trebbble

Nope.

I find myself in the utterly bizarre position (to me, anyway) of defending a megacorp against government interference because government has failed to reign in the bad behavior of the entire rest of the software market. Granted the EU's headed the right direction, but they've still not gone far enough, and the US is way behind. I hope EU citizens get what they want, but am also hoping we don't see those effects bleed over into the US market—yet, with the legal protections we have in place right now.

My preference would be that spying and hoarding data about users simply be outlawed (plus a bunch of other things, some of which Apple does, unfortunately, allow) and those laws be well-enforced—and also the walled gardens opened up, by law if necessary, but I'd much rather not see the latter without the former happening first, since the current state of things in-fact lets me choose to have some protection against that bad behavior, without significant time investment on my part. If that private regulatory service breaks down for any reason, I'll simply be worse off, as things stand.

There's competition of regulatory regimes—mandatory and strict (could be stricter, IMO) vs. optional and looser.

Absent government outlawing a bunch of the bad behavior Apple tries to curb, I like being free to have that choice to opt into their regime. When corporate dragnet spying and other hostile bullshit is outlawed and the laws are effectively enforced, sure, I'd want Apple to tear down the walls on their garden.

(please don't just post "but you wouldn't have to use alt stores!" in response—it's been done to death on here, and everywhere else, differences opinion are apparently irreconcilable and we're not likely to gain any ground here today, and Android's still kickin', so the option for that kind of environment does exist for those who want it)

Amusingly, advocacy of optional regulatory regimes enforced by corporations is usually a right-Libertarian position. Not that that's necessarily a point in its favor (see again: I'd much prefer this crap simply be illegal) but those folks do love free markets.

macOS, for that matter, despite over a decade of predictions that that'd be taken away.

They've done this since the early days of the app store. Mostly-content apps without really broad appeal have long carried a high risk of rejection.

Homescreen widgets: utterly useless, but can't get more iOS-y and less webapp-y than this, right?

This especially, but really the whole post reads like the system working as intended.

Granted (as the author notes) way too much shit gets through anyway, but that's not an excuse to do even worse. I do, as a user, wish they'd tighten up the rules a lot and improve enforcement. I'm quite sure it'd improve my experience on the store (and probably on the web—imagine how much better the Reddit site would get, probably overnight, if their app got pulled over not being well-justified).

I do think it's at least surprising that changing your email address on GitHub would cause you to lose access to places where you used GitHub 3rd party auth to login. If those schemes don't centralize management of those kinds of details to the auth provider, what's the point of them?

Damn dude(ette?). I sincerely wish you peace. I suggest we not continue this (doesn't seem like you were planning to anyway). Sorry if this exchange caused you pain.

Anecdotally, I would say that the two interests are positively correlated.

The physical sciences (and social sciences) are core pillars of the liberal arts, so... yeah, I'd hope so.

No rigour?

Show me that liberal arts types are on average more ethical than science types

Liberal arts types? Science types? More ethical?! I could pick out more but that was a fun, dense one, and anyway I don't want to engage on that level because I don't think it'd help this exchange a bit. Frustrating indeed.

Physician, et c., et c.

I'm not trying to argue, anyway—I answered one reasonable (if a touch hostile) clarifying question and have since been trying to communicate that "recite entire fields of the humanities to me" is unreasonable in this context. How would you react to my demanding proof that science is as good at getting at the truth as you seem to think it is? (incidentally, outside this for-the-sake-of-argument analogy, I do probably largely agree with you on that, so this isn't intended as an actual point of contention) If you've got the patience of a saint, maybe you point out some examples of evident successes, you explain the process—but I say that's not enough, examples of apparent successes aren't proof, and so on. At some point you probably ought to tell me to go read a damn book or take a few courses (i.e. get an education in the thing I'm dismissing but also have so many questions about). It'd be crazy to expect you to produce a philosophy of science course (at a minimum—we could, if I were obstinate, keep digging deeper forever) over HN posts.

