The Soviets tried something similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Znamya_(satellite)

Fixed

Car engines, for probably the past 100 years, have always been advertised based on their peak power rating, not what they can produce continuously. Cars are not designed to have their accelerator pedals floored for hours on end, nor is this even possible to do, as you’d eventually hit a curve and need to slow down.

This is especially the case for high performance vehicles, which usually have more demanding maintenance requirements just from normal operation, let alone from being abused like that.

I thought you were talking about just opening the drive to use it from the file browser.

I do actually have a drive I use for automated backups, but I just used the GUI to change the automount setting:

I guess that’s a little bit inconvenient, but its like 3 clicks, adding a step to something I had to do to set up some other software. Its not any more complicated than disabling sticky keys in Windows.

Except we’re not comparing it to disabling sticky keys, we’re comparing it to needing needing to follow an entire page’s worth of instructions, pressing secret key combinations and entering commands into the terminal, just so you can use your computer without it phoning home to the mothership. And that’s on top of the fact that the instructions are probably going to be different in a year since microsoft is deliberately fucking with you.

I just click on it and it mounts and opens

This is Linux Mint btw

I just plugged in an old drive to make sure I’m not going crazy, and I didn’t do anything besides hit the power button, log in, and open the file explorer:

And its right there.

I, too, have wished to be able to easily embed prolog, or at least its reduced non-turing-complete version, datalog, into a less declarative language.

Also, I think integration with answer set programming for static code analysis could be useful. This is sort of a mid-way point between test driven development and something like the type level programming in languages such as Haskell or semi-automated theorem proving in languages like Coq.

It’s a tool, useful in some contexts and not useful in others.

In my opinion this is a thought terminating cliche in programming and the IT industry in general. It can be, and is, said in response to any sentiment about any thing.

Now, saying what sort of context you think something should or should not be used in, and what qualities of that thing make it desirable/undesirable in that context, could lead to fruitful discussion. But just “use the right tool for the right job” doesn’t contribute anything.

Yep, instead of a single address you should be able to issue keys that let people message you, and when you receive a message you should be able to see what key was used to send it.

And of course you should be able to revoke keys (tell your mail server to no longer accept messages signed with it).

I was trying to resolve the ambiguity between “this account” (which is indeed an object) and “the people here”.

I try not to misgender, so I have edited it to “they”. Not because I respect anything an advertiser says though.

Everyone arguing with this account needs to realize that they might as well be talking to an LLM. Look at how advertisers think:

https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell-021109.pdf

Just like an LLM can’t distinguish between truth and fiction they can’t distinguish between meaningful information and advertising BS. The people here will never win their argument against them because they classify all human communication as an act of manipulation, so the definition of advertising will be made more and more broad until they say “look, you were swayed”.

You joke, but it has been successfully argued in court that advertisers can lie to you because no reasonable person would believe that advertisements are truthful.

I agree with you then, you can’t make a good webpage if your boss tells you to fill it with garbage.

If your motivation is to see old html pages, with minimal style, well it’s impossible to do them reliably.

Not only should your site be legible without JS, it should be legible without CSS, and infact without rendering the effects of the HTML tags (plain text after striping the tags).

At one point in time this was the standard, that each layer was an enhancement on top of the one below it. Its seems that web devs now cannot even imagine writing a news article or a blog post like, something that has the entirety of its content contained within its text. A plain .txt file renders “reliably” on anything. You are the one adding extra complexity in there and then complaining that you’re forced to add even more to deal with the consequences of your actions.

“Fine” might be overselling it a little bit.

I would say its ‘comprehensible’ if you’ve read the book, but its still not great.

This is an idea from the 1960s back when they thought solar panels would be like computer chips and remain super expensive in terms of area but become exponentially better at the amount of sunlight they could convert into electricity.

It makes absolutely zero sense to spend billions of dollars putting solar panels in space and beaming the power back to earth now that they are so cheap per unit area. The one thing you could argue a space based solar array could do would be to stretch out the day length so you need less storage, but that’s easier to accomplish using long electrical cables.

I’m not a hunter, I’ve never shot a dear and I don’t think I ever will. I do go hiking though.

Let’s say it comes across as “grey” for argument’s sake. But they CAN apparently distinguish all the shades of green and brown and that is why you are dressed like John Duty. Which means… they have a giant blob of “grey” moving around? Pretty sure that would stick out…

When you hear the term “red-green color blindness”, do you think that red and green appear grey to those people while they can still see orange, yellow, and blue the same as everyone else? And that they go through their lives with these super high contrast grey objects everywhere?

That’s not how eyes work. Color blindness means an inability to distinguish between shades of colors, not that they have some sort of selective filters that block those colors out, turn objects of that color invisible, or convert them to grey.

Homie. Go spend even twenty minutes walking around a park in a mountain town. Deer don’t give a fuck.

You think this because you live in a suburb where people feed them, “in a park”, or “bordering a forested area”. No unconditioned wild animal in the world, except maybe things that live on tiny islands with no predators, is chill with an unknown human sized animal standing next to it.

When I hike I sometimes see deer as close as a hundred feet or so away, but if one started walking towards me I would consider that behavior so far out of the ken that I might think it has rabies or wasting disease.

Understand that I’m not even arguing that shooting a deer is some sort of crazy achievement.

So did they take the firefighter out afterwards and shoot him as part of the staging?

However, this fuckin’ half-in/half-out state has become the engine of a manifold of security issues, primarily bc nobody but nerds or industry specialists knows that much about it yet. That has led to rushed, busy, or just plain lazy devs and engineers to either keep IPv6 sockets listening, unguarded, or to just block them outright and redirect traffic to IPv4 anyway.

Its kind of interesting to me how conservative the IT industry is with stuff like this.

The industry loves to say “move fast and break things” or “innovate and disrupt”, but that generally only applies to things that can be shat out in a two week long Python project (or shat out in 2 weeks after publicly funded universities spent years figuring out the algorithm for you). For anything foundational, like CPU architecture, operating systems, or the basic assumptions about how UI should work, they’re terrified of change.

I understand your frustration and I apologize for reading into your comments something you didn’t mean. I, too, wish people would say what they mean and mean what they say, and that when you say something its taken to mean what you said.

Unfortunately very often people will make a very reasonable (even factually true) point as a preamble to support something very unreasonable. If you agree with the reasonable point the person will then act like you agree with the unreasonable one. This is not only more time consuming and tiring to argue against, it also lends a great deal more credibility to the unreasonable point than it is really owed. To the uninformed reader to looks like the two sides of the argument partially agree, when nothing could be further from the truth. Its immensely frustrating to have your words used against you like this, so many people try and preempt it by jumping straight to (what they assume to be) the unreasonable point and arguing against it directly.

This is toxic for actual discussion. It means that good faith actors have to add all sorts of qualifications and clarifications about where they stand before they say anything about anything, which is tiring in itself. But its the world that we live in. If someone makes an unqualified comment about the CO2 emissions of volcanoes in a thread about anthropogenic climate change people are going to assume that they don’t think climate change is real. And, operating that way, those people will be right more often than they’re wrong.