leotaku

I sincerely do not understand what you are talking about. I, and I assume also you, have just read about an education system where boys aged 7 are separated from their parents, underfed, whipped, beaten and basically forced into sexual relationship with older men. How do any of these horrors compare in the slightest to what is happening in any 21st century western public school?

I know that my experience was most likely more idyllic than most, but which outgrowths of modern public education (active shooter drills, windowless rooms, zero-tolerance policies?) make you hold it in such low regard?

This signals to me that Google thinks that Chrome either has, or will soon have, a significant enough market share where it is realistic and useful to move their invasive tracking methodology from the web into the browser. Maybe they also realize that any sensible browser vendor which is not also an ad giant should already be blocking web-based tracking technologies. So why even try to make them compatible.

Honestly, as long as Firefox is still compatible with most sites, this won't hugely impact me. After that, I don't know.

Understood, I tried to be funny and failed. Will try to do better next time.

I understand, your comment simply rubbed me the wrong way, because it, in my mind, kind of ignores the main point of the parent, that nowadays the trade-off is less obvious than it used to be.

I also genuinely want to apologize if my comment came of as patronising. I wanted to express my genuine opinion in a fun way and it seems like I have missed the mark pretty badly.

Sorry to break this to you, but if the possibility of a problem is a no go for your servers, you will unfortunately have to pull the plug on them. All software has bugs, so does hardware.

As an Austrian, while I have absolutely no sympathy for our local Neo-Nazi groups and far-right Parties, I would personally see the Widerbetätigungsgesetz to be repealed as soon as possible. While it might be true that most people who have been affected by this law were actually far-right bigots, it is still scary to me that my government is able and willing to prosecute based on opinion and speech.

Maybe a tolerable law could be modelled using some concept of truth (eg. I think the Nazis were great vs. The Holocaust did not happen), but I am unsure how that could reasonably be applied when talking about contemporary affairs.

Not me, but this guy[1] seems to have a pretty interesting setup using backlinks with Org. Other than that, org-roam[2] is becoming popular nowadays.

[1]: https://karl-voit.at/2020/07/22/org-super-links [2]: https://www.orgroam.com/

I would imagine the book contains a bit more justification for its arguments than what was presented by the person you are responding to.

What makes you believe that the author just "wrote basic observations and concluded they are the root cause of everything"? Most ideas are easy to dismiss when you assume that a blurb posted to HN is all there is to them.

I personally don't think that "it would help criminals" is a good argument against any piece of technology nowadays. Distributors of illegal content already have, TOR, torrents, offshore servers and probably hundreds of other custom solutions at their disposal, so yet another distribution network does not seem like a real concern.

I do however see how the fear that one's servers might be used to store CP or equally problematic content could stop Filecoin and similar systems from getting adoption.

Interestingly, I have had the polar opposite experience. When using apps written in scripting languages like Python, I almost expect them to crash at some point because I've seen it happen so often. On the other hand, Rust applications, much like Go, Haskell or C++ applications, in my experience, generally do what they are told without any hiccups.

Care to name some of the "9 out of 10" programs that crashed for you?

In my opinion, a non-insignificant amount of cryptocurrencies tout a global low-friction exchange system with good APIs as their main feature. I am not qualified to say how related the markets are, but it seems like there is at least some overlap. (E.g. one of the first results I get when googling Adjoint is an interview conducted by a crypto company)

I think our disagreement stems from how vague Stephens post is. By not naming any names he could be accusing any crypto company, including those that might indirectly compete with him, of being fraudulent.

My stance would probably change if someone were to point out one of the "right-wing conspiracy theory cult" Haskell companies that Stephen is alluding to, but as it stands this mainly seems like fearmongering to me.

I think they are trying to imply that, because some crypto projects are targeting similar markets, there might be some conflict of interest that motivated Diehl to create his post.

To me this reads less like a smear and more just "this could be why he dislikes crypto that much".

As an outsider to both the Haskell and Crypto communities, I find it extremely hard to properly verify any of these claims. For example, I was convinced that Tweag was a highly reputable company. Would anyone here who is less invested in not burning any bridges be willing to name just one "obviously shady" crypto project using Haskell?

I fully agree that it is unfair to creators that they cannot reasonably generate income from CLI apps. Still, I am unconvinced that the model you are proposing could gain viable traction.

It might be that I am in a sysadmin bubble here, but I just think that the "paid store" model conflicts with how people use CLI software.

For example, I suppose even the MacOS developers you mentioned would be interested in running e.g. `jq` on remote servers, virtual machines, docker, ... How could good UX possibly be achieved here? If you lock your hypothetical store down even a little bit, users now have to do complicated secrets management. If you don't and simply hope that everyone actually pays, you might as well just ask for donations.

One problem I see is that for more tech-savy Linux users, which are the people most CLI software is targeted at, convenience means simply installing something via their distributions package manager. I am not interested in downloading your precompiled static binary or setting up your private repository. I want to run `foo install bar` and get on with my work.

On the other hand there are some more mainstream optionally paid for (via Steam/Windows Store) GUI tools that I can freely download using my package manager, presumably because the main target audience actually prefers the paid distribution channels.

