Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)M
Posts
16
Comments
178
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • You have to hold the Shift key while moving a window for it to snap into the tiles you set up. If you just move them normally they have a different snapping behaviour like what you described.

    Edit: So as the deleted reply was probably asking, this is how it works in full. If you have the KDE Plasma desktop environment after a certain version (I wanna say 5.6-ish?) you can do the following:

    1. Press Windows+T, or as we Linux nerds like to call it Meta+T, to configure your "tiling zones" on your monitors.
    2. Hold Shift+LeftClick on the title bar of a window to move them into the "tiling zones" you set up.

    Discoverability on this sucks (as much of the Plasma desktop does) but it's a pretty cool feature.

  • For many European languages and some non-European ones there is the CEFR, so you could look for an "A1" or "A2" level language course in whatever you want to learn. They aim to establish exactly this basic level of communication.

  • Feels like decades though...

  • The other reply you already got pretty much sums up how I feel about Merkel, not a fan exactly. But I'd like to add one specific thing she has my respect for.

    During the refugee crisis of 2015 there was a point where her side of the political aisle was approaching hysteria. There were hundreds of thousands of people streaming into the EU from all over the middle east and north Africa, crowds at every major train station and border crossing, normal refugee infrastructure way beyond the point of collapse. So conservatives were starting to seriously argue for the suspension of asylum rights, closing borders, etc. And Merkel was usually one to wait stuff like this out, see what possible consensus forms and then adopt it as if it was her idea all along. But not this time. She saw it starting to gain traction, just came out publicly and said "We will manage this", and that was that for her. Discussion died immediately.

    I may not respect much of what she did before or after, but taking that stance at that moment as clearly as she did, that I respect her for.

  • Read the policies yourself

    I suggest reading this diff to the FAQs instead, paints a much clearer picture:

    https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e

    Basically removes all the language about not selling data and some about privacy. Down in the comments someone argues this is due to a narrow legal definition of that language in certain jurisdictions, but that couldn't sound more like an empty excuse if they tried. Actually all the reactions from Mozilla I have seen on this so far sound like pure corpo PR bullshit to me.

  • You and i read different things.

    Apparently we did.

    I hated how he worded them, but his arguments at greppable and understandable are valid arguments that go beyond rust and if he can read it or not or refuses to.

    I'm failing to see how Rust code is not greppable unless you don't speak Rust.

    Mixing languages in a part of a project brings complexity and is often a huge ass nono because it makes things unreadable and hard to manage on a large scale.

    An argument which I would acknowledge, but if the decision to do this has been made by the group it still is weird to see it blocked by an individual.

    He also argues that a c interface exists to connect 2 parts of a system. The person that changes the interface should not have to alter the users of that interface, [...] So if he changes the interface, the rust team will need to fix it, specially since they are the minority.

    Nobody asked Hellwig to do this, in fact Krummrich said several times they would maintain the interface consuming the C code themselves. They just want one common interface for all Rust drivers, instead of replicating the same code in each driver. Which Hellwig never gives a substantial reply to.

    That also doesnt mean he can change it in whatever way without worry, it is an interface change, that needs discussions and approvals ahead of time ofc.

    Again not how I'm reading that thread. As Krummrich put it:

    Surely you can expect maintainers of the Rust abstraction to help with integrating API changes -- this isn't different compared to driver / component maintainers helping with integrating fundamental API changes for their affected driver / component, like you've mentioned videobuf2-dma stuff.

  • How do you figure?

    The only two "technical" arguments I could see were firstly that code should

    [remain] greppable and maintainable

    which unless I'm missing something boils down to "I don't speak Rust", and secondly that

    The only reason Linux managed to survive so long is by not having internal boundaries, and adding another language complely breaks this

    which unless I'm missing something boils down to "I don't speak Rust", because ain't nobody trying to add any other languages to the Linux code base.

    Surely this can't be the "decent technical reasoning" you are referring to? I have to admit I don't follow kernel development that closely, but I was under the impression that integrating Rust into the code base was a long discussed initiative having the "official" blessing of the higher ups among the maintainers by now, so it seems odd to see it opposed in such harsh terms by a subsystem maintainer here:

    I absolutely support using Rust in new codebase, but I do not at all in Linux.

  • Are they serious, like showing images of Musk doing this is unlawful?

    Potentially, which I guess might have been the entire point. The ZPS is no stranger to provoking law suites, and since Musk did this in the US this might be their attempt at baiting the German jurisdiction to take a stance on it.

    That said the article you linked says the police talks about having an "Anfangsverdacht" (initial suspicion), which basically means "we have heard about it and will look into it".

  • Rate mal. Du hast 3 Versuche. Auflösung aber frühstens morgen, das Bett ruft.

