TheFreim

People deciding not to eat something because "it has chemicals in it" is a pretty ignorant take.

When people say this they are obviously not referring the the definition of "chemical" that a chemist would use. Pretending otherwise is exactly the "nerd-snark" mentioned above which makes people distrust experts because they clearly aren't intending to use the term "chemical" in a sense that would include substances like water.

Explanation of the NixOS Steering Committee and NixOS Moderation Team (https://old.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/1nrsu9c/nixos_modera...):

The Nix Steering Committee (SC) (https://nixos.org/community/teams/steering-committee/) is the elected community leadership body. It was established as part of the Nix governance constitution (https://github.com/NixOS/org/blob/main/doc/constitution.md) last year, after which the first elections were held, where 450 contributors voted for the current members. This years election (https://discourse.nixos.org/t/the-election-committee-announc...) is currently in progress. The SC generally is responsible over project direction and community matters, including management of teams. While most responsibilities are delegated, the SC has the authority to step in when necessary.

The moderation team (https://nixos.org/community/teams/moderation/) was established before the SC or constitution existed. The initial moderators were appointed from RFC 102 (https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0102-moderati...), with the mandate to self-select successors. Over the years the team has changed members a lot, none of the initial members are part of it anymore, and the last larger rotation happened last year. The responsibilities include moderation according to the Code of Conduct (CoC) (https://github.com/NixOS/.github/blob/master/CODE\_OF\_CONDU...) of the official community spaces, which is mostly the Discourse and a bunch of Matrix channels. Earlier this year the now-existing SC took on the responsibility of approving new mod team members and CoC changes (https://discourse.nixos.org/t/code-of-conduct-and-moderation...).

Israel targets Hamas while taking steps to limit civilian harm. Civilian deaths are tragic, but tragedy is not genocide.

Israel does not merely target Hamas with incidental civilian deaths, they have been documented actively targeting civilians. This has been indisputably demonstrated at this point. Early on I was much more skeptical since it's similarly indisputable that Hamas does engage in terroristic behavior, but as time has gone on we've had report after report confirming that Israel isn't merely targeting Hamas.

The moral difference is intent.

Hamas intends to eliminate Israel, Israel intends to eliminate Hamas (justifiable) and exterminate the Palestinians (unjustifiable) to continue their long-running expansion operation and further their grip on the region at the expense of the other native populations.

Calling this “indiscriminate extermination” ignores Hamas using civilians as shields and demands an impossible standard of zero casualties.

1. I've already explicitly acknowledged the distinction between attacking Hamas, inadvertently harming civilians in the process, and the active slaying of the civilian population which is taking place. The former is regrettable but unavoidable, the latter is evil and it is what is also taking place.

2. I intentionally said "near-indiscriminate" rather than just "indiscriminate" for a reason. Unlike many people, yourself included, I don't view this conflict as a completely black-and-white matter. Israel is instrumentalizing their legitimate efforts in order to implement a wider effort to ethnically cleanse Gaza.

The Holocaust does not justify committing a genocide against another population. Some people having inaccurate, or even immoral, views about what occurred on October 7th does not justify genocide. The fact that Hamas engages in evil acts does not justify genocide perpetrated against innocents.

In short: Two wrongs do not make a right.

It is also worth noting that you are not portraying the matter fairly. You are transposing certain radical elements, i.e. those who actively defend Hamas, on to people who simply oppose the ethnic cleansing and genocide being perpetrated by Israel. I don't support Hamas, and I also don't support Israel.

Furthermore, you falsely assume that people are generally ignoring the evil actions perpetrated by Hamas, which is not the case. It is a false dichotomy to present the issue as supporting either Israel or Hamas. Hamas undeniably has engaged in terrorism, but that has no bearing on whether or not Israel is acting properly in response. The fact of the matter is that Israel hasn't merely been attacking Hamas targets that happen to also have civilians present, but rather that Israel is going beyond that to willfully engage in a near-indiscriminate extermination campaign against unjustifiable targets.

Around 10 years ago Eclipse was still the primary editor in the circles I was in.

Like I said, he was excusing political violence. A woman had been murdered by neo-Nazis and he went out of his way to minimize, justify and excuse the act, while condemning imaginary "alt-left" violence at the same event.

