Ferk

And please, get all countries to actually start properly accepting ISO 8601 format for dates as a mandatory universal standard…

Obligatory reference: https://xkcd.com/1179/

I think it was Mandrake Linux for me.
It no longer exists though. …I guess I’m old.

someone painting him as a morally righteous

The first thing @seSvxR3ull7LHaEZFIjM said was: “Assange is a bit of a scumbag” …

The closest thing to “righteousness” said was: “his efforts for freedom of information should not land him in US torture prisons like many others.”

Which, being true, it’s absolutely not challenged or contradicted by anything you said in response.

Note that “freedom of information” is totally compatible with “picking and choosing” the manner in which you exercise that freedom. In fact, I’d argue that the freedom of “picking and choosing” what’s published without external pressure is fundamentally what the freedom of press is about.

Assagne (like any other journalist) should have the freedom of “picking and choosing” what facts he wants to expose, as long as they are not fabrications. If they are shown to be intentionally fabricated then that’s when things would be different… but if he’s just informing, a mouthpiece, even if the information is filtered based on an editorial, then that’s just journalism. That’s a freedom that should be protected, instead of attacking him because he’s publishing (or not publishing) this or that.

The packager always should “explicitly require” what are the dependencies in a Nix package… it’s not like it’s a choice, if there are missing dependencies then that’d be a bug.

If the package is not declaring its dependencies properly then it might not run properly in NixOS, since there are no “system libraries” in that OS other than the ones that were installed from Nix packages.

And one of its advantages over AppImages is that instead of bundling everything together causing redundancies and inefficient use of resources, you actually have shared libraries with Nix (not the system ones, but Nix dependencies). If you have multiple AppImages that bundle the same libraries you can end up having the exact same version of the library installed multiple times (or loaded in memory, when running). Appimages do not scale, you would be wasting a lot of resources if you were to make heavy use of them, whereas with Nix you can run an entire OS built with Nix packages.

Huh? as far as I know it has its own libraries and dependency system. What do you mean?

The nice thing about Nix/Guix is that each version of a library only needs to be installed once and it wont really be “bundled” with the app itself. So it would be a lot easier to hunt down the packages that are depending on a bad library.

Flatpak still depends on runtimes though, I have a few different runtimes I had to install just because of one or two flatpaks that required them (like for example I have both the gnome and kde flatpak runtimes, despite not running either of those desktop environments)… and they can depend on specific versions of runtimes too! I remember one time flatpak recommended me to uninstall one flatpak program I had because it depended on a deprecated runtime that was no longer supported.

Also, some flatpaks can depend on another flatpak, like how for Godot they are preparing a “parent” flatpak (I don’t remember the terminology) that godot games can depend on in order to reduce redundancies when having multiple godot games installed.

Because of those things, you are still likely to require a flatpak remote configured and an internet connection when you install a flatpak. It’s not really a fully self contained thing.

Appimages are more self contained… but even those might make assumptions on what libraries the system might have, which makes them not as universal as they might seem. That or the file needs to be really big, unnecessarily so. Usually, a combination or compromise between both problems, at the discretion of the dev doing the packaging.

The advantage with Nix is that it’s more efficient with the users space (because it makes sure you don’t get the exact same version of a library installed twice), while making it impossible to have a dependency conflict regardless of how old or new is what you wanna install (which is something the package manager from your typical distro can’t do).

But C syntax clearly hints to int *p being the expected format.

Otherwise you would only need to do int* p, q to declare two pointers… however doing that only declares p as pointer. You are actually required to type * in front of each variable name intended to hold a pointer in the declaration: int *p, *q;

That’s even harder. Specially if we aspire to have a community that protects privacy & anonymity.

Keep in mind “rich” does not necessarily mean “famous”.
For all anyone knows, you and me could be part of the wealthy, yet nobody here would know, no online service would deny us service. Being forced to live an anonymous and private life is not really much of a punishment, at least it wouldn’t be for me… if I were part of that wealthy I’d just lay low… I’d get a reasonably humble but comfortable house in a reasonably neighborhood where people mind their own business, dressing modestly and living life without having to “really” work a day of my life, while my companies / assets / investments keep making money so I can go on modest trips and have some nice hobbies that are not necessarily really that expensive anyway. Anyone who figures it out, I set them up. It’d still be worth it to live that life.

Boycotting is an expected/intended tool in capitalism. It’s part of the “free market” philosophy, the regulatory “invisible hand”. The reason you can boycott a company is because the economy is based on a capitalist free market.

If boycotts were actually a good and successful method for the society to regulate the wealthy, then there would be no issue with capitalism. So that’s not how you “end” capitalism, that’s just how you make it work.

The issue is, precisely, that boycotts do not work (and thus, capitalism does not really work). Particularly when entire industries are controlled by private de-facto monopolies. If they worked you would not need social-democratic laws to force companies into compliance in many ethical aspects.

What you are advocating is not an alternative to capitalism (like communism or socialism), but a more ethical/educated capitalism that works at controlling the wealthy, just like many proponents of capitalism expected it would.

