for the post is.

> Qt vs WxWidgets all over again.

Not sure how to interpret. Pro Qt or pro wx? I'm assuming the latter.

But I don't even agree. Qt is/can lay claim to native as much as anything else on desktop Linux/BSD. The quality of the Windows emulation has always been excellent as far as I'm concerned, at it's been pretty goodish on Mac.

But I've never seen a perfect cross platform library that targets Mac.

wxWindows may use system drawing at the low level, but those that have been in this for years know what's up: it's just an unholy messy quasi-MFC (Microsoft Foundation Class) looking thing - the model is inherently MS Windows from 1994. This is not magically going to work well as a Cocoa app just because it uses NSViews under the hood. And although the simple controls may use the OS, all the complex ones have tons of internal design. Like this is optimizing the wrong thing - as a normal person I probably care more about the look and feel of the tree view, whereas only the weirdos on here are going to get bent out of shape that some button text is a few pixels off - getting both right is nice, but only hitting the last one is pointless.

I've never seen a nontrivial wxWindows app that would fool anyone on MacOS. Qt can get much closer if you work at it a bit. So in practice I would say you can do better with Qt for the major desktop targets.

These are all compromises. And native hardly means anything these days. Yes Windows has what has been retconned as WinForms, but otherwise, the UI LnF of Mac OS is a constantly moving target and Windows has never been as consistent as people seem to believe. Linux/Desktop Unix - lol.