deanCommie

A serious question for any Linux-heads here, no insult intended.

How is it possible that there are ELEVEN different possible package managers that need to be supported by an installation script like this?

I can understand that some divergences in philosophical or concrete requirements could lead to two, three, or four opinionated varieties, but ELEVEN?

Does that mean that if I want to write an app that runs on Linux I should also be seeking to support 11 package managers? Or is there something unique about tailscale that would necessitate it?

edit: Thank you for the responses so far, but noone has yet answered the core question: WHY are there eleven of them?

> Not to mention all people who ruined their lifes because of alcoholism, marijuana etc.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Are we talking about criminalizing alcohol? Should we be?

If the line is clear, please draw it. Show me which on this list what you would criminalize, which you would ban (but not criminalize), which you would regulate, and which you would allow completely unregulated.

I might actually agree with your list entirely!

But most people that call things "drugs" without nuance also include marijuana without any nuance. And either don't include alcohol for cultural/subjective reasons or DO include it, without consequence to the reality of prohibition.

No, I'm saying that the balance between "<substance is so harmful in it's effects that it's beneficial to society to eradicate it outright>" and "<substance is harmful to the individual but in a free society we have body autonomy>" is a spectrum.

On one extremes we have substances that people would pretty universally agree which of the buckets they'd put them into.

But where in the middle the balance shifts from one to the other is fairly controversial. Heroin decriminilization is controversial. Banning excessively large soda drinks is controversial.

Everyone agrees cigarettes and alcohol are harmful, and probably wouldn't be legal if they were invented today but noone seriously suggests criminalizing them.

My point with OP that treating all "drugs" so black-and-white is harmful without more nuanced discussion. Do they believe cannabis be illegal but cigarettes legal? I don't know.

The following are drugs [0]:

* Heroin

* Meth

* Crack

* Cocaine

* Cannabis

* Cigarettes

* Alcohol

* Coffee

* Sugar

There is also fat and salt which while necessary to life, are also habit-forming in the excess and negatively affect humans.

Pray tell where you would like to draw the line of which drugs you would ban for the benefit of society.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug

> A drug is any chemical substance that when consumed causes a change in an organism's physiology, including its psychology, if applicable

That's absolutely not the same situation and is irrelevant here.

Homeless people injecting heroin in bank vestibules, bleeding on the street, or smoking crack on sidewalks != middle class people smoking cannabis at home.

But Thailand is an extremely conservative country, and this decision is ultimately rooted in a moral judgement, not based on impact to the rest of society:

> “We drafted this law to prohibit the wrong usage of cannabis,” said the health minister Cholnan Srikaew, reported Reuters.

> “All recreational usage is wrong.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/10/asia/thailand-cannabis-revers...

> Obviously this didn’t work.

There are two things here to challenge.

1/ is it absolutely maybe has. Just because something was out of sight and out of mind before doesn't mean the problem was less prevalent. It all depends on the definition of the problem.

Is the problem: "There are people in poverty, in drug addiction, and they're dying?" Or is the problem "Sensible moderate tax payers have to interact with icky drug addicts in their day to day life"

The truth is because of Fentanyl both problems actually got worse. But in theory treating addiction as not a crime probably DOES save lives relative to the alternative.

But make no mistake, we're not now challenging the status quo because of problem 1 and the fentanyl epidemic. There's a backlash becaue of problem 2.

Truth is, people don't want to see visible poverty or addiction. They associate with crime and feel unsafe (even if it's illogical).

People agree that you shouldn't have to go to jail for doing heroin, but when faced with the choice of passed out heroin users in their alley regularly, or have them in jail, most are happy to find the excuse to get them out of their sight and into jail.

So 2/, the real reason decriminalization didn't work is because decriminalization isn't enough. Decriminalization is "cheap" to implement. But it's nothing without more social programs to help people get out of poverty, subsidized housing to get them off the streets, and mental health support for those that need it (a huge % of homeless addicts). But nobody - even in progressive places like Vancouver - wants to fund those enough. So, we try decriminalization, watch it fail, and then roll things back. And so the pendulum will go back and forth.

SLAs with public cloud providers don't mean what people think they mean (not saying you do, but i bet a lot of other readers do).

SLAs just mean "if you can prove that we didn't meet our SLA, we'll give you a refund, and by refund we mean some % of your bill for some duration".