I think the GUI/CLI app markets could be more different than you think.

I think we're talking about too many nuanced issues now. The last few messages have been entirely "I said, you said" and we even have seemed to hit a reply limit. I'll admit that I have probably not considered your arguments clearly because of my previous biases. But I am also going to claim that you may have done the same. (If you don't that's fine, I am absolutely not trying to gaslight here.)

I'll try to address some final points.

> Thats's a strawman. I never claimed it's necessary in all forms of discussion, and I don't believe it is.

I went of your statement "I'm not sure how you have a civil discussion about inhumane acts that are supported by an oppressive system" in your original post. To me it implied that you think an entirely civil discussion of any form about certain issues is not desirable.

> And yet you cited an article on divorce which had little to do with the topic. When I challenged that, you dug in harder and quoted much of the article.

I simply wanted to give context to why I quoted the article. I did not want to imply that you had not read or understood the article. Sorry, bad call.

> You are the one who made the original claim that it radicalizes people so the burden of proof is on you.

I would cite the concepts of "Personal grievance" and "Group grievance" with regard to radicalization.

> People who are oppressed are already victims. And you are blaming them for not being polite enough about their outrage. That the victims are the ones who are creating more racism by being outraged. It's their fault that they are radicalizing people. I'm not sure how you can blame a victim for making the problem worse and then say it's not victim blaming.

Point taken. Again I do not want to put blame on these victims. I just want to point out that their behavior might have unintended consequences and an environment that allows them to express their grievances without possibly making things worse for themselves would be better. I realize that achieving such an environment might be an impossibly hard task - I accept that when done badly it could make things worse even for them - but I refuse to accept that trying to do so is to be dismissed as victim blaming.

EDIT: It seems the reply limit isn't actually a thing. It must have been a visual bug at my end.

> The dangerous neighborhood example is such a classic that it's easy to find. Items 5 and 9 on this list:

I think you understand why citing a list tangentially related statements with entirely different intent and basically no other information will not change my mind. If you don't, please re-read my previous comments.

> No it won't.

I have given a statement, which in my understanding is consistent with the modern understanding of radicalisation, that argues that it does. I'm in no way an expert but I would appreciate a better response than "No".

> What you are advocating for is tone policing. You are claiming that reasonable outrage is going to radicalize people and therefor people should not express anger when they have every right to be angry. "If she had calmed down, I wouldn't have hit her". Classic abuser and oppressor excuse.

This argument relies on the premise that I am a bad-faith actor. I am not. The abuser would have hit her regardless, I am actually interested in having a discussion. Also, you yourself state how hard it is to pinpoint appropriate outrage.

> People should listen to outrage and fix things before it's too late. That onus is on the oppressor. Exactly what I've said all along.

You fail to argue that this means that outrage is necessary in all forms of discussion and that an outrage-free environment is inherently oppressive. I'm not saying it's the end-all solution, but certainly seems like a better idea than an environment where any group or group of groups is the arbiter of appropriate outrage.

> That's victim blaming. And definitely not appropriate when we are talking about society oppressing someone. No one person can control society. And if you belong to a minority, the group you belong to has a much smaller voice when it comes to influencing society.

I genuinely do not understand how someone could possibly claim that simply acknowledging that a victim has influence on their situation is already victim blaming. It's horrible that people even have to think about how best avoid being victimized, yes totally. They should not have to. But that does not mean it should be impermissible to suggest ways they can act in their best interest.

> You keep saying that it creates more members of a radical group, but that's not true. No one becomes the member of a radical group just because someone else is outraged that they are suffering from injustice.

I'm not convinced. Many people convert to radical groups because they feel ostracized by the mainstream. Screaming "FUCK YOU RACIST! GO DIE" at a forum poster will only push them further right. Engaging with "I think you are mistaken, here is why" might cause them to reconsider at least part of their worldview.

> And history says you are wrong. From the American Revolutionary war, to the Civil War, the the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, and to today's black lives matter movement what we have seen is the opposite: the more outrage there is over social injustice the more people eventually decide that the injustice we tolerated in the past is no longer acceptable.

Would you disagree that there might be a better way of achieving change than letting it spiral into an all-out war? That seems a bit accelerationionist-y and I presume that's not what you actually want.

> We are on our way to fixing things.

I think your optimism is a bit premature.

Modern Emacs (27 and up I think) has a new so-called "portable dumper"[^1]. I've only played a little bit with it, but it does ridiculously speed speed up some things. Don't really need it, but it's cool anyways.

[^1]: https://dancol.org/pdumperpres.pdf

> That's classic victim blaming and no one should take these threats seriously. Any further radicalization of a viewpoint is entirely the responsibility of the person with those views.

I don't really think I am victim blaming here. It is simply a fact that an individual often has influence on the situation where they have been the victim. Example: I would never blame a woman who has visited an area with high crime rates for getting raped there. But I still might advise them to e.g. not visit the area at night. I'm not saying it's fair, but I think it's the smart thing to do.

Same thing here. I assume that any person who is the target of a radical group is at least somewhat interested in not creating more members of that group. I'm not saying it's fair, but I think it's the smart thing to do.

