calcopiritus @ calcopiritus @lemmy.world

Posts

2

Comments

755

Joined

2 yr. ago

If there's no state to protect your possession, you are the one responsible for protecting it. The moment you lose physical contact, you cannot protect it. Unless you put traps all over your house to deter an invader.

I don't see how in a stateless society you could go on vacation without the fear of your home being "stolen" when you return.

Aren't taxes and zoning non-existent under anarchy?

If there is no state, there is no one to pay taxes to. And if there is no state, there is no one to make and enforce zoning laws.

If property doesn't exist, you can't go on vacation though.

When you leave your house, someone else can just come in and take it for himself.

You couldn't even go for a walk. The moment you leave the house you stop "possessing" it.

Don't worry. I already bought the keyboard and I like it. I'm just curious if more ppl know of this brand.

I'm no keyboard enthusiast, only had 1, so I haven't really felt what's out there.

My keyboard recently broke, so I bought a "wooting". I had never heard of this brand, but I bought it since it's the only one I saw that fit all the criteria:

• Spanish layout
• Big chonky ENTER key
• 100% size
• Backlit keys
• Silent keys

The silent keys part were a disappointment, it is way louder than the previous one (had cherry MX silent keys). However, the rest is pretty nice.

It has detachable USB cable. You can choose if the cable exits from left, right or center. And the feel is pretty good.

I don't care about the analog keys. And I guess this is part of the reason of it being kinda pricey.

The wrist rest I like, even though you have to buy it separately, it feels good and is silicone. So not too hard, and it doesn't change shape under the weight of the wrist. I wish it could be physically attached to the keyboard though.

It seems to be a European brand too, which is a big plus.

Anyone else got a keyboard from this brand?

EDIT: I almost forgot. It comes with some extra key switches. And I believe they are solderless-swappable. Which is kinda nice, since the last keyboard I had to replace just because of 2-3 broken keys.

PowerShell. You can get it for both windows and Linux. And it actually works with all Ctrl+shift+arrow combinations.

Wait. Are you telling me that the American "if you can parallel park, here's your driver license" license allows you to legally drive trucks and other heavy machinery?

Being leased for their life time is called owning.

Land can be inherited like any other property.

There is private land.

Mobile firefox allows installing add-ons. Unlike mobile chrome.

Yeah who wouldn't want to be killed indiscriminately and children abducted? They got the spotlight!

It also needs like 30 minutes to load a single comment of a PR.

If I wasn't forced by my job. I would stay as far away as possible from bitbycket.

Rust doesn't have "safe" and "unsafe" modes in the sense your comment alludes to.

You can just do the little unsafe thing in a function that guarantees its safety, and then the rest of the code is safe.

For example, using C functions from rust is unsafe, but most of the time a simple wrapper can be made safe.

Example C function:

    
int arraysum(const int *array, int length) {
    int sum = 0;
    while (length > 0) {
        sum += *array;
        array++;
        length--;
   }
}

  

In rust, you can call that function safely by just wrapping it with a function that makes sure that length is always the size of array. Such as:

    
fn rust_arraysum(array: Vec<i32>) -> i32 {
    unsafe{ arraysum(array.as_ptr(), array.len() as i32)}
}


  

Even though unsafe is used, it is perfectly safe to do so. And now we can call rust_arraysum without entering "unsafe mode"

You could do similar wrappers if you want to write your embedded code. Where only a fraction of the code is potentially unsafe.

And even in unsafe blocks, you don't disable all of the rust checks.

Non profits do have corporate leeches too. The executives at Mozilla have executive salaries. That is, hundreds of thousands, or millions.

They don't work out of the goodness of their hearts. And Mozilla has to find a way to earn the income to pay their bloated salaries.

I thought gandalf was 2019 years old. But that would make him younger than legolas then.

Meanwhile game studios make profit and still lay off their employees.

The SUV was very far when the jeep entered the intersection. The SUV didn't even appear in the video when the jeep started crossing. If that SUV weren't speeding that much that was perfectly safe to cross. How can the jeep imagine that the SUV was going that fast? When it entered the intersection the SUV might have even been too far to see how fast it was really going.

And that's why lunch should be paid if it's inside the workday.

I thought teflon being long is what made it safe. It's the smaller molecules used in the process of making the long Teflon that are bad.

I learned python with it back in the day. However, since then, python 3 has come out. And I believe their python 3 course is paid instead of free.

You can go through one of their free courses. If you like it, go for a paid one, if you don't, search for other resources.

It is not propaganda as it is factual information. If you believe this is 4D chess from Google to manipulate us to dislike Firefox you are out of your mind. https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/commit/d459addab846d8144b61939b7f4310eb80c5470e this is an actual commit made by mozilla. It was not made by Google.

Changes include:

• Removing "we don't sell access to your data". Curiously this change is only for the TOU. Presumable because that is legally binding. Idk where the "else" branch is displayed though.
• Removing this question from FAQ: "Does Firefox sell your personal data? Nope. Never has, never will (...). That's a promise"
• Remove another mention in the TOU "and we don't sell your personal data". That again was not removed from the "else" branch

That to me indicates one of the following:

• They have started selling data.
• They plan on selling data in the near future.
• They don't feel confident that they can keep that promise forever. That is, they see a future where they sell data.

I don't like either of those alternatives.

I don't know if they are able to sell the data you mentioned. Because I'm not in the enshittification minds of giant American corporations. 20 years ago people would laugh at the idea of buying data about the screen size of a user. But now they do, and use it for fingerprinting. If recent history has shown anything is that most data has some kind of value. And giant corporations will find their way to use that data against users.

I've seen way too many companies that were supposed to be the cool kids and were doing everything morally enshittify. There's no reason to believe Mozilla is going to be different. They're showing the same signs.