Don't quote me on this, though :)
292 karma · joined May 16, 2021
Don't quote me on this, though :)
I've heard the claim that lean is going in this direction.
In your opinion, what kind of life would be "austere enough" to claim (faithfully) that it does not benefit from other people's hardships? As in, what kind of life should you live to be able to say that you're not "rich and healthy because someone somewhere is poor and sick"? (I'm having trouble stating that question clearly, but hopefully the point gets across)
I's a bit of a hard question in my opinion, because so much of our economy is interlinked with the world and even with history… Probably, some richness of the west is a legacy of colonial times, during which a transfer of richness occurred, and the west would still be indebted in that sense?
I seem to often hear such kinds of claims repeated: Only hardship and poverty is real, and the mundane life of people living "sheltered" lives in western countries is somehow just a bubble, artificial.
Why would that be the case?
I imagine it as some kind of GUI with “boxes”, each defining a “workspace” with specified permissions (access to that and that folder, network, etc), such that the user could easily drag and drop apps into new workspaces.
This way, I could have a “banking” workspace just containing, say, firefox, and a “work” workspace with, say, firefox and thunderbird and whatever, etc. The “workspaces” would by default be as unprivileged as possible, with the possibility to give access to folders, or even maybe to use unionfs or similar to combine the views of different workspaces.
For ease of use, I could assign a color or icon to each workspace, and the manager would automatically generate desktop files so that I would easily be able to spot “banking firefox” from “work firefox”.
I feel like with bubblewrap, this is only a short python GUI away, and would be super helpful to strengthen security on linux, even more so for non-technically inclined, or lazy people.
[Edit:] If someone wants to discuss things further and even maybe try and write a “MVP”, I'd be happy to try.
> dramatically reduce world hunger is a direct consequence of humans' capacity to improve crop yields such as rice and corn through breeding and engineering.
and
> the technical plant wizardry that prevented the starvation of millions of people.
What exactly are you referring to? In my mind, crop domestication and selective breeding is what allowed population growth, not what prevented starvation. In other words, population grew thanks to the increase in production, rather than the increase coming to combat decline. Was that a wrong notion?
Why is that?
There is the "time to first plot" issue, and I found that the "efficient as C, easy as Python" motto really means "efficient as C XOR easy as Python", but all in all, it's very easy to write stuff very cleanly, and the path to effiency is quite natural if you know where to look, and the metaprogramming makes it that more powerful.
Do you have any idea how many cases there are of reuse? Is it actually common?