robmusial

Very similar use case but even for smaller amounts. I try to be as free software as possible so USDC is my go to alternative to Venmo/Apple Pay. I would use GNU Taler if it worked with U.S. banks.

And yet I'm constantly getting asked when we'll support Windows containers at my office.

The entire library of scans on this site is great. It gives me a similar feeling as being a kid and playing around in 'The Way Things Work'[0].

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Nz1y7Sj74

I hate to see this. I bought a Sangean AM/FM/Weather radio with NOAA All Hazards alerting a little while back (I've been extremely happy with it) and as I was programming it wondered how long until either a group like DOGE, or private interest who wanted to repurpose these radio bands would cause such a wonderful service to go away. Maybe I'm naive but I'm surprised it happened in Canada before it happened here in the U.S.

It's almost as if, once you get to a certain level of power, you no longer need to try.

Correct. I think it's also a bit of a shibboleth now, like not wearing a suit. In former days the lower ranked employees wore jeans, t-shirts, hoodies, etc. and the bosses all wore suits and ties. Now it's the opposite at least in tech. If you see someone in "business" attire, you know they're middle management or sales and have no power, where if someone is in a tshirt and jeans they're probably a founder or executive. It's a flex to dress casual.

If you live in America, are banking with an American bank, and hold your investments denominated in dollars I'm not sure that just shifting your investments to other global equities would really get you the outcome you want if your goal is to hedge against this specific risk. Besides if this really is the trade war to end all trade wars, the world losing one of the largest markets (the U.S.) is going to depress the entire global economy. I assume if you're even considering VXUS you're not close to retirement so wouldn't the better strategy be to just keep adding to VOO?

Maybe not the Internet for me, but certainly the web. But I totally agree with the sentiment.

F-Droid app store. https://f-droid.org

In the Air France flight 11 [0] situation the pilots thought they were having instrument and control issues, they had to go around, and there was much panic in the cockpit. It turned out the entire thing was pilot induced and the aircraft was fine. Because of Boeing's massive failures on the minds of everyone it'll be interesting to see if this was truly an instrumentation failure or something else.

[0] https://simpleflying.com/air-france-boeing-777-serious-incid...

How could it be any easier to fork Linux?

The 914 in the picture looks like a 1970 or 1971 so since it's over 50 years old it looks like it wouldn't be inspected anymore. [0]

A lot of states in the US also require safety inspections (including North Carolina where the author teaches) but often make exceptions for antique cars.

[0] https://www.vegvesen.no/en/vehicles/own-and-maintain/eu-mand...

The tone of this article is always a bit off to me and I can never figure it out. This seems like some sort of bragging, boasting and I don't understand why that is appropriate...

...

With that said, I'm trying to understand why this article isn't met with a response like "it is extremely unethical to operate a vehicle in this condition..."

Because it's not bragging or boasting. I don't even think it's meant to be taken literally. Especially seeing that the author is an engineer and professor. It's like a car guy pastiche of folk tale/tall tale. Just like I wouldn't respond to a story of Paul Bunyan to criticize him for eating 50 pancakes a minute I don't feel the need to point out that this car sounds unsafe.

If PulseAudio, Wayland, etc are all some of the worst software then how does it keep ending up in distros like Debian? If there are better alternatives why would they willingly adopt it?

Whether this is in line with the spirit of the GPL or not is another story. But at least as I understand it, it does not violate the GPL.

I'm fairly zealous about Free Software and I don't think this is even against the spirit of the GPL.

Many of the writings and talks from RMS on gnu.org talk about how it is perfectly fine for a company to modify GPL'd software for internal use only and not be required to redistribute those changes because you're not redistributing the binaries. If it is fine for companies to do that and not be considered a bad actor violating the spirit of the GPL this seems to me to be in the same moral sentiment. At the end of the day if you have the binary you have source and all 4 freedoms associated with it and you truly control your computing.

