dundarious

"HN doing HN things" over someone saying "good discussion, however, one point about the conclusion" and having that point be very rational and still open to debate.

Is discussing such secondary but still highly relevant aspects verboten? Must every comment here be by a lead researcher in the specific field? Would a biomedical science researcher necessarily have any more expertise on these important secondary aspects?

"Trust me, I'm a scientitian". No thanks.

If the novel parts are don't transcode, and clean up before adding to library, then you can just do that, right? Without having to create a frontend, which is the fiddly part (especially since losing the AppleTV client I can use with Jellyfin server would be a sacrifice). It's pretty easy to, for example, make a python script that grabs metadata from tmdb when given a URL (so the script has no need for disambiguation logic -- that's what humans are for), generate an ffmpeg command that adds that metadata, and does whatever re-encoding/re-muxing you want. Can embed subtitle files this way too.

e.g., of generated command: ffmpeg -y -hide_banner -i /mnt/storage/rips/bluray.mkv -i ./eng.sdr.srt -map 0:v -map 0:a -map 1 -c:v copy -c:a copy -c:s mov_text -metadata:s:a:0 language=eng -metadata:s:a:0 title=eng -metadata:s:s:0 language=eng -metadata:s:s:0 title="English (SDR)" -disposition:s:0 hearing_impaired -metadata title="Film Title" -metadata genre="Pretentious Comedy" -metadata artist="Alan Smithee" -metadata date=2026 -f mp4 -movflags +faststart "/mnt/storage/movies/Film Title (2026).mp4"

Do whatever encoding you want in advance too of course. Note, the above is generated from a script (not created manually) that is run like `./cleanvideo.py ./bluray.mkv ./eng.sdr.srt https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/985-eraserhead`

After doing this for over a decade, I find that Jellyfin, or even just a caddy directory listing, make a great media library browser. Jellyfin will almost never identify things incorrectly. Can always fall back to just listing things and playing your content with `mpv https://machine.tailnet-name.ts.net/movies/...` even remotely given the use of tailscale. Or VLC from my phone, etc.

Given the alternative proposed by OP was more of the same but with layers on top, saying "how about just using xargs and sh anyway" is a simplification -- learn 2 tiny things vs start depending on some new tool whose only purpose is to let you avoid learning those 2 tiny things by adding template language, etc., on top? I'll learn the 2.

As for widening the scope to other tools, I've written about that on here before, how I have lots of powershell experience, some nushell, etc. I haven't become a convert (definitely not on Linux, of course occasionally on Windows).

Happy to respond to any input or anything, but you should reply directly to people if you're going to criticize them -- very poor form to blanket criticize while also taking an uncharitable read.

I don't remember which was the odd one out, but in the 00s I was using Mac OS X and FreeBSD (and maybe some other more niche alternatives) a lot, and something didn't support xargs -0.

If you want a shell to interact with the results, you can of course just use a (sub)shell.

    ls -1 ./*.sh | xargs -rd\\n sh -c 'for i in "$@" ; do ... ; done' sh

2. xargs -r just doesn't run the command if there's no input, also not strictly necessary but I'm addicted to using it because it's the sensible default to me.

3. xargs -d\\n makes it collect fields as full lines, which is what you typically want, unless you're able to generate NULs.

4. use whatever shell you want of course, but I don't use bashisms, etc., by default, /bin/sh is fine for me, even if it's dash.

5. the trailing "sh" at the end is due to a quirk of `sh -c` usage, where $0 is the first non option argument, so `printf %s\\n 1 2 3 | xargs -rd\\n sh -c 'for i in "$@" ; do printf "%s " "$i" ; done ; echo'` (note the lack of trailing "sh") would only print "2 3 " as $0 is not included in "$@" ($0 is 1, $1 is 2, $2 is 3). It's very easy to just always give the shell name itself manually as $0 instead of trying to ingest "$0" into your logic.

Of course, you could `find . -maxdepth 1 -type f -name '*.sh' -print0 | xargs -r0 ...` instead, depending on what you're up to, that may be the easiest. It's definitely the simplest -- as long as your xargs has -0 support.

What's the implication or inference based upon this? So you're seeing comments sharing a general attitude. And?

As it is now, your post is meaningless to me.

Yes, as someone who has read the literature section of the (small) national newspaper with some regularity, this is pretty much all old news -- could glean most of this from reading for a year. You hear about the longlists and shortlists and panel of judges (after the winner(s) is chosen), and one would hope that at least the literary prizes are highly subjective.

I know, I use switch and restore now (for the most part). I'm explaining how knowing the internals does help understand the 2 use-cases being originally implemented via 1 command, i.e., checkout. The post I was responding to said the checkout case ran counter to the idea that knowing the internals helps use the commands, when it's actually a pretty standard case where it does help.

Switching branches involves: updating the field marking "current branch", and then updating the working copy to reflect the objects referenced. So for all trees/files, recursively restore wc to match the referenced blobs.

Restoring a different version of a specific file/tree, involves recursively restoring wc of those files/trees to match the referenced blobs.