  • Das war eine rhetorische Frage. Glaub ich dir schon das Leute dem Musk aus politischem Opportunismus beispringen würden.

  • Bekannter Troll? Das war mir jetzt natürlich auch neu. Gibt es dafür eine Quelle?

    Hier, ich bin die Quelle. Aber gut ich beiße mal.

    Ob Elon Musk da bewusst gehandelt hat, ist übrigens umstritten.

    Von wem, den Blinden?

  • Not what OP said over on the (now deleted) Reddit post:

    So the ad was supposed to play in that black box and this is a bug?

    I had Bob's Burgers on in the background but was playing a game with my kid. The silence caught my attention, but not at first. At first I assumed it was a, "choose your commercial" thing.

    After some more time I thought maybe it was asking if I was still watching, that's when I looked up to see this

    I waited, nothing. I made a verbal comment and the whole family started looking. We waited, nothing.

    I grabbed my phone, snapped the pic, made the post (but didn't actually post it), and it was still sitting there.

    I guessed an answer, got it right, and the show came back

    Then I hit "post" to actually make the post.

    Some people say it went away on its own. Others say, like me, they had to answer, and others said even after answering it didn't go away

    I've had Bob's Burgers on all morning and I've yet to see this again

  • Fixiert:

  • Can't speak to historic usage, but today "am" (an dem) means "on" or "near", and "im" (in dem) means "in".

    So the literal translation would be "lick me in the arse".

  • Kudos. FYI they seem to have defaced your sidebar.

  • Oh it's irony you wanted?

    What the hell is going on with that community? :D

  • Für mein letztes Handy mit wechselbarem Akku hatte ich sogar einen zweite Akku, war sogar standardmäßig dabei, aber den hab ich nie gebraucht, der lag nur in der Schublade.

    Naja da spielen ja auch noch andere Sachen rein, wie das man lange Zeit einfach alle paar Jahre neu kaufen musste wegen der krassen Verbesserungen in der Hardware, das die meisten Smartphones nur kurze Zeit Softwareupdates bekommen, und so weiter. Aber ich schweife ab.

    Der Punkt ist Stand heute könntest du so ein Telefon locker 10-20 Jahre betreiben statt "nur" 4-6, was die meisten Leute ja eh schon nicht machen, aber das ist den Herstellerinteressen halt diametral entgegengesetzt.

    Aktuelle Zahlen zeigen ja auch, dass die Akkus deutlich haltbarer sind, als gerne so in den Raum geworfen wird.

    Interessant, danke für den Hinweis.

    Ob das in China erfolgreich ist, oder einfach nur gemacht wird, weil es staatlich subventioniert ist, kann ich nicht einschätzen.

    Na das war ja der Punkt auf den ich die ganze Zeit hinaus wollte. Das kann glaube ich nur erfolgreich sein wenn es, zumindest zu Beginn, staatlich unterstützt wird. Henne-Ei-Problem.

    Meine Prognose ist da 180° umgekehrt, aber im Prinzip ist es mir auch wurscht.

    Wie gesagt, reden wir in 20 Jahren nochmal drüber. In der Zwischenzeit danke für die angenehme Unterhaltung.

  • Das ist wie bei Handys, schaut man sich an, was vor 20 Jahren State-of-the-Art war, ist die Entwicklung schon heftig

    Verstehe was du meinst, aber interessanterweise ist das ja auch das perfekte Gegenbeispiel. Vor 20 Jahren war SOTA das du bei jedem Mobiltelefon den Akku wechseln konntest, weil das halt nach wie vor ein Verschleißteil ist und damals auch noch ne Ecke anfälliger war als heute. Und jetzt sind die bei so gut wie keinem Model mehr wechselbar, weil das für die Hersteller eine super Methode ist gleich ein komplettes neues Telefon zu verkaufen anstatt nur einen neuen Akku. Sprich die Hersteller haben schlicht keinen finanziellen Anreiz das zu machen, eher im Gegenteil, also machen sie es nicht mehr. Hooray for planned obsolescence.

    Gut das Argument ist jetzt bei einem Elektroauto (noch) nicht dasselbe, da kann man kaputte Akkus normalerweise wechseln lassen immerhin, auch wenn ich mir hab sagen lassen dass das bei vielen Herstellern fast soviel kostet wie ein Neuwagen.

    Was aber ja vergleichbar ist, ist das wir eine offensichtlich nützliche technische Möglichkeit mal wieder liegen lassen weil deren Entwicklung und Standardisierung zu teuer wäre, und Hersteller Negativanreize haben. Während chinesische Firmen halt einfach mal wieder machen, anscheinend mit Erfolg. Wir werden in 20 Jahren sehen welcher Ansatz erfolgreicher war, aber ich hab da eine Prognose.