My usual approach if a whole lot of apparently-smart-people-with-seemingly-decent-taste think something is valuable and that certain things are true about it and I don't see it is to assume I lack the necessary education and that if I want to be able to understand it and have an informed opinion on it, I need to seek out that education, and to engage with that thing a whole bunch even if it's unpleasant and seems pointless or even bad at first.

I picked that attitude up from... literature and philosophy, largely. I've found it useful. I've never gotten over that initial barrier by asking questions to which I think I already have the answers, on a web forum. Not even (hahaha) this one. In the case of the arts the usual argument for their value, as far as what convinces people, is precisely that kind of direct engagement, perhaps with some guidance from a teacher.

Practically no-one arrives at the conclusion that the arts are valuable and express truths or provide an improving education by reading some scientific paper. Yet, so very many people do reach that conclusion, plenty of them a hell of a lot smarter than me, and they keep doing it well into the scientific revolution—including tons of scientists ("science type"—smh). So the best I can write is that, if you actually want to be convinced, that's the thing to do.

What you seem to be doing instead is asking me to prove to a skeptic's satisfaction that general relativity is true, purely via slam poetry and using only the vocabulary contained in Doctor Seuss books. Be pretty fucking impressive if I pulled that off, right? Wrong tool, wrong approach, if that skeptic's actually interested in being convinced—not that such a thing couldn't be good, or even useful, if such a work existed, just as some kind of scientific examination of the value of the arts might be good and useful, but in either case I doubt it would suffice to convince anyone on its own.

But, I repeat yet again, if things are going swimmingly for you, disregarding the possibility of valuable truth or insight existing in the arts or their being improving, keep going as you are. Seriously. The arts are largely a kind of exercise in working through our collective existential confusion and trauma, and if you don't see the need for that, holy shit, that's great—or if you do see the need for it, and have genuinely sought comfort and answers and guidance across the liberal arts and found all but science wanting, well, that's too bad but is also an entirely fine place to end up.

At any rate, if you want to see if anyone has tried to address your questions from a scientific perspective, you're on the Internet. Have you gone looking for that information? (maybe you have, I really don't know—hell, I could well be communicating with a top researcher in some very-relevant, specialized discipline for all I know)

Again, feel free to disagree with and ignore the entire millenia-long traditions of the liberal arts outside math and science if you like. You may be right, and all those other people wrong. It doesn't seem like you're really trying to engage with it, though, and the answers to these "show me..." type requests are—and I'm not trying to be flippant—literally "read a book" (or, rather, lots of them—guides to which might be valuable are easy to come by) which is why I'm not trying to answer them. The attempt to address them is sometimes called the "Great Conversation" and can fill whole bookcases. But if you don't think anything's missing in your life that they might help fill in, or that it's even possible there can be any truth there because only science can provide truth, then don't. That's fine too.

Shrug. If you don't find it valuable, feel free to ignore it. Meanwhile most of your requests amount to "give me a liberal education in a Hackernews post" so are entirely ridiculous.

We don't get to see, directly, how everyone else experiences life. They might tell us, and they might do so more or less truthfully and accurately. They might struggle to communicate those things in a way we really understand. Meanwhile, we ourselves may struggle to explain our experiences and perspectives to others, or be ashamed or embarrassed about doing so.

One aim of literature and poetry is (or may be) to open up that inner world—to do a better job of expressing those experiences than most folks manage to, to do so across a breadth of experience we may not all encounter, and to make explicit and examinable things we may not ourselves think to examine, or may otherwise think shameful or private and ours alone.

Like, say, the experience of taking a drug and not feeling at all like you changed, but that the world did, as in the original example.

The practical utility of this in communication is evident in that the well-read tend to reach for episodes from literature or passages of poetry to relate difficult concepts concerning that inner life, and this practice is in fact helpful to readers who have a similar background, or, if you will, a common language (as in the section of my post that you quoted). This is seen extensively in philosophy, for example, and is so helpful in religion that even those that try to downplay literature or scripture (Buddhism, for example) tend to end up with extensive literatures regardless, because they are so useful for relating difficult, very personal ideas and experiences, even if they can only ever be the "finger that points" and never directly the thing-in-itself. For the individual per se it can help us understand ourselves, help us feel less alone, act as a kind of therapy to some degree, be one factor in working out what exactly we're doing here, what we want or ought to be doing, expand or exercise our empathy, and provide ethical and moral guideposts more effectively than any kind of "do this, don't do that" list of bullet points.