I again strongly encourage you to go watch the video or read the transcript since it directly contradicts what you are continuing to claim. Trump explicitly said that that the neo-Nazis should be "condemned totally." A total condemnation is exactly the opposite of your claim that he was "excusing" or trying to "minimize" the events. I will also note that I find it quite odd that you claim to be upset about Trump allegedly downplaying violence, but then go on to downplay and minimize left-wing extremist violence. I believe that all political violence should be condemned, its unfortunate that you appear to believe otherwise.

I don't find it credible that he died coincidentally the day after being assaulted.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, I don't find it likely that I will be convinced to ignore the medical expert who examined the case and the corresponding documentary evidence that points against the idea that Sicknick was killed.

You have unfortunately been misinformed about both examples that you brought up.

when right wingers killed Heather Heyer, Trump called them "very fine people"

Trump did not call the killer a fine person, nor did he call everyone involved on the right fine people. He explicitly stated that there were, "some very bad people in that group." The "very fine people" was referencing those who were peacefully protesting both for and against the removal of historical monuments. If you watch the original video instead of the selective reporting this is all made very clear. You can watch or read the transcript of the "very fine people" press conference here: https://www.veryfinepeople.info

When they killed Brian Sicknick, he called them heroes and pardoned them.

Brian Sicknick was not killed by anyone. The medical examiner ruled that he died of natural causes. There is no evidence that he was killed, which was reflected in the difficulty the prosecutors faced, and its why nobody was ever convicted of murder.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brian-sicknick-capitol-riot-die... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick#Misinf...

I can see particular applications of the law being unconstitutional, i.e. improper rationale for designating a group as being a foreign terrorist organization, but generally speaking I don't expect there would be any constitutional issue with preventing people charged with materially supporting terrorism from being able to flee the country using a passport.

Is there any section of the constitution that you think would be violated by the letter of the law?

An individual remix of a song added to a playlist, which most people have never heard of, multiple years ago does not make it a "groyper meme".

Before the other day when this misinformation campaign began, nobody ever associated the song with groypers. Its always been associated with anti-Fascist, anti-Nazi groups, which contain a completely different set of beliefs. In recent history the only people to ever use the song for political purposes have been left-wing groups: Protestors against the AfD in Germany, communist priest Andrea Gallo, movement against Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, left-wing protests against Meloni in Italy.

Combining the lack of substantial evidence of association with groypers with the history of the song being used by left-wing movements, in addition to the evidence in my post above and elsewhere, its clear that this cannot be reasonably associated with groypers by any evidence-oriented person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_ciao

There was zero substantial evidence for it being a leftist/immigrant/woke/trans person.

I've did not claim it was someone who is trans, an immigrant, or woke, however all evidence currently available points to him being a leftist. Some people early on were lead to believe that the shooter was trans due to reports of "trans-ideology" being found on the casings, but that was a rash, pre-mature extrapolation. The relevant text can be attributed to a wider array of groups/online sub-cultures (notably, the text cannot be clearly attributed to the groypers).

There is, however, evidence that the shooter was on the far-left.

1. Terminology used by the radical-left-wing to slander Kirk found on the casings ("hey fascist! CATCH!"). No Groyper would ever use such a phrase, they don't think of Kirk as a fascist and themselves get accused of being fascists.

2. Reference to an anti-fascist song most often played by far-left figures, particularly those identifying themselves as "anti-fascist".

3. A high school friend described the killer as being left-leaning on issues and that he was the only member of his family who was a leftist. This is hearsay so I take it with a grain of salt, but its still important evidence which fits perfectly with the other points.

Furthermore, all of the "evidence" you put forward cannot be considered by any reasonable person to be evidence that someone is a Groyper.

1. Being online a lot isn't evidence that someone is a Groyper. Massive numbers of apolotical, right-leaning, and left-leaning people are "terminally online".

2. I am aware of no evidence at this point that the killer was an "incel" in the sense that the term is typically used.

3. Being white does not make someone a Groyper. Funnily enough, on the contrary, among the online far-right the groypers are often accused of being non-white due to their relative openness to other racial groups.

4. Being Mormon is not evidence of being a Groyper. On the contrary, Catholics are most represented among the groypers with only a few figures being Mormon.

5. Playing video games is not evidence that someone is a Groyper.

6. I am aware of no evidence at this point that the killer was a "gun nut". Furthermore, even if he was, this would not be evidence that he was a Groyper since guns are not one of the primary issues addressed by groypers and would only tangentially be related.

