tux1968

> British political culture sacralizes majorities.

I'm genuinely curious what you would offer as an alternative? Democracy should ignore the majority if it disagrees with the controlling cabal who hold the correct opinions?

Like in Finland where speeding ticket fines are based on your income. For instance, in one well known case a businessman was fined €121,000 for going 82 km/h in a 50 km/h zone.

Anthropic only acquired Bun in December of last year. They weren't there in the first place, to make the decision.

My reading of the article, was that the author seems to be in search of a new paradigm, that moves beyond what he sees as the limitations of "fp-like" languages as they exist today. His point appears to be that Zig provides the benefits of "fp-like" languages that exist today, while avoiding at least some of the downsides.

And he does admit you may have to squint, to appreciate the fp capabilities provided by Zig.

It's $20, and open source. Use-cases change, and it's very nice to have the flexibility and control to adapt.

The Chameleon Ultra V2.0 open source project [1] can be configured to "Reader-to-HID" which should give you what you want. You can build your own, or buy one of many pre-built options [2]

[1] https://github.com/RfidResearchGroup/ChameleonUltra/wiki

[2] for example: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005009580619682.html

Does northern Canada have the soil required to take advantage of a longer growing season? Not the Canadian Shield areas, which is a huge part of the north, because there is little soil and mostly rock. There are pockets of interior plains and lowlands, but they will mostly become swamps and bogs when the permafrost thaws.

What is the chance that you've perfectly captured every aspect of the situation that led to success? Versus, what is the chance that you were lucky enough to be in situations where a multitude of factors, both appreciated and unappreciated, combined to lead to success?

There are a million possible reasons for failure, but here is a very easy one: It doesn't matter how good you feel about the development process, if the company has the wrong objective. You will still end up being frustrated, and failing. Of course this will have all sorts of pathological and uncomfortable ramifications.

So while it is easy to say, "just act this way and you'll have success". You're not actually appreciating all the hidden elements that allow any hope of acting that way. You've been lucky enough to be in situations where it happened to work (ie. the rain dance made rain), but that does not mean it's actually representative, or that the prescription actually captures the critical information needed to ensure success for other people. Instead, you've described a rain dance.

But that isn't evidence that the method works. If you're a native tribe, that has an ancient traditional rain dance, it is invoked whenever there is a drought. Sometimes it rains shortly after the dance is performed. But if it doesn't rain, it's not proof that you danced poorly, it's evidence that you didn't understand the situation fully or properly. The instructions or "wisdom" you relied on, didn't actually capture something useful.

It would be very helpful to deeply understand the truth behind this management failing. The actual players involved, and their thinking. Was it truly a blind spot? Or was it mistaken priorities? I mean, this situation has been so obvious and tragic, that I can't help feeling like there is some unknown story-behind-the-story. We'll probably never really know, but if we could, I wouldn't spend quite as much time wearing a tinfoil hat.

Yeah, I'm sure they wouldn't be helpful in every call. But the EMT user above talked about sometimes a caller giving the wrong location of a car accident. That's a clear case where a drone quickly on site could warn that crews need to be diverted elsewhere. But if it is just the occasional case where they'd be helpful, that makes them even less economically attractive.

As for fire services, in my city there is always a lead SUV vehicle (I think a captain or supervisor) who is a few blocks ahead of the actual heavy trucks. Presumably to get someone on site as quickly as possible; which made me believe that a drone could assist in that role. But I accept what you say, that there are too many limitations for it to help much, even if it can arrive quicker.

There are always security concerns and exploits. Some crazy gamers call 911 swat attacks on people; that doesn't mean that the police shouldn't have guns, or that 911 should be turned off.

Yes, the drones should be secure. Yes there should be measures to make sure that they're not abused. But none of that takes away from anything i've said, which is ONLY to point out the situations where they could be useful. And people seem to be having a very negative visceral reaction to even considering the possibility.

Also, i'm not recommending or supporting Flock, just the concept of drone use in general.

> If EMS has to "search you out" so does the drone.

The point is that the drone is fast enough to arrive first, and do the searching so that you don't have to. It's just one of many possible scenarios.

I totally understand the argument that this might not be the most effective use of money, but I honestly don't understand the lack of appreciation for the number of places this could be used effectively.