I think that's one of the most important qualities of literature and poetry—they can illuminate those "truer than science" personal-perceptual aspects of the human experience, which are hard to get at otherwise. Literature as a whole ends up providing a kind of language for our inner lives, and a map of what is human.

Seven house members. Vice President, entire Senate, and the rest of the House, told them to pound sand.

About as comparable as a housefly is to an elephant.

Evidence points to it mostly being small-scale and largely accidental (e.g. someone has two residences and forgets they voted in one place earlier in the year, votes in second place later in the year, accidentally commits voter fraud).

When people with the motivation, mandate, and access, plus often full support of an entire state government, to find as much fraud as they can, go looking for it, that's typically all they find. A handful of cases, mostly accidental, not part of a big conspiracy or effort to swing the election.

Like when Kobach, a guy who'd made his entire political identity "voter fraud is rampant and super-serious" got clearance to go on a big crusade in Kansas. 6 convictions, mostly accidental, none part of a coordinated effort, mixed R and D (IIRC the cases actually leaned R, but small sample size, so either way, not that meaningful)

Rhetoric that it's a big deal (that stupid D'Souza "documentary"), but when they have to put up or shut up (i.e. take their evidence to the courts) there's simply nothing (meaningful) there.

Yeah, I would entirely love it if I could use the same key for everything I have that takes a key. That'd be great. As it is I just don't bother with keys for, like, back doors to my house and such. They're in a drawer somewhere and never get used. I just can't enter those doors from outside, if they're locked.

One key (well, I mean, I'd want copies of it) for everything would be excellent.

Terrible analogy because I'd look at them like "damn, they've got it figured out!"

[EDIT] Thinking further, the only way this falls apart is if I want to give someone else a key to just one thing, but that's a non-issue with ssh, so the analogy is still comically backwards. "But what if someone gets ahold of one key! Same key for everything, that's access to all your stuff!" well shit man, that's about the same as getting one of them if they're all different, in most cases—where do you think I keep my extra keys? And the couple I carry, so are likely to get in someone else's hands by accident or whatever, are the "give you the kingdom" type anyway. Get my car key, you can get in my house (garage door opener). Get any house key, you can probably get in my car, plus the rest of my keys (e.g. safe) are in there because I don't carry them around all the time.

Yeah, letting someone borrow a key is the only time this might be inconvenient, and again, that's not a factor with SSH.

Clearly it contains alchemists' lost secrets to creating slimes. But is cursed to gradually turn anyone who reads it into a slime. Which at least one player will obviously try to do. There's some good motivation to complete the quest and/or make one or more players play as an intelligent slime for a while.

[EDIT] Gelatinous cubes, rather. Now I must read the Book of Shame.

Linux was my main desktop OS for about a decade. About four years of that on Gentoo, so yes, I do actually know what I'm doing, didn't just pointy-clicky install to an Ubuntu desktop and never learn how to actually use or configure it. I dropped Linux around 2012 for macOS (OSX, at the time) after I was forced to use that at work and, after about a month of getting used to it, realized what I'd been missing.

I try desktop Linux again every year or two[0]. It's always just as bad as it's always been. Way more application crashes than I'm used to on macOS, jankiness galore, all the stuff I used to avoid doing out of habit because it often breaks things on Linux (and to some extent also on Windows) but am now used to doing because it's fine on macOS is still often a bad on Linux (e.g. drag-n-drop actions). Lots of little annoyances like the default US English keyboard layout being crap for no reason on most distros, which, sure, I can change it, but why not have a good default? Still nothing as good as Preview on any platform other than macOS, AFAIK, which hurts quite a bit.

