hooby

Villeneuve did pay some small homage to Lynch - just as he did to Jodorowsky. But nothing substantial.

The bigger parallels are all things taken straight from the book. So, in cases were both Lynch and Villeneuve closely followed the book, they end up with similar results.

The eyes are one example of this - they are described as entirely blue ("blue-within-blue") in the book, and that's why both movies (as well as the TV-series) did blue scleras. That part is just book-accurate.

The book also described the blue as being increasingly dark the stronger the spice saturation - to the point of getting almost entirely black. The reason nobody ever was accurate to that detail, is down to black eyes feeling uncanny and scary. Eyes like that would weird out viewers, and not allow them to connect with the characters.

You know that no one but Jodorowsky could possibly do that. ;)

No, the post links to the offical trailer posted by Warner Brother Pictures, that runs for 2:24, and shows only new scenes.

Your link shows a fan made trailer, that runs a bit longer, but contains mostly scenes from the first movie, and from the teaser trailer (which is only 0:46).

> “For information on this, please see this blog post about Microsoft’s approach to app pinning and app defaults in Windows. Microsoft has nothing further to share,” said Miranda Davis, a Microsoft spokesperson. The post describes the company’s “long-standing approach to put people in control of their Windows PC experience.”

There's a little typo in there. They wrote in - but what they actually meant was under our.

Common mistake. The keys are right next to each other.

When my Mojang account was forcibly transferred over to a Microsoft account, I suddenly no longer owned Minecraft.

And since I no longer had access to the email account I had used for the original purchase nine years prior, Microsoft support outright refused to even talk to me, unless I prove ownership beyond all doubt.

That I owned the email address currently linked to the account, and had played the game just a week before, and that I knew the security questions/answers wasn't proof enough for them. And yes I really KNEW all the security answers - as those were stored in my keepass.

They treated me like a criminal, and I never learned whether the game disappeared by accident, or if they removed it intentionally because some algorithm thought I got it illegitimately...

As far as I personally am concerned, they already did ruin Minecraft.

@nonethewiser > But the original comment said Youtube can replace school.

Are you sure, that's what the original comment said?

I interpret the quote you posted as "they can already know everything about their passion when they leave school", which would mean that YT is not a replacement for school - but an addition to it.

> Are other devices allowed on the network though?

By default yes - but I can switch that to only allowing devices I whitelisted through the web interface. It's not full admin rights - but for my purpose it's sufficient.

> If your want to rent your modem, that's your perogative. But I don't want to rent my modem. And AT&T being a convicted monopolist set precedent that means they actually are not allowed to stop me from using my own hardware. And if I'm using my own hardware, I don't need to rent their modem, which means I don't need to pay their modem rental fee.

I agree that "bring your own modem" should be fully allowed (and obviously free of any rental fee - not that I'm paying any, the modem/router comes pretty much free with the contract).

No, the second is perfectly fine.

I pay a monthly fee for internet - and that's the admission fee I have to pay to access the service. And I get sent a modem/router - a piece of hardware - that I don't own, but that's only being lent to me.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Is it though?

Looking at Linux and all the devices it powers (including most of the internet infrastructure) - it would seem that it is possible to do pretty good security on very open software that's as separate from the hardware as can be.

I agree. Anyone should be allowed to repair, tinker with and modify anything they own - at their own risk.

When it comes to software, that's only possible to do with open source. With closed source you're only ever buying a perpetual usage license. (Unless you are a company buying out another company or it's assets, that is).

It's complicated, because software and digital data is inherently different from physical goods - and all those concepts of "selling" a "copy" are just rather ramshackle attempts at making digital goods compatible with laws designed for physical goods.

A bit of both, I guess?

The whole thing was a test. The ship and rocket themselves would always have been scrapped afterwards, and the goal of the whole endeavor was to get back as much data as possible.

They succeeded in launching the rocket, having it take off and reach max-Q and got valuable data on all that. That's the successful part. They also learnt some hard lessons on launch pad construction.

Then the ship failed and the test was aborted - and they never got to test stage separation, which they had planned to do as well. That's the unsuccessful part.

So, did they get the data they wanted? Not all they wanted - but an important chunk of it.