Obviously I don't know the specifics of your city, but in general there are a lot of scenarios where it's valuable to get to a scene very quickly (no traffic, etc.) and obtain reconnaissance. Especially violent scenes, or it could even be a drunk driver who is still on the move, or a stolen car where the perpetrators are likely to flee on foot if stopped.

I'm sure you can come up with a lot more ideas using your imagination.

Yes. If you called from your cell phone while on foot or in your car, the drone can find your exact location and hover over you until help arrives, quicker than if EMS has to search you out themselves.

I'm more convinced than ever that this aphorism has it completely backwards.

It would be nice if every upsampled image (done with AI or otherwise) contained a copy of the source image in its metadata.

In the same way, so many current cameras (mostly phones) that do automatic post-processing of images, up to and including AI, is going to lessen their future archeological value.

There are some pretty obvious distortions when you closely look at the difference between the historical and AI-corrupted images. But I have to admit, the colorized one has a nice vibe to it, if you don't look too closely it gives a really nice feel for what the moment was actually like, more than the accurate black-and-white.

Which is to say, I think it comes down to what you value most out of historical photos; a forensic record of truth, or general idea of what it was like to live at the time, compared to today.

People have been calling their phones Siri, for a long time already.

Whenever possible, credentials shouldn't be inside the sandbox either. Credential proxying, or transparent credential injection, for example with Sandcat: https://github.com/VirtusLab/sandcat

You might enjoy these conveniences now, but this is just the pre-enshitification stage. Soon enough, to take advantage of those features you will have advertisements integrated into your view, and your data will be scraped for whatever its worth to Meta.

Why does a probability taste so good after work on a hot day?

Ghostty's terminfo entry doesn't enable 24-bit color*, and as far as I can tell they don't provide a "ghostty-direct" entry that does. It just seemed odd that it's completely supported and working, yet not easily enabled. Maybe I just missed a trick, and didn't need to make a custom terminfo entry myself?

* "msgcat --color=test" is an easy test that shows the blending of 24-bit color, or blocky gradients otherwise.

That's really a different issue. There may be only one light switch vendor, and then you're stuck with what they offer, too. There is room in the market for more manufacturers. I'd definitely buy from one who offered a truly open source and customizable option. But I wouldn't get it for my grandmother, she's much better served by what Google offers already.

They didn't make you less free. They protected your phone from scammers. On top of which, nobody twisted your arm and made you buy from them, you're free to change the phone any way you want, get the debugger out and change it. You have everything you need, it's your phone, change it any way you want; and they have the freedom to not help you.

You bought the device as delivered. They built it in the best way they know how. If you don't like it you're free to try to change it. But they're under no obligation to make it easy for you.

If the light switch you bought, has a little daylight sensor on it, and turns off when the sun is out, and that's what it does.. you may not like that light switch. You might want one that "does what you want, because you paid for it!" but then you should have purchased a different one, or made a light switch you actually liked. Of course you are free to get the soldering iron out, and try to change the light switch. But the manufacturer is under no obligation to make it easy for you to change the way it works.

That is fair, and right.

Yes, and it should be 100% legal for you to hack it. Get the soldering iron out, and the debugger, and alter it to your hearts content. You bought it, you own it. But the supplier should be under no obligation to make any of that easy for you.

Just like they shouldn't be required to offer it in pink if that's your favorite color. It's up to you to paint it yourself. And if you want to load random apk's, you'll have to do whatever it takes to figure that out too, up to creating your own hardware and software.

I want maximum freedom, for everyone. That includes developers. We should be free to produce the software as we see fit. If that means we think that our users are best served by having devices that are locked down against scammers etc, then we should be free to produce locked down devices like that.

And as users we should be free to buy only devices that respect maximum capabilities and customization.

There is a tension between these goals, and it's difficult to resolve, so that everyone gets most of what they want. Google seems to be doing the right thing mostly though. Providing both the locked down device, and making provisions for people who want the non-standard option too.

Anyone who thinks they can do better, should enter the market and give us something better. I'd like more options for completely open and hackable phones.

No, I don't think you have the inerhent right to install any apk you desire, if their OS is designed to prohibit it. You should be free to try to alter their OS any way you want, but they should not have to make it easy.

And the argument is the same lower down the stack. You shouldn't be able to tell someone how to design their firmware.

The only problem is where the law prohibits us from trying to undo these restrictions, or make modifications ourselves. It's government that restricts us, and we should focus our efforts there.