> Yes, I do honestly think some topics that are being debated in society at the moment are just as horrible and as urgent to stop as a child being raped.

The key difference is that your example is an issue that allows for immediate action, while (I presume) the issues you are alluding to are of societal and systemic nature. In the analogy, having a civil discussion about the nature of the issue at hand would majorly detract from the victim being rescued. I do not see how this is the case for the actual issues at hand.

> That article has very little to do with the topic.

Agreed. I basically wanted to give context to my claim that giving in to outrage might lead to people filtering out valid arguments and context.

> Certainty itself is an emotional state, not an intellectual one. To create a feeling of certainty, the brain must filter out far more information than it processes, which, of course, greatly increases its already high error rate during emotional arousal. In other words, the more certain you feel, the more likely you are wrong in some respect.

> Mental focus, the foundation of feelings of certainty, distorts reality by magnifying and amplifying one or two aspects of it while filtering out everything else. You might discover more detail about the one or two aspects you focus on, but what you discover will have no contextual meaning, because you have isolated those aspects from their dynamic interaction with the rest of the reality in which they exist. In other words, focus magnifies things out of proportion and blows them out of context.

What I'm trying to get at is that I think it is very possible to discuss a situation that, in the eyes of at least one of the participants of the discussion, is worthy of outrage without actually displaying that outrage and staying civil. To again use rape as an example, I think it is entirely reasonable to consider the experiences, pain and outrage of rape victims and their supporters valid, while still wanting them to be involved in civil discussions about the issues of false accusations and due process. (If they are willing to do so, of course)

Intuitively understand your concerns about groups of oppressed people possibly not feeling welcome in a completely outrage-free environment, but to me that seems totally unverifiable. Someone could argue for the complete reverse and that would probably be just as valid.

Can't relate to the Pulseaudio comment. In 3-4 Years of using it on multiple Machines it has "surprised" me maybe once. (Because of a dock that advertised itself as an audio output despite not having speakers/headphones plugged in)

I think the only reason why I disagree with the comments here calling Git horrible and unintuitive is because Magit (Git interface for Emacs) makes it so easy to use and discoverable.

I heavily disagree. While outrage at e.g. societal problems might sometimes be appropriate, directing that outrage at forum posters that defend what you call "unnaceptable behaviour" is just a bad idea.

If they actually believe in what they say, you have just further radicalized them. If they don't and just want to provoke, you've played into their hands.

Also, consider if you're actually being honest with yourself. Are the people you are arguing against actually just defending "raping a child"? Giving in to outrage often leads to people ignoring vital parts of the conversation. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/anger-in-the-age-ent...)

> Memory used on Windows doesn't mean the same as on Gentoo. Most of that is cached files and it will be discarded when a program needs that memory directly.

I think you might be mistaken. Task Manager seems to generally consider cached memory as available. Most Linux monitoring tools I have used also do this.

> Since cached pages can be easily evicted and re-used, some operating systems, notably Windows NT, even report the page cache usage as "available" memory, while the memory is actually allocated to disk pages. This has led to some confusion about the utilization of page cache in Windows.[^1]

So both the Linux/Gentoo and Windows systems in question should most likely be caching files. The Windows system might even be caching less aggressively, just because almost all memory is in use by processes.

[^1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_cache

Could you possibly share what you mean by "bullshit"? I am genuinely interested in what that entails.

I am genuinely confused by your comment. Are you, again, being facetious or are your arguments just bad?

> it is not morally permissible to engage in intrinsically immoral acts (sorry, utilitarians/consequentialists)

How would anyone define an intrinsically immortal act? It seems dishonest to discard well-established schools of thought while ignoring the very premise that makes them relevant.

> We may also not use the evil effect as a means of attaining the desired good.

> Finally, there must be a proportionality between the good and bad effects that justifies the toleration of the bad effect.

These two statements directly contradict each other.

> Look at the un-notable candidates. Don't be afraid! I started by looking into Christine Weston Chandler and was not disappointed.

Are you sure "Christine Weston Chandler" is a genuine Candidate? A well known and somewhat controversial Internet figure shares the same name. Also, I am barely able to find any other information relating to someone with this name running for president. Might this be a troll candidate?

My country uses the QWERTZ layout which has dedicated keys for German umlauts. I mostly type in English however, so I've bound "([{" to "öäü". I now type umlauts using "AltGr+oau".

It's definitely not a perfect solution, but it has worked well for me so far.

I use Org with Emacs, but am confident I would be able to continue using my old notes on any editor, should I switch. It would impact my workflow, sure, but not to the extent where I'd rather have used a more universal format in the first place.

So I think "Your life in plain text" still holds today.

With Org you do not need to use a fancy web interface that might disappear from one day to the next. (Though you definitely have the option) The default representation is plain text but you may export to HTML, LaTeX, etc. which is what you are seeing in the original submission. Org can also be used without learning any shortcuts and Emacs terminology, but they are always at your disposal if you need to improve your workflow.

I'm not claiming Org is a silver bullet, or even better than WorkFlowly or anything else people might use, but it definitely has it's place.