I think there was about a two-year high point in the late '00s when Ubuntu was just curating good defaults and smoothing things out and the future looked really bright, then Ubuntu rapidly deteriorated and it's back to how it had been before then, now, just shinier because of all the mostly-mediocre-or-bad GUI changes in the major DEs since then.

My next attempt, I'll probably just shoot for the holy grail of FreeBSD on the desktop. Linux seems like a lost cause at this point. May not be any better but a lot about it sure is way saner than Linux-land, so, worth a shot. Great on servers, certainly. Not expecting much because it's mostly the same as Linux in the GUI department, though.

[0] Last time: Ubuntu and Fedora (I don't like rpm-based distros, but thought I'd give them another shot), plus tried Void for the first time which was pretty great actually but I just don't enjoy fiddling with configs anymore so, it's a no for me.

It only just dawned on me reading this—Windows doesn't actually "cut" files, does it? The behavior's different from "cutting" text. The files remain until you paste, right? Mac's choice makes a ton more sense, in that case, since actually cutting files is probably a bad idea (if you forget to paste, they're gone)

Then you can select other text to paste over.

I hadn't thought about it until just now, but soundtrack music has been so terrible for the last 15-20 years that it's one area AI might genuinely be much better than what we've got now. Be hard to do worse, anyway. Studios and producers don't want to pay for good music anymore, so maybe they can get so-so AI music for cheap, and at least it'll be better than the crap they're using now.

I'm so glad the gap between "we can keep very-long-term records" and "AI now dominates content creation" is going to be large enough, even for very recent things like video games, that I'll have enough excellent "content" to last multiple lifetimes without ever having to pay attention to the AI stuff.

Boot from external media (USB disk, cd or dvd if you're kicking it old school, maybe even network) with no persistent storage (ramdisk or whatever only). Mount the hard drive. Format. Rsync the files over.

That's pretty similar to what installation media does anyway, really.

[EDIT] Oh you might need to install the bootloader too. But you can sort-of (your running kernel will still be the installation media's) do that from the rsync'd system once it's copied over, with some creative chrooting and mounting. Which, again, is something that Linux installers kinda do anyway, in ordinary operation, but you'd likely want to do it manually in this case. It's exactly what you used to do (probably still do?) installing Gentoo, even for a "stage 3" (least-painful) installation.

A non-mobile work environment, but unplug one cord and you can take the laptop part to meetings, including offsite, you can travel with it, work from the coffee shop or roof or park, keep working if there's work being done on your office (painting or whatever) so you can't be in there at the moment, if you usually work in a corporate office but WFH some days you still have the same machine, can take it to co-workers' desks to show them stuff without having to screen-share and having both workstations together at once, which can be nice in some situations. Built in UPS is sometimes handy, too—no power-offs because you kicked a cord.

I'm not arguing against desktops for people who like them but this "I don't understand laptops" stuff (several posts, not just this one) is bizarre.

It’s entertainment.

Complete disagreement here. Informative writing may serve as entertainment, but if it's done well, that's not all it is. It helps people understand the world, which can provide all kinds of benefits beyond keeping them from being bored for a few minutes.

In fact, this type of work is precisely how people learn almost everything, right up to grad school, which means it's the way the overwhelming majority of education is conducted. Most people going through that aren't doing it for entertainment. Hell, Spivak's Calculus is more on this level—presenting findings to non-experts—than it is an academic endeavor, and no one dismisses that as just being entertainment.

It may not be valuable to people who are already experts in a field, so may not be properly "academic", but this categorization of acoup (and anything like this work) as simply entertainment is going way too far.

Holy crap. The links from these couple posts incline me to believe the guy's fallen into "safe to ignore for the rest of his life" territory, whatever decent work he may have done earlier.

I don't get what's with folks getting stuff related to covid very wrong—which is fine! Practically everyone was wrong about it at one point or another!—but then doubling down on their position when it's crystal clear they were wrong, instead of owning up to it and moving on. They do it to the point of completely wrecking their reputations and making having-been-wrong-about-covid-but-being-in-denial their entire public persona, as in this case. Why? Why do that?