I think the central question here is:

.) whether you buy a phone as a piece of hardware and then own that hardware - which gives you certain rights regarding the usage of that owned hardware

or

.) whether you are just paying some sort of admission fee to a tightly controlled service, and are basically "lent" a piece of hardware that you have no ownership rights over.

All the other stuff about walled gardens, monopolies and security is related - but still acts as a red herring when discussing what rights a person should get for a piece of hardware they bought.

> There's been a long observed tradition that every other version of Windows is trash. 3.1, 98, XP, 7, 10 were good^, 95, ME, Vista, 8 and now 11 are trash.

What about Windows 2000?

What you are saying was true at some point in the past - but Linux has come a very long way since then, and the system UIs of many distributions these days are pretty slick, and do offer graphical settings windows for everything a non tech-savvy user ever needs.

Ask my 80 y.o., non-tech-savvy dad, who after struggling with Windows for years, is really happy with his Laptop running on Linux now. The amount of calls I get from him needing help with his machine has gone down to a fraction of what it was before.

Will do. Thanks for the tip! Can't imagine it is able to update your kernel though ;)

But the package manger is just one single example. There's many such things... I'm just too lazy to work out a whole list.

But I'll give you one more example:

When I run into an error message on Linux, I often get some cryptic error message - and when I google that, most times I come across an explanation and solution to exactly my problem. The instructions often involve bash commands - not very beginner friendly - but when going through the explanations you actually learn something and understand your system better.

When I run into an error message on Windows it's most often of the "An Error occurred" variety, which are an absolute nightmare to google (mostly leading to "fix-your-pc" software scams). And when I finally manage to figure out the right question to google (which requires you to be tech-savvy) - I get step-by-step instructions with screenshots that just don't match my version of Windows... and since the instructions don't contain an explanation, I learn nothing. And the good instructions that actually work... those often again require the use of power shell!

But thanks for mentioning chocolatey!

> but no matter how much I love it, Linux is janky.

To be honest though, so is Windows (in certain aspects).

I believe that someone who works with Linux every day, gets used to certain stuff being janky and no longer notices it - just like someon working with Windows every day gets used to the jank found there, and no longer notices it.

It's only when you are used to one system and switch over to the other, that you notice the jank - because it's a degradation from your normal experience.

I've been using Mint for years now (and a few years of Ubuntu before that, and a single year of OSX before that, and many years of Windows before that). Despite still having a Windows PC for gaming which I use regularly - I've grown accustomed to Linux enough, that trying to use Windows professionally causes me pain.

For example: I'm so used to package managers these days, that the practice of installing software by going to a website, downloading a downloader which downloads an installer that installs an updater... all the while having to agree to various long and complicated EULAs and T&Cs, and also having to take care that no unwanted "bundled" software comes along... these days this seems just utterly absurd to me - but back when I was a Windows user, this was just normal - and having to do `sudo apt install the-thing-I-want` instead, would have seemed completely arcane and stupid to me.

Well they are suing for multiple things, including commercial use of the filmed material. But that's not the "invasion of privacy" part.

I'm not American, so maybe there's something I don't know about here... but cops sue for "invasion of privacy" for being filmed?

Aren't they persons in public practice, while on duty? How can official police work be "private"? A police officer on duty is a public figure. Of course they should get full privacy off duty... but while on the job shouldn't there be transparency about what they do?

Obviously, if you are doing performance-critical code in a performance-critical application, you will be doing stuff like inlining and other things that "break" clean-code "rules".

I put that into quotes, because to me personally these aren't strict rules - but rather guidelines. And they aren't meant to be pushed to the absolute extreme - but rather be seen as methods/tools used to achieve the actual goal: easily readable, maintainable and modifiable code.

And in my workplace, "performance" isn't measured in cpu-cycles, but rather in man-hours needed to create business value. Adding more compute power comes cheaper than needing more man-hours.

For the most part, it still seems to be a good idea to train new developers to know and understand clean code. It will help them produce more stable, less buggy and more readable code - and that means the code they write will also be easier to optimize for performance, if necessary. But with my work, that sort of optimization seems only ever necessary for very small pieces of code - most definitely not the entire code base.