In summary, none of what you said is evidence of your claims. I am begging you, and others, to engage honestly about this instead of spreading false claims.

Now that it turned out to be a groyper, you'll have to recalibrate your priors.

It did not "turn out to be a groyper". There is zero substantial evidence for this claim, its a complete fabrication. Elle Reeve, a journalist at CNN who has followed the far-right since the infamous Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally in 2017, said of those claiming that the shooter was a Groyper that, "It’s like they’re grasping at vapor."

It's not impossible, but I find this to be very unlikely.

Nick Fuentes has repeatedly condemned political violence for years, he and his followers have also been trying to get Kirk to debate him, so killing is counter-productive from that perspective. Furthermore, the "attacks" by Laura Loomer that I've seen don't get anywhere near calling for violence.

This is exactly what I was trying to point out. Steam's developer services can save a massive amount of time for developers, time which is especially valuable to indie studios. I still feel that the 30% is steep, I'd prefer if Steam took a cut based on how many of their underlying services you used, but its wrongheaded to deny that Steam provides many useful features for developers that can save a lot of time.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features

I would note that they do provide quite an immense amount of value to developers. Achievements, transferable inventory system, multi-player (steam networking), among other things. The 30% cut still feels high, especially since most games can't or won't take advantage of every single service Steam provides, but I do think they provide quite a bit of developer value that needs to be factored in.

Flatpak is unambiguously and undeniably free and open source software and the fact that you think it isn't demonstrates that you have been misinformed. The Flatpak project is licensed with the LGPL. Furthermore, the vast majority of software packaged with Flatpak is free and open source software.

https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak

Others can just run a distro for people who believe in open source software.

What about Flatpak is contrary to open source software as you seem imply? Flatpak itself is free software, so is most of the software packaged with it. There are quite a few good reasons to use Flatpak, especially for developers who want to make their software available on different distributions without wanting to worry about packaging separately themselves. There are valid criticisms of it, but being somehow against open source software or being somehow related to Microsoft is not one of them.

I use Syncthing to sync between multiple devices, it works without issue.

You could also pay for Obsidian Sync. This has the added benefit of being officially supported and it funds the development of the software.

We’ve just been informed that in threatening situations there is no time to chamber a round, but cops are simultaneously supposed to take the time to evaluate the threat to their safety.

I think you have misunderstood the order of operations in a violent encounter. The issue of chambering a round is in light of the fact that you have already identified an immediate violent threat and you need to end that threat. The entire question of carrying chambered/empty is completely separate from threat identification and whether or not a shooting is justified.

You also simply don't appear understand the time scale in which violent altercations and legitimate responses take place. They happen quickly, and so once a threat has been identified you need to remove as many barriers to action as possible. Adding 1/2 to 2 seconds can easily be the difference between life and death after you've already made the judgement about the situation. Again, the issue here isn't whether or not someone has identified a threat but rather how quickly and effectively they can respond after they've identified the threat.

If we want to speak intelligently about use of force and police reform we should avoid conflating unrelated issues (i.e. whether or not an office acted appropriately versus the ability to act properly after a threat has been identified).

I have limited knowledge of guns. I understood that they had a physical safety switch that had to be manipulated before the firearm could be used. Is that the case?

Some handguns have manual safety switches, others don't. For example, the Sig P365 (an excellent, highly regarded sub-compact pistol often used for concealed carry), has models with or without a manual safety (you can also install a safety yourself if yours doesn't have one). Some handguns also have a "grip safety" which requires you to firmly hold the grip to disable the safety.

If so, is the safety left off when people are carrying with a round chambered? Or have I misunderstood the purpose of the safety?

Because modern firearms have a variety of built-in safety mechanisms, separate from manual safety switches, which prevent unwanted discharges, the only thing that will cause a good firearm to go off will be the trigger being pulled. Combining this fact with modern form-fitting holsters which fully cover the trigger guard, it becomes impossible to fire the gun while it remains in the holster. This means that even without a manual safety switch you can carry safely without worrying about the gun going off until you draw and pull the trigger.

Echoing another reply to your comment, if you do have a safety on your gun you would typically toggle the safety while training to build muscle memory. This means you would practice enabling the safety, holstering the firearm, drawing the firearm, disabling the safety, and firing in a swift motion so that you always disable the safety when drawing.

