gnull

> IPC, memory management, process management, network management.

I imagine the non-trivial parts of these are done for the JS VM (correct me if I'm wrong), and therefore a VM design course would have more intersection with Browsers with respect to these disciplines than an OS course.

> security

This one is everywhere, it has no special connection to OSes.

> They all happen at a slightly higher layer

Slightly?! That's an understatement of the week! The difference in abstraction levels is huge here and the specifics of the two levels are very, very different.

> in terms of what you need to know, an OS class or three is definitely helpful

Sure. But I think it's as useful as any systems programming course. I can agree that systems programming is a good preliminary for both Browsers and OSes, and learning either of the two will teach you a good deal about systems programming, but I doubt they will repeat each other.

Looking at the book's table of contents, I disagree. Browsers may resemble OSes by the size of the code base or by the amount of optimization involved, or by their importance for the modern world, but not by the types of technologies involved. I doubt the Browsers course will intersect a lot with OSes course.

EDIT: Reading you comment again I suspect you might have been joking :)

I just reinstalled my FP2 with LineageOS and microG after reading your post.

> Why is the discourse centered around one specific Californian policy?

The same person calls it “universally accepted corporate values” in one of the previous comments.

I guess it's Americans again ignoring the existence of other places on Earth with their cultures and views on things?

Being unable to see the whole (sub-)tree while reading the comments is a major disadvantage for me so far. If you read a thread that goes like a dialog with each new reply being nested under the previous one, this web app requires a key press to see each new reply — you never see them simultaneously.

But this app is an interesting take. I'm also not happy with unnecessarily mouse-driven interfaces

I always found it hard to understand what are the ultimate generic principles that drive people with the attitude that you demonstrate (which is even more surprising given that so many people around me also do that).

Why should the percentage of women in parliament be related in any way to their percentage in the population? Why don't we apply the same reasoning to all the other properties which can be used to divide people into groups (e.g. right- vs. left-handed people, gamers vs. book readers, engineers vs. lawyers, meat-eaters vs. vegans). When there's literally an infinity of possibilities, what makes women vs. men so special?

Why does your notion of representation require sharing traits with the elected person? If I took part in the elections (and I believe they were honest and not rigged in any way) then the person who wins represents me in the sense that this person is now legally authorized to make the decisions (limited by the laws) on my behalf.

As some others noted here, since women voted on elections before, how can one claim the elected people did not represent them?

You seem to be having a different idea of representation. What is it and why should it matter? This is an honest question, not trolling or anything.

> When it comes to free-range cattle, nothing could be more energy efficient for making meat.

It's also far less cruel than more sensitive people here imagine it to be.

Animals die in the end, true, but eventually everyone dies. They live a decent life, walk in the pastures, play with their kin, get treated if injured. This is better than life of animals in the wild by a huge margin. Some of them also get to have a long life; many cows that are used for milk usually are not slaughtered until they get old.

Factory farmed meat is fucking genocide and should be banned forever.

Please back the numbers up with data.

You really don't see the difference between eliminating all the candidates (and all popular candidates) and eliminating one candidate per district?

Smart Voting™ creates these popular candidates in the districts where all competitors of Putin's guy are more or less equally popular. Knowing whom they will make popular is an advantage for Putin, don't you agree?

I have a feeling you're arguing out of stubbornness. My original point was that announcing the Smart Voting lists in the last moment can be useful, I think gave some good reasons for it.

It's not true. I checked and I see plenty of Yabloko candidates being suggested

There is no dichotomy here.

If you know the candidates beforehand, you can bully them before the election, see who wins nevertheless, and bully those again.

> to have all 225 “recommended” candidates withdraw?

Having some of them withdraw is also useful, it's a numbers game.

Don't they need to announce a concrete Communist to vote for? Last time I checked the number of Communists in Russia was strictly greater than one.

But that won't prevent the person from being elected. Doing it after comes with many drawbacks.

This ensures Putin's government won't have enough time to subvert the recommended candidates in some way.

I think if you try to come up with a better notation for mathematics, you will see how hard it is and appreciate the one we have more :)

For example, the issues you list here, how would you solve them if you could rewrite the notation from scratch?

What's always difficult when trying out projects like this one is that none of my friends are willing to join it with me, so I have to either talk to myself or to strangers. And this weakens the feeling of engagement for me.

I used Wireguard clients by default and didn't even know Mullvad has a dedicated client!

Has it ever been different?

> Number one there absolutely is extensive research on gaming and its potential physiological ramifications.

The parent comment suggested there isn't, and the reply I gave was modulo this assumption. If you say there is extensive research, give it to the parent comment.

> by your logic you could justify restricting anything in the entire universe by stating that there isn't sufficient research

You do a strawman argument here, your interpretation of my argument is self-servingly absurd.

The parent comment wanted to discard one of the alternatives because there's too little research. I objected saying that if there's not enough research, this makes the two alternatives equally favorable (not that it strengthens the other alternative!).

Does this mean its outcome is inherently better and it should be the default decision? I find this super questionable, especially when we talk about children.

If there is no extensive research on gaming, it doesn't mean gaming should not be limited. Since we don't know how harmful gaming is, keeping it widely available might be as dangerous as limiting it.

Keeping games available is as much of a decision as limiting them. Why do you think picking the former option requires extensive research and the latter doesn't?

Is there any reason to prefer Darktile over Alacritty?

Deadliness is important here, not contagiousness. Both covid and alcoholism are deadly; and scientific consensus says both can be stopped if we abstain from some small things we enjoy

Being able to manage the frustration could be one such skill. And also being ready to fix things instead of assuming that employer must set up a perfectly working environment for you.

I bet smaller/poorer companies may want programmers who are ready to fix tooling when it (inevitably) breaks

Dependency management is usually not a big part of programmer workflow (unless you are a devops or something). Download dependencies and docs, go offline, write code.

People who try working offline are exactly the people who want to do it without Stackoverflow.

Some people literally disconnect the cable to get rid of all the online distractions. I've seen this mentioned in a few threads on procrastination here. It's sad some tools will not let you do that anymore.

I was thinking of something like, "Real hackers are 1% of *". This is how Eric Raymond puts it in his How to Become a Hacker.

Agreed. Also, Turing completeness and expressing computations from one domain in another are relatively basic CS concepts. In some Computability courses it would be a mere homework problem.

It has been disappointing for me that lots of people who call themselves hackers (like amateur Capture-The-Flag players or security people) are doing something rather basic for Theoretical Computer Science. Go to a security conference you will find tons of them.

Real hackers are 1% of security professionals and hardcore mathematicians, writers, physicists — look at Richard Feynman. Compexity theorists, for example, literally touch the essence of what computation is.

EDIT: expanded abbreviations

How much effort would it take to run LineageOS on it? Looks like it could be the fastest way to get it usable for everyday tasks.

Is there a possibility to install more exotic peripherals like 4g modem (or a smartcard slot)? I don't see them mentioned anywhere, but I'd expect a hackable laptop to have these.