For those looking for Mozilla's back and forth on this since 2017.
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 51
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 51
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
This also ignores that the brain is not wholly an electrical system. The are all kinds of chemical receptors within the brain that alter all kinds of neurological function. Kid of the reason why drugs are a thing. On small scales we have a pretty good idea how these work, at least for the receptors that we're aware of. On larger scales it's mostly guessing at this point. The brain has a knack of doing more than the sum of all parts on a pretty regular basis.
I mean I've been trying to formally request that ISO change the C API for
send()toyeet()for sockets where connection reliability is not required at the network interface level.Man selling cocaine says therapy for cocaine addiction not effective.
Musk responded that the advertising boycott is likely to kill the company. "What this advertising boycott is going to do is it's going to kill the company, and the whole world will know that those advertisers killed the company and we will document it in great detail,"
When Sorkin pointed out that advertisers see things differently, Musk replied, "oh yeah? Tell it to Earth."
Sorkin continued: "They're going to say, Elon, that you killed the company because you said these things and they were inappropriate things and they didn't feel comfortable on the platform. That's what they're going to say."
"And let's see how Earth responds to that," Musk replied.
I mean… I think that pretty much removes any last doubt anyone might have had that Elon Musk had any grasp on the reality that he himself exists in.
I am so sorry this got so long. I'm absolutely horrible at brevity.
Applications use things called libraries to provide particular functions rather than implement those functions themselves. So like "handle HTTP request" as an example, you can just use a HTTP library to handle it for you so you can focus on developing your application.
As time progresses, libraries change and release new versions. Most of the time one version is compatible with the other. Sometimes, especially when there is a major version change, the two version are incompatible. If an application relied on that library and a major incompatible change was made, the application also needs to be changed for the new version of the library.
A Linux distro usually selects the version of each library that they are going to ship with their release and maintain it via updates. However, your distro provider and some neat program you might use are usually two different people. So the neat program you use might have change their application to be compatible with a library that might not make it into your distro until next release.
At that point you have one of two options. Wait until your distro provides the updated library or the go it alone route of you updating your own library (which libraries can depend on other libraries, which means you could be opening a whole Pandora's box here). The go it alone route also means that you have to turn off your distro's updates because they'll just overwrite everything you've done library wise.
This is where snaps, flatpaks, and appimages come into play. In a very basic sense, they provide a means for a program to include all the libraries it'll need to run, without those libraries conflicting with your current setup from the distro. You might hear them as "containerized programs", however, they're not exactly the Docker style "container", but from an isolating perspective, that's mostly correct. So your neat application that relies on the newest libraries, they can be put into a snap, flatpak, or appimage and you can run that program with those new libraries no need for your distro to provide them or for you to go it alone.
I won't bore you on the technical difference between the formats, but just mostly focus on what I usually hear is the objectionable issue with snaps. Snaps is a format that is developed by Canonical. All of these formats have a means of distribution, that is how do you get the program to install and how it is updated. Because you know, getting regular updates of your program is still really important. With snaps, Canonical uses a cryptographic signature to indicate that the distribution of the program has come from their "Snaps Store". And that's the main issue folks have taken with snaps.
So unlike the other kinds of formats, snaps are only really useful when they are acquired from the Canonical Snaps Store. You can bypass the checking of the cryptographic signature via the command line, but Ubuntu will not automatically check for updates on software installed via that method, you must check for updates manually. In contrast, anyone can build and maintain their own flatpak "store" or central repository. Only Canonical can distribute snaps and provide all of the nice features of distribution like automatic updates.
So that's the main gripe, there's technical issues as well between the formats which I won't get into. But the main high level argument is the conflicting ideas of "open and free to all" that is usually associated with the Linux group (and FOSS [Free and open-source software] in general) and the "only Canonical can distribute" that comes with snaps. So as @sederx indicated, if that's not an argument that resonates with you, the debate is pretty moot.
There's some user level difference like some snaps can run a bit slower than a native program, but Canonical has updated things with snaps to address some of that. Flatpak sandboxing can make it difficult to access files on your system, but flatpak permissions can be edited with things like Flatseal. Etc. It's what I would file into the "papercut" box of problems. But for some, those papercuts matter and ultimately turn people off from the whole Linux thing. So there's arguments that come from that as well, but that's so universal "just different in how the papercut happens" that I just file that as a debate between container and native applications, rather a debate about formats.
Maybe I'm not Rusting enough.
"The mature and responsible thing to do would have been to add a content security policy to the page", he wrote. "I am not mature so instead what I decided to do was render the early 2000s internet shock image Goatse with a nice message superimposed over it in place of the app if Sqword detects that it is in an iFrame."
I submit the Internet axiom of: there's times and places for a measured and reasonable response, and the other times are funny af.
Let this be a lesson to you—if you are using an iFrame to display a site that isn't yours, even for legitimate purposes, you have no control over that content—it can change at any time. One day instead of looking into an iFrame, you might be looking at an entirely different kind of portal.
Bravo.
Economic inequality being one of the biggest drivers of democratic back sliding. Shitty part is that authoritarian doesn’t really offer anything better.
The wealthiest people of this world have created a world that’s tearing itself apart. And their only hedge is the thought that we will all be too busy killing each other that we forget completely about them. Hence these megalomaniacs that appear as distraction to keep us fighting each other.
Brave Software, the company behind the browser of the same name, was founded by Brendan Eich. He's best known as the creator of JavaScript from his days at Netscape Communications
Say no more fam.
I just read some dumb fucking shit from the Wayfair CEO telling everyone they need to blend their personal and work life together because no one is rewarded for laziness, or some shit.
Bitch! This kid right here is a fucking genius and y'all locking him up for life because his intelligence hurts somebody's bottom line. That's the key take away here. Y'all don't want actually smart and inventive people, you want slaves.
This kid just MacGyvered the shit out of a triple-A game studio and absolute best we could do is lock him up for life? Ridiculous. This whole capitalism shit is a fraud.