Red Hat isn't imposing further restrictions. You are free to do with the source code whatever you wish, but the GPL nor any court can force Red Hat to give or sell you binaries in the future and thus source code in the future.

An example of an illegal restriction would be if Red Hat gave their binaries to everyone publicly but only their source to people who agreed to not redistribute it, and then if you did redistribute the source they cut you off or brought some type of legal action.

I agree. Encouraging more pork consumption when pigs are one of the more resource intensive AND emotionally aware/sentient/social animals seems like a poor decision in the light of climate change and animal cruelty.

Is there a good reason to encourage pork consumption?

No this is a red and blue thing to give themselves more power.

As a personal user of .xyz I couldn't agree more. People often get a chuckle at my web/email address when I give it out. Sometimes I have to repeat it because (especially non technical) people aren't expecting it to end in .xyz but often it works to my advantage. The repetition and uniqueness makes it memorable. Also .xyz is generic enough to be used for business and for personal sites. It's also not a ccTLD so I don't have to worry about registration restrictions.

But... Even with using a correctly configured major provider to deliver my mail, it gets sent to spam all the time. Which for personal email, fine. Most of my recipients know to check spam, and mark me as safe. But I know of at least one destination that flat out rejects my mail and if I were a business that'd be nightmare. Also on the web front a lot of proxy and filter providers just block .xyz all together.

When I purchased it I hoped Alphabet having abc.xyz would've helped with .xyz's reputation, but it hasn't. Oh well. Mine is for personal use so I'm willing to tolerate it. Businesses be warned though.

I'm not expert on YouTube's algorithms, how did getting rid of visible dislikes help improve recommendations?

I could see it having an impact on the comment section because rather than just dislike and move on people feel compelled to say what is wrong with the video, but I could also see the opposite effect where instead of just disliking and moving on now people spam the comment section with unhelpful attacks on the video/creator.

DIY videos are my primary concern on this as well. It is also why browser extensions don't help me too much because my use case is usually in the garage, half way through a project having issues, on my phone furiously trying to get a solution to the problem I'm having.

I had this exact scenario yesterday trying to remove rounded/stripped lug nuts off my wheels. It would've been very helpful to be able to see if the video I was watching had 1000 likes but 6000 dislikes to know if what I was about to do was advisable or not. Yes, I read the comments and it ended up being a simple fix with the right tools, but the like/dislike ratio is a great way to filter dangerous/dumb/unhelpful videos.

Hopefully this brings back the dislike button. Intellectually I know a change of CEO shouldn't/wouldn't impact a feature like this, but I am still annoyed at its absence and find it makes YouTube substantially less useful.

Edit: I understand the dislike button is still there, I misspoke. But for my purposes of seeing like/dislike ratio, it might as well not be there.

My wording may have confused you. When I said "in a Kubernetes environment" it probably would've been more clear to say "to deploy in a" or "for a Kubernetes environment". So I'm talking about installing things like podman or docker, awscli, tfe, jq, your editor of choice, kubectl, all the stuff you need to push to a pipeline to be deployed on k8s.

Sorry, ready to run. That acronym is jargon from the RC Car hobby.

This comment doesn't track at all. Trying to get a fresh macOS machine to include everything a new hire needs to do basic development work in a Kubernetes environment requires a bunch of Jamf intervention, brew scripts, and dot files. And even then the first week you're constantly needing them to go to their security settings to allow "untrusted" programs to run. Meanwhile someone with a bone stock Fedora Workstation install is 99% of the way there. Yes, you can bikeshed all day get lost in your custom.el, .vimrc, or window manager options, but you can do that on macOS too.

For most dev machines Fedora + vscode gives you RTR productivity while maintaining a respectable level of free-as-in-freedom.

