ruthmarx

Wow, that looks really cool actually. Still a lot of work to turn it into a usable phone but what an amazing foundation.

Very true!

Using Void on my main desktop has been fun and I've learned a lot about how modern Linux systems fit together whether I liked it or not, because the instructions for using ZFS root at that time involved starting mostly from scratch.

This is why I used Slackware 20 years ago. Slackware then tried to compete with Ubuntu and Fedora and IMO lost its way.

How does Alpine compare in the day-to-day business of using a computer, do you suppose?

For day to day usage I think there are similairities, but I can share some reasons I prefer Alpine:

- Not rolling release, possible to stick to a version and just get security updates

- Focus on minimization. A minimal Alpine install is about 500mb, 700 after I install X and my WM and a few other core things. A void install was something like 1.2gb even trying to keep it minimal.

- Because Alpine, IMO is more dedicated to musl, the ports to musl have more care behind them and seem to work better, just anecdotal maybe biased experience.

- I prefer apk over xbps, one thing xbps can't do afaik is search files in packages, e.g. apk search library.h will return a result if it exists.

- I still feel void gets in the way more than it needs to. Installing or overriding a bootloader and custom kernel was easier in Alpine then void, only barely, but enough I noticed.

That's probably it.

Honestly, I have had very few issues with it. Generally for the big issues there compatibly layer packages available, e.g. you can install a musl-fts package since musl doesn't implement fts.

I think there is value in a cleaner, newer, more minimal c library. Pretty much everything just works, and for what doesn't I either compile statically in a devuan container or use a flatpak.

for containerization???

No, as my main OS on my laptop and any other computers. I had better luck and a better experience over Void and Artix, and I'm not interested in systemd based distros.

what security feature they ship???

The focus on minimization is a security feature given it reduces attack surface area. I'd say embrace musl wholeheartedly is another (as an example, Alpine sshd wasn't vulnerable to that big remote root vuln from last year). They have a general commitment to security as a priority that I don't think most distros share, which I appreciate.

It bothers me as well. I love the focus Alpine has on minimalism and security, it's been my main desktop distro for years. It's easily the best distro I've ever used.

It's convenient and fail2ban/crowdsec is generally a sufficient safeguard. Bruteforcing isn't realistic so you just have to keep an eye on vulns.

Key auth is obviously better, but password auth is not as bad as many people like to pretend.

And this is why Democrats lose.

Democrats lose due to significant ignorance in the population and successful propaganda by hostile entities. It's not an accident that the reddest states at the least educated and least literate. If you doubt that I'm happy to support the claim, but I think we both know it's true.

They are completely out of touch with what the mainstream wants.

Democrats are the only party actually offering to give the majority what they want, but due to ignorance and propaganda the majority have become emotionally hostile to the means necessary to accomplish implementing what they want.

Despite Trump's promises that gullible desperate people fell for, his policies are likely to make things much harder for hid voters and not only not give them what they want, but give them what they explicitly don't want. Well, they'll still get bigoted policies, at least.

Any other Democrat could have distanced themselves from Biden. But his own VP couldn’t.

There should have been no reason to. Trump is a rapist felon who literally advocated for injecting leach as a cure to a pandemic. That people voted for him at all shows just how bad things are.

Democracy can't function with such a gullible population. At the least I have a front row ticket to the fall of a modern empire though. That's something.

So that was there whole platform - “we aren’t Trump”?

No, but frankly if it was that should have been enough.

Do you think the population got more ignorant in 4 years?

Yes, obviously. Or at least more ignorant people decided to vote this time.

No, buddy, they're not. If two products have the same name but different ingredients, they are categorically not the same product.

You chose a bad analogy, that's all.

Except your analogy breaks as they are not the same product.

The Democrats loss fair and square.

Yes, because of how ignorant much of the population is, correlating lower grocery prices with whoever was in office at the time.

They gave people no reason to support them.

Given how bad the alternative was they were the only rational choice.

EU is always slow. They felt browser choice was an issue 0 years after it stopped being one, and then freaked out about cookies also 10 more more years later when it wasn't really an issue. Data tracking is an issue, sure. Not cookies though, not anymore.

Mexican Coke is different though. It doesn't use HFCS.

Yes, many big businesses are in fact breaking the law in this regard.

Define big business here. Coca Cola? IBM? Amazon?

The truly compliant ones are far less annoying. They all generally need only a single click to refuse consent

No, they yare still annoying. It's still something you are forced to itneract with that diverts your attention.

It's also essential to actually achieve the goal of protecting the data of people in the EU, much of which is done by companies which are based outside the EU.

The problem is it's unenforceable nonsense and has led to this foolish cookie popup situation.

If they had limited it to entities with a presence in the EU, it would have worked better. At the moment it applies to some malicious Chinese teenager who blatantly wants to collect and sell the data of Europeans who visit his self-hosted low-traffic blog.