It's not nothing - it's obviously $$s, and so teams get measured and have goals about improving their availability and latency.

But most customers don't seek out those refunds, and so there is no real pressure connected between the SLA and their true performance (which is often much BETTER than the SLAs, but not because of the SLAs)

Thank you for this comment, I think you're asking important questions.

First, let's acknowledge that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a terrible strategy. There are plenty of conflicts out there at every scale where neither side has the moral highground.

It is entirely possible for both sides of a conflict to be complicit of crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide.

In this particular case it is absolutely the cause of Iran (and most likely Hamas, though this one has a bit more nuance) to "wipe Israel off the map", and if they could snap their fingers and kill every jew on the planet, they would.

That doesn't make the force opposing them not themselves potentially culpable. We don't excuse the US firebombing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Tokyo, or the Soviet soldiers raping their way through Germany despite the horrors of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

ESPECIALLY if we deem one side our ally - they must be held to a higher standard than our enemy.

Second, the intent of crimes, and the success of crimes are independent. Being BAD at crimes doesn't make them not crimes. See: Trump, Donald.

Third, let's put this together. Israel is not bad Genocide. Israel is GOOD at Genocide because it knows that if it actually put all Palestinians into a Nazi-like concentration camp they would lose the support of the entire world. Which is why much as their other enemy Russia, they apply Salami Tactics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salami_slicing_tactics) to gradually erode the civil rights of palestenians (especially in the West Bank) by making their life more and more unpalatable and not care what ultimately happens to them (so long as they don't strike out back at Israel; and in some cases even if they do because that allows them to go in and dramatically overreact)

Remember, "Genocide" is not "Extermination of an entire ethnicity in a gas chamber", there are many sub-definitions of it. I'm not gonna get pedantic about it though. Israel is conducting a purposeful (via apathy/lack of care) massacre of Palestinian civilians under the guise of exterminating Hamas. That this is happening is not in dispute. The only thing that's in dispute among the mainstream is whether whether these costs to civilian lives are justified for the greater cause (much as people defend the WW2 concepts I mentioned above).

And if the entire context was "In October, Hamas struck out at Israel killing thousands of Jewish civilians, so now Hamas must be removed no matter what the cost", I could at least conceive of an intellectual argument of how many dead Palestinians is fair to take reprisal for dead Jews.

But that's not the start of this, and that's not the full context, and I hope at least everyone on hackernews reading this knows that.

Their passion and energy used to go into organizing the world's information and presenting it to google users at an unprecedented cost.

Their passion and energy now goes into designing the most comfortable super jet for their free time.

[is OP's implication, i have no idea if it's true]

Meanwhile I rented a car last week and experienced Android Auto for the first time (vs just having my phone precariously balanced somewhere in the car, and using it for navigation), and now I never want to go back or buy a car without Android Auto.

This isn't meant to be a dig of Apple vs Android - I think I would feel the same about CarPlay if i was on iOS.

I think we just value different things. As someone who wants to be able to drive, navigate with google maps, listen to a podcast, and handle incoming messages, but do it safely, these integrations are incredible.

OK that's ridiculous....

While whatever EU regulation root cause of this is likely annoying and overbearing, I personally hate the embeddings of Google Maps into Google Search results.

This is true for both maps and photos of restaurants which expand in a tiny popup rather than the full screen view you get on maps.

Because as is always the case with these kinds of product embeddings, the UX is always subtly different, and a bunch of features are missing.

If ever I search for something that I realize I'd like to view in maps instead, I click the top bar "maps" to redo the search in maps and then have a consistent view.

So at least in this particular case, i don't think it's a big loss.

To me, Zionism is more than just the belief that Jewish people are entitled to a state of their own in the Levant. Because if at this point you say that you DON'T believe that you are also saying that you don't care about what happens to the millions of them that live there now, or believe that that the displaced Palestinians themselves are entitled to some form of restitution against their oppressors.

Unfortunately we have to deal with the reality on the ground and the reality of Jewish people in the UN partition plan. Reparations must be made and expansion must be rolled back (all settlers out of west bank) but at the end of the day any future must involve either A) a state for Jewish people and a state for Palestinian people or B) A completely united state with full equality for all people.