I've been in my fair share of sus situations in my life and they've been either telegraphed (people starting with yelling, then intimidation, then getting into personal space) or ambiguous.

The problem is that in a "sus situation" you would not be able to chamber a round without brandishing the firearm, which in many situation would be illegal in a merely "sus" situation where you don't have a clear threat (brandishing laws, intimidation, etc). This is why many self-defense advocates encourage people to carry with a round chambered while also carrying something like pepper spray for situations where lethal force is not necessary.

So I personally think people with good situational awareness have plenty of time to act appropriately in a variety of common dangerous situations.

Most people I've encountered who carry concealed would agree that you should try to keep yourself from being in common dangerous situations. The reason they carry is not for the avoidable situations, since they'd obviously just avoid them, but for the unavoidable situation. The vast majority of people who carry concealed never need to use their firearms, the point is to be ready to defend oneself and others if the situation should arise.

people posting talking about combat rolling and chambering after their assailant misses a shot. what the fuck lmao

I generally try to show them a little bit of grace. For many people their sole exposure to firearms is through video games, movies, and television shows. They have a strong "knowledge" of how things work and genuinely have no idea that their ideas are at odds with reality. Its similar to how non-tech people think "hacking" works.

This might be the impression one gets from watching movies or television shows, but its not reality. Anyone who has either trained with a handgun, or even just viewed videos of real-world confrontations will know that this isn't the case. In many encounters you have almost no time. Racking the slide and acquiring the target adds a massive amount of time (its even worse when you are under pressure).

Most defensive uses of a firearms occur at a short distance, less than five yards. It takes very little time to cover the distance. For those who are interested, here is a video covering what it looks like when someone with a knife runs straight at someone at 21 feet, you will see why the idea that people have time to rack the slide is absurd (https://youtu.be/_2zfw_4DYdQ?t=79).

But it sounds like one big "no girls allowed" kind of treehouse

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's actually completely fine, and good, for people to voluntarily form social groups based on a shared interests and traits. The movement to oppose this sort of thing has been a large factor in the deterioration of social life for many people. You are not entitled to membership in a community of close-knit friends.

My bank uses a fraud detection system that calls you if suspicious activity is detected on your account. It then asks you to call back a number to verify the account activity. Every time they call, they provide a different callback number. Searching for the callback number online yields only one result, which is the fraud detection systems web page telling you to NOT trust phone calls of any kind (their advice is solid, but it tells you to not respond to their own legitimate calls)!

Now this proposal requires you to also continually release your server code.

This is not accurate. From the FAQ:

Q: Won't this consumer action result in the end of "live service" games?

A: No, the market demand and profitability of these games means the video games industry has an ongoing interest in selling these. Since our proposals do not interfere with existing business models, these types of games can remain just as profitable, ensuring their survival. The only difference is future ones will need to be designed with an "end of life" build once support finally ends.

I suggest reading the proposal or /at least/ the FAQ page: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq

Someone please build an RDF triple store on top of XTDB to get the immutability and easy time travel.

What do the current XTDB across-time queries lack in this regard? I am under the impression that XTDB already supports what you're asking for, from the release notes:

Full, across-time queries: using SQL:2011's bitemporal primitives and/or 'XTQL' to answer "what did we know, and when?".

No history/audit tables, triggers required: use it as a regular update-in-place database (you're free to UPDATE and DELETE normally again!), safe in the knowledge that your history is there when you need it.

Zero-cost, full database snapshots: immediately go back to any point in time without needing to schedule or store periodic snapshots/copies.

I've been using Borg for a while, I've been thinking about looking at the backup utility space again to see what is out there. What backup utilities do you all use and recommend?

Punishing honest students by ensuring that they will fail unless they cheat is an absurd solution. In school I went to great lengths to do my work well and on my own. It was disheartening to see other students openly cheat and do well, but at least I knew that I was performing well on my own merits.

Under your system, I would have been actively punished for not cheating. What's the point of developing a cure that's worse than the disease?

How can you organize stuff in obsidian? You have folders and search and that's it.

You can use folders, tags, properties, links between notes (exporable through the links panel per file or the graph view), and there are extensions that let you add more advanced functionality. In the end, any system will require you to come up with your own system of organization.

if you use Obsidian you will probably have more than one vault.

Why would anyone ever want to use more than one vault? I just use different folders. The only reason I can think of would be if you are using Obsidian for work where you aren't allowed to use unapproved services.