It's interesting to me that you used Keybase as the example. My brain doing its guessing ahead thing assumed you were going to say Matrix. I've seen several popular instances of it, and run in to people actively using it at least monthly where I haven't seen anyone use Keybase in years (since the Zoom acquisition). Do you see a lot of people _actively_ using Keybase still?

and the RMS view is he sees free software as yet another constitutional right

Do you have a source for this? His writings and talks are extensive and I have not seen an instance where he makes this argument. He's said evil and not evil, moral and immoral, but I've never seen him make a constitutional argument. I've never seen him lobby to even make proprietary software illegal.

So my question is twofold: do we believe that FOSS is a right

Would this right to Free Software be absolute where our other rights are not? Let's say we made Free Software a constitutional right. What about Germany? What about Japan? Would we outlaw the use of nonfree software from those countries? Why stop at software? What about copyright and patents? Isn't in immoral to not copy and share a textbook with someone? To try to only solve this at the level of rights it ignores the sociological and economic solutions and impacts as well.

where do we draw the line between dedicating our lives to fighting for FOSS, and only using it when its completely convenient.

So to be in favor of Free Software I have to dedicate my life to it? If that's the case then I draw the line at the very beginning. I'm not dedicating my life to Free Software, or even to software for that matter. If you mean am I willing to give FOSS the first look and even ignore some of its warts to use it over proprietary software? Then I do that almost 100% of the time. Am I going to to release any software I have control over under a free license? I do that 100% of the time. I jump through A LOT of hoops to try to use as much FOSS as possible. But... I enable DRM in Firefox and install ffmpeg and nonfree codecs so I can watch streams instead of using Chrome. I use Steam on Linux and use Proton instead of just installing Windows. My life _could_ be a lot simpler if I didn't try to support FOSS as much as possible.

Also, there has been a lot of really cool and really interesting work done in FOSS since the FSF. Like I said my job is almost entirely based on and around FOSS. If you would've told me that in 1998 when I first installed Red Hat for the first time I wouldn't have believed you. I would've hoped it would've been true, but it seemed like a dream. There are so many interesting ideas around FOSS. To focus on the narrow definition and work of just the FSF is a mistake.

Do you believe in Free Software?

If we believe in things like right to repair...

immoral

When it is phrased like that (and it often is phrased like that) it sounds like a religion. Also the notion that there is no compromise to be had also seems very religious. I already have a religion and Free Software isn't it.

I support the majority of the goals of the FSF, SFC, OSI, and EFF. Some of them overlap, some I don't agree with (particularly the FSF's stance on handling nonfree firmware), and some goals of mine aren't represented by any of the above groups.

What I absolutely reject is the all or nothing approach even implicit in the question. If I buy a piece of proprietary software or hardware that does not mean I don't "believe" in Free Software or that it is a lost cause. It means I want to play video games with my friends. It means the way I put food on my family's table depends on it sometimes (although 99% of what I do is FOSS even for work).

Even in religion we make these moral distinctions of how closely we're willing to cooperate with evil in the course of our daily lives. I don't want to live the ascetic lifestyle of Richard Stallman. And to imply that I should to really consider myself a supporter of Free Software is what drives me and a few other people away from such a movement. Not to ramble about my FOSS CV, but I release software under the GPLv3, I've donated to FSF, SFC, OSI, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD just to name a few, I've spent hours tabling for the FSF at different events. Because I sometimes use proprietary software does that excommunicate me from the belief of Free Software?

This place is a message... and part of a system of messages... pay attention to it!

Sending this message was important to us. We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.

This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here.

What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us. This message is a warning about danger.

The danger is in a particular location... it increases towards a center... the center of danger is here... of a particular size and shape, and below us.

The danger is still present, in your time, as it was in ours.

The danger is to the body, and it can kill.

The form of the danger is an emanation of energy.

The danger is unleashed only if you substantially disturb this place physically. This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.

Social distancing doesn’t always and automatically mean widespread prolonged lockdown. We are dealing with a novel coronavirus right now which how it spread and testing wasn’t immediately at hand. For something like the flu that we’re quite good at testing for social distancing could be as simple as stop incentivizing employees to come to work sick, and stop incentivizing parents to send their kids to school or daycare sick.