To me Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have an inherent RIGHT to an ethnic-orientated state in the Levant based on historical (biblical) tradition. There are many ethnic groups in the world without a homeland, and the crimes against humanity against Jews in WW2 did not necessitate such a state there, if it involved displacing others, which it did.

So I'm Anti-Zionist in the sense that I am against religion-based geopolicy, I am against any inherent "greater" reason for a Jewish state. I am a humanist who believes in the right for safety and prosperity for Jewish and Palestenian people. I am not interested in any solutions where either does not grant the other's humanity or right to safety and prosperity. Beyond that they need to AGGRESSIVELY self-police one another. Palestinians need to self-police (and prosecute) the terrorists and Hamas and keep them to justice. The Israelis need to self-police (and prosecute) the west bank settlers, and reform from the bottom up the IDF.

[flagged]

While I don't want to downplay anyone's feeling of safety, in the current climate, some Jewish Zionists (A phrase i'm choosing deliberately, as a person who is Jewish, but anti-Zionist) have weaponized accusations of anti-semitism to suggest that any discussion of Palestinian statehood, support for peace in Gaza, or even the very presence of a keffiyeh are inherently anti-semitic and make them feel threatened.

This is not happening in a vacuum. It is ALSO unfortunately true that whenever the issue of Palestinian statehood becomes magnified some activists use this as an excuse to promote all sorts of classic anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists and start raging about Jewish people indiscriminately, not just the Apartheid system. (Much in the same way that some BLM protestors take things too far and start accusing all white people indiscriminately of racism).

But it is happening. Since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_keffiyeh is inherently associated with Yasser Arafat, many uneducated people innocently incorrectly assume that it is inherently a piece of terrorist paraphernalia, and as a result feel unsafe just from it's mere presence at peaceful demonstrations. Likewise, "from the river to the sea" and chants like it also imply a jewish genocide for them, and make them feel unsafe. I personally believe that particular chant is more harmful than helpful, and I likewise cringe at people wearing keffiyeh's as a means of solidarity. I don't care about what people THINK it means, it is perceived by those whose opinions they must change the most (unengaged moderates) as a symbol of terrorism for justifiable reasons. (Much like the Nazi Swastika's original hindu origins don't matter anymore in any context outside of India, sorry)

So. It's complex. It's nuanced. I don't know what happened. But I wouldn't assume that just because someone "felt threatened" by this protest that the protestors actually did anything indefensible.

Others have already touched upon the point that "vandalism" can be defined however any party wishes it to be. My 4 year old drawing in chalk on a sidewalk could be considered vandalism, if someone wanted to. In Google's case, using scotch tape to attach a sign to a door and lightly scuffing some of the paint as a result, could be considered "vandalism" for the purpose of an HR-justifiable firing. This is no different than "assault" legally being any physical contact. Tapping someone on the shoulder could be "assault" if it's deemed aggressive and unwanted. Vandalism is no different.

> people won't want AWS/GCP/Azure to slap a UI on top of their free open-source product and resell it, making tens of millions of dollars per day in the process

Then build that UI yourself and sell it and make millions of dollars per day yourself, noone is stopping them.

Ah but you see there are 2 problems: 1/ "UIs" are harder than people think, especially by those that use that term derisively like you did. There are PLENTY of popular products that are basically just UI on existing data.

2/ AWS/GCP/Azure aren't slapping UIs. They're offering "managed operations" for these products. What is it? And sure, Hackernews is likely to scoff at that - we know how this site feels about dropbox -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

But if it didn't offer value, people wouldn't pay for it. Redis engineers are good at building a key value storage. AWS/GCP/Azure engineers are good at building managed operations. Combine them together and you've got the best of both worlds.

AWS/GCP/Azure aren't making money off Redis, they're making money off their experience in operating cloud infrastructure. And the free market wants to pay them to do so.

I absolutely adored The Curse of Monkey Island, and still do, having gone back and finished it 3 or 4 times.

It was my first encounter with the series and even after the remastered versions I couldn't go back and get into the first 2 because they simply felt less developed, less funny, and less interesting. I know those that have started with them would think that's a travesty, but here we are.

If Winamp lived it would've HAD to become first a music store, and then a streaming service.

And we'd be getting articles about how Winamp "used" to be simple, but is now "bloated", and all the internet greybeard nerds (hi, it's me) would be talking about how they just want to play the tens of thousands of local MP3s they have not pay for a subscription to stream from the web, which is why they're "still on Winamp 5".