All they would then have to do is change the website's contracting legal entity to a foreign partner or parent company and then they could refuse data subject access requests, track without consent, and so on if the jurisdiction provisions in Article 3 were as narrow as you're advocating.

They can already do that because EU has no jurisdiction outside of the EU no matter what they claim.

Also, we are basically having the same conversation in two places. If you want to consolidate your two replies into just one I would not object.

Nope, including EU big business sites as well.

Maybe some, but generally businesses are not breaking the law willy nilly like that.

There are also EU big business sites which illegally claim the legitimate interest basis for advertising and tracking purposes of data processing which have already been ruled by the courts as not acceptable justifications for the legitimate interest basis.

And did the EU follow up?

The EU is trying to protect the data of the people in the EU.

The problem is it's unenforceable nonsense and has led to this foolish cookie popup situation.

If they had limited it to entities with a presence in the EU, it would have worked better. At the moment it applies to some malicious Chinese teenager who blatantly wants to collect and sell the data of Europeans who visit his self-hosted low-traffic blog.

The truly compliant ones aren't.

Yeah, they really are. It's still something you have to interact with to make it go away.

If your response says something if companies don't track they won't need a popup, then you have missed the point.

It wasn't particularly entertaining and was well overdone.

It's at least a third watching one of Kyle MacLachlan's characters walking around with brain damage.

I liked the season after a rewatch but the Dougie stuff is still tedious.

Sure, mostly non EU or non big business sites.

The non EU sites are due to the EU trying to claim global jurisdiction.

The EU are very much to blame for the popups, because even the non dark-patterns one are annoying.

I can accept that our website visiting patterns, and maybe our specific countries of residence within the EU, expose us to different experiences in this regard. I stand by my statement as a description of my own personal experience, but I'm willing to believe your own personal experience too.

I appreciate your attempting to reconcile different anecdotal experiences. In the spirit of objectivity however, I would insist that big businesses are not breaking the law.

The free, informed consent which the letter of GDPR requires according to public and legally binding official interpretations (such as from the European Court of Justice) is not present when those dark patterns make it harder to refuse consent than to grant it.

I think here we've shifted the problem to dark patterns. The problem though is with the popups at all, because even when they are compliant, they are no less annoying, just slightly more clear.

The problem in all of these respects is primarily very weak and reluctant official enforcement of the rules by the relevant Data Protection Authorities and very low fines when they do enforce them.

They probably shouldn't have claimed global jurisdiction then. Since that's a big part of what has resulted in so many poorly done cookie banners.

I don't believe what you quoted supports your point.

It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent.

It is. You click the reject button.

I would say the most I see have accept, reject and manage preferences as buttons, normally with manage preferences being a link rather than a button. The dark pattern you describe isn't on any big business websites for example.

Out of curiosity, you mean against the spirit of the GDPR rather than the letter of it, right?

That's not true at all. Most cookie popups are compliant with GDPR - they're still annoying.

They only need to ask for permission if they want consent for the kind of invasive tracking that the GDPR and related regulations were intended to discourage anyway.

This is exactly the problem, and exactly why the EU is to blame for those popups.

Instead of outlawing a behavior they had a problem with, they are trying ti discourage it. The way they try to discourage it is why we have all these stupid popups.

Sharing AI output is pretty much the same thing as copying and pasting search results.

If anyone needs to get a grip it's you. There's no issue here. I'm dismissive of your speculation and that's reasonable since there's nothing to support it.

Nothing more to say.

I saw it come up in a discussion about linguistic prescriptionism and overcorrection, probably even on this site, and followed through to someone who had counted and analysed use in e.g. major newspapers.

If you could find that same discussion or source, it would add a lot to the discussion. Change the tide of it, in fact.

And your posts read like you don't get many wins in your life so instead of learning and improving you cling to the idea that you're objectively "right" about this so that you can feel superior.

Personal attacks like that are very much against the HN guidelines. My statement was not a personal attack, but a reasonable hypothesis as what I described is freuently observed behavior. Saying you were corrected and took issue is rather different from claiming I have never won and am entirely incapable of learning or improving. I consider this escalation an emotional response and thus an indicator, but I agree let's stop psychoanalyzing each other.

You should realize however, it's rather absurd to include a distraction in your comment to bait discussion on this point. I know you claimed your motivation was the opposite, but that's frankly hard to believe.

But, you want to say I'm incapable of learning and improving. OK. All I ask is that you support your claim that the correct use is actually the historical use and not in widespread usage.

Indeed the opposite

Not the opposite, both are incorrect variations of a valid word/term.

That's not true at all. It's intuitive to understand, less ambiguous and far more common than the incorrect usage than you prefer.

If you disagree, I would ask you to provide a source to support your assertion.

I have libertarian leanings and so would prefer a truly free market, because I would like to believe it would lead to affordable levels of health care for everyone.

Without regulation it just leads to predation.

I think some critiques of American health insurance are simplistic,

At it's core, details are not really needed to show how atrociously inequitable the system is.