“Capitalism” just means that the industry (or specifically, “means of production”) can be privately owned.

The whole idea of Lemmy is allowing smaller groups / individuals to own smaller instances, so we don’t depend on big corporations.

So the way I understand it, it’s more of a big vs small thing, not really a “private” vs “governmental/social” ownership thing.

Sure, Lemmy gives freedom for people so, even governments, can make their own public instances… but this all still relies on capitalism, since individual instances can still owned by (smaller?) private groups that can compete amongst each other for users, so you basically are competing as if you were just another company in a capitalist system controlled by offer/demand and reliant on what the average consumer goes after.

This would be the equivalent of asking people to purchase ethically sourced goods and drive the market with their purchase decisions (which is actually what a capitalist system expects) as opposed to actually making laws that forbid companies from selling unethical products. That means we are not ignoring capitalism, but rather participating on it, and just asking consumers to choose ethically when they go buy a product. That’s just an attempt at ethical/educated capitalism, but still capitalism.

Yes… how is “reducing exclamation marks” a good thing when you do it by adding a ' (not to be confused with , ´,‘or’` …which are all different characters).

Does this rely on the assumption that everyone uses a US QWERTY keyboard where ! happens to be slightly more inconvenient than typing '?

Even if they did hallucinate answers, it wouldn’t be the first game that relies on the “unreliable narrator” trope.

be nice

What niceness level exactly?
The most nice I can be in my system is -20… but being too nice to one process leaves others with less time and resources in their life.

I mean, it would technically be possible to build a computer out or organic and biological live tissue. It wouldn’t be very practical but it’s technically possible.

I just don’t think it would be very reasonable to consider that the one thing making it intelligent is that they are made of proteins and living cells instead of silicates and diodes. I’d argue that such a claim would, on itself, be a strong claim too.

Note that “real world truth” is something you can never accurately map with just your senses.

No model of the “real world” is accurate, and not everyone maps the “real world truth” they personally experience through their senses in the same way… or even necessarily in a way that’s really truly “correct”, since the senses are often deceiving.

A person who is blind experiences the “real world truth” by mapping it to a different set of models than someone who has additional visual information to mix into that model.

However, that doesn’t mean that the blind person can “never understand” the “real world truth” …it just means that the extent at which they experience that truth is different, since they need to rely in other senses to form their model.

Of course, the more different the senses and experiences between two intelligent beings, the harder it will be for them to communicate with each other in a way they can truly empathize. At the end of the day, when we say we “understand” someone, what we mean is that we have found enough evidence to hold the belief that some aspects of our models are similar enough. It doesn’t really mean that what we modeled is truly accurate, nor that if we didn’t understand them then our model (or theirs) is somehow invalid. Sometimes people are both technically referring to the same “real world truth”, they simply don’t understand each other and focus on different aspects/perceptions of it.

Someone (or something) not understanding an idea you hold doesn’t mean that they (or you) aren’t intelligent. It just means you both perceive/model reality in different ways.

Step 1. Analize what’s the possible consequence / event that you find undesirable

Step 2. Determine whether there’s something you can do to prevent it: if there is, go to step 3, if there’s not go to step 4

Step 3. Do it, do that thing that you believe can prevent it. And after you’ve done it, go back to step 2 and reevaluate if there’s something else.

Step 4. Since there’s nothing else you can do to prevent it, accept the fact that this consequence might happen and adapt to it… you already did all you could do given the circumstances and your current state/ability, you can’t do anything about it anymore, so why worry? just accept it. Try and make it less “undesirable”.

Step 5. Wait. Entertain yourself some other way… you did your part.

Step 6. Either the event doesn’t happen, or it happens but you already prepared to accept the consequences.

Step 7. Analyze what (not) happened and how it happened (or didn’t). Try to understand it better so in the future you can better predict / adapt under similar circumstances, and go back to step 1.

Just like building up your muscle, it takes time. Which is why you don’t see memes/people saying: “So weak that you can’t lift 100kg? just say no, raise your arms while holding a 100kg weight. It can’t legally fall if you don’t drop it.”

I mean, logically stopping depressive thoughts is the only way to stop depression, the same way as how lowering the caloric intake is how you get rid of obesity, or lowering the resistance to insulin is how you stop being diabetic type 2. Or how the only way to be someone who lifts 100kg is to actually lift a 100kg weight.

But that’s so obvious that it’s not helpful. It’s not like people don’t know what makes them depressed… or obese… or weak… what they want is advice in how to train themselves, not someone telling them they should “just” stop being the way they are (which is probably something they already keep reminding themselves about! …most of the time, that’s the one thing they don’t need help with).

You mean saying “no” to depressive thoughts?
I feel that if you can combat depression that way, then you are not really having clinical depression.

It’s like asking a type 2 diabetic to stop being so resistant to insuline. If your body can stop resisting insuline, then it’s not diabetic.

Yep, this is akin to: “Depressed? Just say no.” “Depressive thoughts cannot legally enter your mind if you don’t have them.”

People don’t realize that overfeeding is not the real cause of the problem, but rather a consequence.