Very clever idea!

Students can't quite use AI to complete this assignment, they have to do it themselves.

Along the way they get some insights into the limitations of AI-based text generation.

And they also learn how to write a good essay, by touching up an AI-generated baseline. Which is a skill that might become quite relevant in the near future.

Some might think "that's cheating - you have to write the entire essay yourself!" - and that might be true for a school setting. But in the workplace, only the results count (and how quickly/efficiently you got those). Just like using an automatic translator and manually fixing up the results now outperforms translating the entire text by hand.

First of all, I don't think bad actors are as willing to invest time/work into this as good actors - for them it's not worth the effort in most cases.

In this specific case, if keeping the account for a longer time had been the goal, the bad actor wouldn't have gotten the account suspended immediately by violating the Terms of Use, nor would they have used a Vietnam IP to do so.

Secondly - whenever such a thing does go viral, and Facebook comes under pressure - they all of sudden become very able to tell:

- that the person who has been using the account for years without incident, with an US IP address, who can provide 2FA codes, controls the original sign-up email, can produce credit card statements for payments the account made, sent in a copy of their drivers license, is probably the good actor

- that the person who (within just a few hours) reset the password, changed the email, disabled 2FA, and caused the suspension - all from a Vietnam IP - is probably the bad actor.

Facebook doesn't have that problem because they are unable to differentiate between bad actors and good actors... Facebook has that problem because they don't want to differentiate good and bad actors - because that costs man-hours and thus money.

The support teams dealing with that stuff are probably under-staffed, under-paid, lack the tools/knowledge for deeper investigation, and are being pressured to close as many tickets as fast as possible.

I feel that all of these "locked out" reports - whether they are from Google or Facebook or something else, suffer from the same problem:

The problem is not, that a false positive happens, or the user does get locked out by an algorithm, etc. - that sort of thing is impossible to avoid entirely. You have to stop bad actors, and you'll never be 100% accurate with that.

Imho the big problem is, that people who get locked out wrongly, have no recourse. There's no support, neither free nor paid, no avenue, absolutely nothing they can do, to get help. THAT's the problem.

People have to resort to trying to go viral, because only then their problem will get fixed.

As a company, that's probably not what you want. To see your false positives cause waves all over the internet... You'd probably want to see those problems be solved silently. But that would require that you offer an avenue for the user to get their problem solved quietly - doesn't it?

I wonder how this will develop, once people start replacing SEO with AI-Optimization, and are intentionally building websites to basically manipulate the AI results...

It's not a war - it's a special anti-competitive operation!

The article states that this is not the first time this warning has been issued. Last such issue was in September - and there have been more such warnings before that.

It would seem they actually do whitelist some of their own stuff - specifically those weird "Microsoft Viva" emails that Outlook users get.

A year or two ago, I did get Outlook to classify those emails as "Junk" automatically, by repeatedly reporting them - but then something changed, and after that they never were marked as "junk" again - no matter how often I do report them.

The actual meat of the video (recounting of the whole grant process) starts at about 21:30

https://youtu.be/GG5m8NJoHoM?t=1288

I fully understand (and share) your aversion to personality cults. And it's definitely possible that there exists some actual personality cult/fandom around Carmack.

BUT - I strongly believe, that he has earned quite some respect during his career.

And - importantly in this case - he is well known for NOT blowing things out of proportion, indulge in wishful thinking, hyping up unrealistic expectations or jumping to premature conclusions. He usually knows what he's talking about.

This is not people blindly believing everything he says - but more a case of his statements holding up really well under critical inspection most of the time.

I fail to see the contradiction in my post.

I clearly wrote that a language shall NOT be opinionated, shall NOT be constrained, that it should not tell the developer what to do.

I wrote the developers should use their own opinion, set their own constraints, specific for the project they are working on.

Language "generic and usable in many different ways and usage scenarios". But actual usage within a single project according to the opinionated convention of the project.

@BulgarianIdiot

It is a (more or less) technical term that carries a (more or less) specific meaning with regards to software design.

See:

* https://stackoverflow.com/questions/802050/what-is-opinionat...

* https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1218...