cmhe @ cmhe @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

435

Joined

2 yr. ago

If it would run a open source firmware or be open source hardware, it would be nice. But they are using a non-OSI/non-FSF license, so it is not open source.

I would argue that it depends a lot on what kind of beginner you have. If you have someone that only uses basic desktop PC functions, like browser, email and maybe stuff like video, photos and documents. You can set it up once, and then have a system that updates itself reliably and has minimal maintenance overhead and isn't easy to break.

In my experience that system is more robust and gets updated than a generic Debian system.

Of course there are downsides, and those include issues caused by apps running inside flatpak, like system themes are disrespected, opening files in one app, doesn't respect the xdg-mime settings for the file type and open them in unexpected apps, printer does not work... But those are just bugs, and they need to get reported and fixed.

Hmm... I am using git for maybe 15 years... Maybe I'm just too familiar with it... and have forgotten my initial struggles... To me using git comes natural... And I normally pay a lot of attention to every single commit, since I started working on patches for the Linux kernel. I often rebase and reorder commits many times, before pushing/merging them into a branch where continuity matters.

Sure, I sometimes messed up with git, but a git reset , checkout, rebase or filter-branch (In the extreme cases) normally fixes it, but real issues are very rare. And I use git a lot... But only the CLI, maybe people have issues with GUIs?

Isn't it the exact opposite?

I learned that you can never make a mistake if you aren't using git, or any other way for having access to old versions.

With git it is really easy to get back to an old version, or bisect commits to figure out what exact change was the mistake.

The only way I understand this joke is more about not wanting to be caught making a mistake, because that is pretty easy. In other methods figuring out who did the mistake might be impossible.

I think humanity is really slowly being replaced by LLMs.

Presentation and simple, but stupid and wrong ideas, are preferred over actually researching and understanding situations, isolating the underlying issues and working on ways to resolve or at least lessen them.

Just like LLMs, fewer and fewer people seems to care about a deeper understanding, and more about if the stream of words look 'good'.

Maybe, but in the Kimmel case there could have been other reasons too. Like Hollywood people not wanting to make business with a company that would just cancel contacts when they have opinions on public. Disney needs those people, arguable more than subscribers.

IMO, consumer boycotts don't really work in general, here it might have worked, but it is also possible it worked for other reasons.

So game mechanics in DLCs cannot be patented, because they are just mods?

A mod isn't a standalone game, sure. It requires the base game to have meaning. Unitl it gets spinned off and becomes a "real" (standalone) game.

Many standalone games are nothing without the game engine, which many developers have bought/licensed.

In this case the "standalone game" can be considered the game engine, which allows the modder to create their own game, within the limits of that engine.

From the point of the player, they need to pay for the game engine and the game/mod in any case, either by paying with one transaction, or, incase of payed mods, in two.

To play a specific DLC, you also have to pay twice. And I am pretty sure that Nintendo will argue that game mechanics in DLCs developed by them can be patented as well...

What I mean is Nintendos argument hat mods aren't 'real games' is flawed...

I did read that. And how much of it was distributed, it doesn't say.

In every article on records about of food preparation, they never say how much of it is eaten and how much of it is thrown away.

I would necessitate that all or a large percentage of it needs to be eaten for the record to count.

Maybe you are scarcastic, but I think nobody should be afraid of their life by getting killed by random people.

They should be afraid of the people, but not of individuals with guns or money to hire contract killers.

Kirk's death was a public assassination. There are many easier for ways someone can kill an unsuspecting target. The way the killer escaped makes it likely they where professional or otherwise trained, not just crazy. The killer choose a difficult and public way to kill him, meaning it is more then just about killing Krik. It is clearly a message, question is what message and to whom.

TBH, I could imagine Mark Shuttleworth being there.

He is one of the first, if not the first space tourist.

The DMCA takedowns work like that, AFAIK.

Like if two people happens to draw the same exact map, then what? Who gets to sue who? First come first serve? Literally does not make sense.

In many cases intention matters. Two people can take the same picture and that would be fine, but if the intention was to copy someone's work, then this is bad.

Also, in this case often the person accused of copying someone, needs to proof that they didn't, which inverts the burden of proof. Copyright as it works right now, serves more the wealthy then the little men, as it is with so many laws under the current system.

Copyright itself needs to be reorganized fundamentally.

Would say that it is the same here as it elsewhere, we need a strong counter narrative and a charismatic person that is fronted by a leading party that manages to deliver that, while cutting through all the bullshit spewed by the demagoguery of the right. We need fighters, not 'civility' politics against people that are anti-democratic.

We need better social policies and actually mean them. Those were what people wanted and often still want when they are baited by the right.

Right wing mention actual social issues, but "resolve" them with xenophobic "solutions", while also fabricating issues out of thin air, like immigrant crime, etc. Which suddenly all other parties think they need to address as well.

Schon, aber man sollte auch irgendwas gegen diese Kiddies und andere Spinner tun, die an Schulen vorbeirasen.

Finde es auch irgendwie interessant das "Beschützen von Kindern" als Grund genommen wird um Verschlüsselung zu verbieten und damit direkt die Demokratie anzugreifen, aber das Gleichzeitig nicht für die Verkehrswende genutzt werden kann, wegen dem zu erwartendem Gegenwind.

Sollte es nicht ein Fahrverbot sein? Stehende Autos überfahren ja keine Kinder.

I don't see the contradiction... If a man explains something to another person in a condescending and nitpicky way, it is called mansplaining. But it becomes blurry if the man explains it not to one other person, which can be assumed already possesses that knowledge, but a group where some people might find that comment not useless or condescending, were it could be a correction or clarification instead.

Astronaut explains excitedly about her experience of the day, with a joke and some not completely factual information while addressing the general public. The 'water spontaneously boils' is not a scientific description but a way to make people interested in learning more about the science behind it.

Here are two perspectives this could be seen as:

1. Man notices that and addresses the Astronaut, explaining to her something that she already knows, in order to raise his own status, through condescending and nitpicking. -> mansplaining
2. Man notices that, assumes the Astronaut knows, but wants to give more information/clarification to the public about this why that happens. -> not mansplaining

From the wording of that exchange, I would think it rather is addressed to the astronaut, so case 1. But this is open to interpretation.