So both are actually primarily the same task. Knowing a little about internals is exactly how it is easy to understand how the same code (and hence the verb "checkout") came to be used for both tasks.

The reason it's still not great UI is that switching branch and restoring file arise in very different circumstances, and I want different guarantees and warnings and confirmations -- so using the same command still only makes sense when thinking very mechanistically.

So if you leave a post unchanged, it's proof you meant what you wrote; and if you edit it, it's even stronger proof you meant what you wrote, even if the edits signify some change.

I understand that many interpretations are open in such things, but this kind of logic seems ridiculous.

>outstanding relationships with essentially everyone who openly uses Zig and talks about it publicly

Essentially everyone? more blogposts incoming?

Andrew is explicitly saying the opposite, but you're entitled to your supposition that that is bluster, I suppose.

It might be helpful to read the latest revision of Andrew's post, which may address this concern for you. It received several revisions: https://github.com/andrewrk/andrewkelley.me/commits/master/p...

Yes, while I'm not a fan of fully networked, recorded, ubiquitous license plate tracking, it is quite different than the cell phone.

License plate number is a registered identifier mandated to be fully plainly visible, with that identifier tied to a registered individual; compared to cell phone which has identifiers, sure, but they're not registered to an individual necessarily, and not mandated to be plainly visible, rather only "visible" as a means of service provision.

This is the centerpiece of TFA:

When it was their turn at the register, the Hennessys started loading their groceries on the conveyor belt but were told to put the groceries back in the cart. The woman at the register asked if they had alcohol. They didn’t. Then she waved them toward the exits.

“Go home and be safe,” she said.

Attack or customer

What you have written does not seem to be in close contact with the OP. He talks positively about the GLM news and whatnot. He is highly skeptical only of the "doom" scenarios, including upending most or a massive amount of jobs, and how that is deployed to keep the investment machine working at such breakneck pace.

I don't assume "Mars mission" to necessarily mean cargo for settlement or humans. In fact, that all seems quite distant at this point, so I ignore it entirely unless specific concrete actions occur.

So for many people like myself, the title is perfectly reasonable. The world does not revolve around SpaceX and its purported plans.

It's not special in this regard in the language, or even especially so in the available tooling. Nevertheless, the culture in rust is to add many many dependencies. I occasionally use self-professed "small, modern" CLI tools that use ~400 crates (e.g., interactive podcast downloader).

Relevance is relative, very much so.

How many systems have the relevant NICs, and followed the non-automatic setup steps in https://docs.kernel.org/networking/iou-zcrx.html, and are not running within a VM/container disabling io_uring?

This seems on the low impact end of the numerous historical io_uring issues.

Interesting and important all the same.

No worries, overall a very useful summary comment.

You can't sudo echo and redirect from the non-sudo shell like that.

    echo 3 | sudo tee /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches

    sudo sh -c 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches'

Wasn't memory one of the key indicators looked at?

The analysis and measurements on hardware indicate no strong reason to prefer C over Rust for microcontroller firmware on the basis of memory footprint or execution speed.

I admit I have not carefully read the paper, and am collating info from comments here, so I may be fully mistaken. The word "strong" also allows for much interpretation, that I'm not a priori critical of, but am skeptical of.

The point of noting whether it is loaded on their machine or not, is presumably to indicate that it is not normally loaded (for them), so disabling it to block the exploit should have no impact (for them).

Thank you, I forgot that's cheap enough these days.

In the satellite tracking experiment, I wonder how they sexed the eels to determine they were female before tagging, given the lack of primary sex organs at that time. Are there obvious secondary characteristics like size?

The researchers behind this recent discovery used satellite tags to follow 21 female European eels as they navigated the final phase of their incredible journey southwest from the Azores, the volcanic archipelago of the North Atlantic Ocean west of Portugal.

I'm always eager to be corrected if wrong. Such replies welcome.

Previously it was conditional, only in effect “in the event of tension or defense” (machine translation), but they are very exceptional circumstances -- AFAIK not ever invoked since unification.

The change this year was to make it applicable regardless of those conditions: “Outside the tension or defense case, §§ 3 [...]” shall apply.

This is a significant change from the previous Cold War policy. I have talked about the definition of these terms in another comment, with another news article as source.

Previously it was conditional, only in effect “in the event of tension or defense” (machine translation) which I will define below, but they are very exceptional circumstances -- AFAIK not ever invoked since unification.

The change this year was to make it applicable regardless of those conditions: “Outside the tension or defense case, §§ 3 [...]” shall apply.

"Tension" is defined by an imminent threat (e.g., invasion) and must be explicitly invoked by leadership. "Defense" is actual ongoing attack of territory, and must be explicitly invoked by the Bundestag.

I have used https://www.fr.de/politik/drastische-wehrpflicht-aenderung-m... to form my understanding. Can be read freely by prepending archive.is/newest/ to the URL.

The US state is so large, that there are different constituencies operating within it. There was certainly a group that wanted the new state to succeed. I don't disagree with much of what you said though.