So, while I do think there's an alternate future where "Winamp" became as big and as ubiquitous as iTunes or Spotify, or both combined, I don't think there's a future where it does any better than those and there is no 2024 (or 2017) nostalgia for what it once was.

Another commenter said: "I really liked the Art of Computer Programming with regards to this subject. While seemingly obsolete, there are a ton of pre-heap / pre-stack algorithms for dynamically changing arrays or other data structures."

I wonder what programming techniques exist today that will be obsolete in 30 years? I imagine Transformers made a bunch of early ML algorithms completely obsolete?

What else?

Not sure why FFmpeg is milking karma here. The very next comment on the thread shows that the library introduced a breaking change by changing a default behaviour, which can be restored with a new flag:

> Use -data_field first as decoder option in CLI. Default value was changed from first to auto in latest FFmpeg version. Or modify AVOption of same name in API for this decoder.

Which seems to have solved the problem.

I have no reason to believe that the writer of the tweet is lying, but I also don't see evidence in this linked thread that Microsoft offered a one-time payment. I do agree that demanding urgent support requires you to be paying a long term support contract.

And I also think the Microsoft Engineer completely blew this interaction by name dropping his company. The bug is a bug whether it affects Microsoft or Joe Blow of Illinois. There should be no reason to expect that the bug is High Priority because it's affecting Microsoft.

However I also think it's possible to see that the bug is high priority despite affecting Microsoft.

> (in my opinion, it will be quite hard for them to achieve <100ms startup time with their current architecture).

Who's running python workloads with sub-100ms latency requirements?

> By contrast AWS takes most of the profits whilst contributing relatively nothing back

You do understand that AWS profits not off redis but by offering redis as a managed hosting provider.

Microsoft and Google do to, it's just that they're not as popular as AWS.

They're not re-skinning or re-selling Redis, they're selling a separate product - the managed operations for operating and scaling Redis.

You may not appreciate this (most on HN never do - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224) But the value is evident to thousands of customers.

Let's be clear, "you are holding it wrong" was an ass-covering lie to carry Apple through an era of bad press for a device that was otherwise monumental, and when you look back at iPhone adoption history. 4 was the inflection point of growth that never stopped. 3, 3G, and 3GS were all fine, but 4 is when iPhone took over the world.

It was bold-faced, it was arrogant, it wasn't true, but it let them fix the issues and never look back.

The product was otherwise good save a frustrating flaw that was easy to fix, but probably wouldn't have ushered in the era of dominance if they had to do a total recall.

Would I have been happy if I was an iPhone user at the time? No, I would've been livid.

OK, but my point is I'm guessing that you CAN set those with MS365, whereas you can't set them AT ALL with the other options.

So it's not really fair to criticize M365 for having an obscure difficult way to configure something that isn't configurable at all through the others, right?

> Google Workspace (do I need to say more?)

Yes, I think you do?

> Microsoft Office (feels like ancient software if you scratch too deep - some settings require remote PowerShell!)

Strange criticism. Can you name a setting in Microsoft Office that you are finding yourself modifying through Remote Powershell that is available in another means in Google Workspace, Zoho, or Zoom's mail capability?

So, no.

He also has a car review channel: https://www.youtube.com/@AutoFocus/videos

This is cool and an awesome tech demo and probably a great recruting technique, but...

Is it actually practically/meaningfully more "Secure" than the standard PseudoRandom approaches that everyone relies on today?

Short of "Nation States sharing secrets of alien technology", is this actually significant to any customer's practical applications?

Good callout with Google+

Google+ was in every measurable way better than Facebook. It was cleaner, faster, and had features that people claimed they wanted (to be able to have full control over which CIRCLES they share different info with)

And it completely busted because adoption of a social network is impossible without critical mass.

At the time it was because people didn't have a strong enough reason to leave Facebook.

Today it's because they wouldn't have a strong enough reason to leave TikTok/Instagram/Whatsapp/etc.

Yeah this is super confusing revisionist history.

Even The Social Network had a scene where a young Dakota Johnson was telling to Sean Parker about how addicted she was to Facebook.

Facebook was absolutely as addictive to young tech-savvy consumers at the time, as TikTok is today.

The only difference is this was pre-mobile. So they were doing it from their laptops, not from their phones wherever they were.

source: i was there, i was one of them.