The bit where he was insulting the appearance of a grad student, at length, in a goddamn peer reviewed paper—I mean, damn dude, how do you not realize you're fucking up when you start heading down that path? What must be going wrong with someone for them to look back at that writing and go, "yep, nailed it, time to submit, this is definitely gonna convince people"?

Pans that aren't non-stick can be made far less sticky by not adding anything (except maybe some fat—oil, grease, lard, butter [ghee especially], et c.) until after they're hot. I think it causes phase-changing water in whatever you added to kind of push the food off the pan. You can see this in action by dripping water onto the pan—when it's hot enough, the water will ball up and kinda dance on the pan, while lightly sizzling (that's the lowest point at which it's OK to add food and it probably won't stick much—hotter and the water will sizzle aggressively and may evaporate too fast to really evaluate its behavior, of course, and for most purposes this is too hot to add food anyway, as it'll instantly burn the parts that touch first)

This makes very low-temp or delicate cooking in non-teflon pans a lot tougher, of course. Or anything for which starting from a low temp and slowly increasing is a nice thing to be able to do (tempering chocolate, for example)

[EDIT] Basically the value prop of teflon pans is that they can do just about everything at least well-enough (if not always being the best possible option) with just one type of pan, and that they are much more forgiving of lazy/untrained use or mistakes than stainless or cast iron. They can't do much that's impossible elsewhere, but it may require better technique and closer attention, and maybe having multiple types of pan, if you don't have a teflon option available. The above is one of the ways in which you have to apply some extra care and technique to avoid bad results, which can be all but totally ignored if you're using (undamaged) teflon.

Their main down-side (any health concerns aside) is that they are easily damaged by hard tools. With stainless and cast iron you can scramble your eggs with a metal fork, in a pinch, and it'll probably be entirely fine. Do that in teflon and you'll ruin the finish before long.

I've seen well-seasoned cast iron that was nonstick if you treat it the same way as stainless: get it hot before adding anything, and put quite a bit of fat (oil, butter, grease, whatever) in first.

I've not seen any that were nonstick at low temp and with no fat in it, as teflon pans are. I can cold-start eggs in a bare teflon pan with no butter or bacon fat whatsoever, and make totally fine scrambled eggs while keeping the temp very low the entire time. I've seen some extremely well-seasoned cast iron pans (and they are damn nice, and quite nonstick, compared to steel or new cast iron) but they couldn't do that. Not without leaving a mess to clean up after and losing half your eggs to sticking. You could cook eggs in them and nothing would stick, but you had to start fairly hot and add a layer of fat first.

They also leach flavors into everything, which really comes through if you cook anything delicately-flavored in them, and even well-seasoned ones are vulnerable to anything acidic and will leach a ton of unwanted flavors if you cook with e.g. tomato sauce.

I still like them for lots of things, but they're not magic. Teflon... kinda is magic.

Sounds a lot like our teams' experience with yarn a few years back when every post was like "yarn is a perfect replacement for npm, npm is now deprecated, LOL don't use it or you're an obsolete fool".

It became a running joke that any project attempting to start with yarn (we had lots of JS devs, so of course they all try the new shiny) was only going to make a it a couple weeks before they hit some baffling, misleading, hard-to-diagnose error that was entirely solved by running "npm install". Tons of npm features missing in yarn, tons of sanity checks that npm did that yarn simply omitted. Maybe it's gotten better but it's made me even more skeptical of "common wisdom" around these things.

(To be fair, it may be better now, but this was well in to the time when folks were starting to sneer at people still using npm and running around saying how much better yarn was and how there was no reason not to use it—I can only assume these folks weren't doing much with it, because it was really easy to hit those kinds of problems.)

At least in the US, house purchases are by default anonymous. The only reason I know the sellers of my house is because they put in their trust name their full legal names.

But most homeowners don't have the house in a trust. That's mostly a rich-people thing. The default is that it's your personal name(s) on the documents, including in e.g. county tax records.