somat

Aside from the fact that it is a stupid law, there should not be any sort of exemption.

I have not read the other proposed laws in this category but after reading the California law, I found it was so vague that my interpretation is that any operating system where the owner, well... actually owns the system is already in compliance. The law requires a mechanism where the OS can provide owner age data to applications. All operating systems where the owner is in control already provide a mechanism to supply data to apps, on most (mac, windows, unix, dos even) systems this is the file api, So to be in compliance with the law the owner can make a file that an application could access with the required info. No, there was nothing there about when an application needs this data, or even, like so many people assume, that it has to be out of the control of the owner.

The CA law was so vague and pointless, my only conclusion is that it is a sort of frog boiling scheme. Test the waters to see if they actually have jurisdiction.

I would argue most data is inherently(naively?) hierarchical(the document), relational structured data is a clever but unintuitive mechanism to introduce powerful analytic opportunities to a set of data.

Basically a document is a report, a large disjoint volume of information on a subject, I consider this the natural form of data because this is how it is collected and how most people think about it. relational is sort of like storing that data as vertical slices through your stack of reports. Not natural at all but much nicer for analysis across the data set.

The "document" is sort of the native data type, Put everything in a big hierarchical structure, It is very flexible but analytics across the set can suffer. "relational" is another way to store data, break your big hierarchy into sets of related rows and store the rows as a table, If I were to describe it in geometric terms where the document is a report on a paper, the relation is a vertical slice through a stack of those reports. This is slightly non-intuitive but provides for interesting analysis opportunities.

But nothing prevents you from treating your relational database as a document database, set it up as a key-value store where each key is is the document title and each value is a large blob of document data. If your documents are fairly consistent it is also easy enough to build indexes and query features to regain some of the analytical ability of relational data.

I am in that club. As someone who quite enjoys writing sql but does not like the big sql strings intermingled in the rest of the code I even wrote a clever little python library that loads the queries from files as a function call, that is, you have a file with a pure sql query with parameterized variables and you call it like "for row in sql.video_search(title_like='bridge', date_after='1964-1-1', date_before='1975-1-1')" Nowhere near an orm, everything just produces a result set.

I am sure there are many projects like it, I suspect it is like static site generators and notekeeping apps, easy enough that everybody just makes their own. But this one is mine, and I have grown quite fond of it and use it in all my scripts. It is a little more magic than I am normally comfortable with. dynamic function generation is a bit of a black art, but having each query as it's own callable unit is super handy.

openbsd.amsterdam is notable because they use the openbsd native vmm as the vm host. It is obsd all the way down over there.

It is a small and no frills service but the sys-admin, who runs the project, is very helpful and attentive. That is to say probably much better and human customer service than the big players. There are definite downsides, but if a project fits, highly recommended.

My rather limited understanding is that. first there is a lot going on and due to the forces and gravitational gradients involved, matter itself probably would not survive the journey that close to the horizon. But ignoring that, When in compressed time, from the point of view of someone freefalling, timewise everything is normal, the rest of the universe has accelerated and in the case of a black hole has just aged out and died but you are fine. from the external point of view they are taking forever to get there.

Where my imagination fails(above my pay grade) is in the face of infinity, what are the implications of infinite time compression?(everything happens at once?)

They are, but there are some interesting theories about their internal structure. Be aware that this is probably junk science but I have currently been enjoying this effort to describe them via the em field.

https://quicycle.com/understanding-electrons/

And the video essay on the subject https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYyrgDEJLOA (Huygens Optics: Williamson & Van der Mark electron model | Are electrons made of light?)

My rather pop-sci understanding is that when you start playing around with relativity math, trying various masses and densities you hit something rather worrisome. As you approach some great, but still possible, value the plot goes infinite, the singularity. This is bad for the theory because going asymptotic like that usually indicates a fundamental problem in the math. But relativity does so well everywhere else... What if it could? And thus the black hole was born.

The easy thing to miss, and blew my mind when I read it. is that general relativity is the concept of space-time, emphasis on the time, and this is also compressed by the mass, so if this singularity can actually occur it would also take an infinite amount of time to fall into it. So nothing can actually enter it. From the point of view of an astronaut(deliberately ignoring all the other relativistic implications) flying directly toward the event horizon. As you approach you will quickly see the rest of the universe age and die. and if hawking radiation is real the black hole will evaporate in front of you before you can reach it.

Hell, critical thinking in general will collapse. I mean, even more than it already has due to easy access to the internet.

Thinking through a problem is hard. For the most people will take any chance they can get to not think. Myself included. I probably gain double digits of IQ when my internet goes down.

Probably a stupid question, but what is your mechanical process? that is, how do you make entering a em-dash natural? Personally, I am of the nature that if it does not live on my keyboard I am probably not going to use the character, And I say this as a great aficionado and maintainer of a carefully curated compose key file... That I never use.

Guesses, because I like to guess, replace the dash with an em-dash? map alt+dash? compose-key dash dash dash?(my preferred method), dash dash rewrite rule(now we are getting into science fiction), ligature?

My go to example: IPFS is Plan9 to bittorrent's UNIX. Some achingly beautiful design, willingness to completely disregard existing messy conventions(for example: The ipfs unified url format) and, like you said, still not enough better for people to want to change.

What I want to know is who decided to break px, the last thing we need is yet another screwball physical measurement, css was already full of them. But what "tut tut, everybody is using px and these new hi-dpi displays are rendering things really tiny, we can't have that" and now px as a useful unit is ruined.

Is there a way to use real pixels? My, admittedly quick, search says no. at least nothing jumps out at me from the spec.

An interesting bit of schadenfreude, How does management feel when you try and communicate with them via AI?

In my experience communication via LLM is easily the worst part of them, it feels absolutely miserable to receive that big blob of machine generated fluff. This is especially interesting due to the duality present, it feels pretty great to run them, just sit there and let the machine handle the fluff while you handle the big picture.

Anyhow, usually the flow is the reverse, the boss gives you that big ball of machine fluff and you just have to sit there and take it, fun seeing it go the other way, but seeing as they are in charge I would not be surprised to see directives along the lines of "use more AI it makes you more productive, but don't use it with my reports"

What always got me at the time was retry is understandable, but what the heck is the difference between abort and fail? I don't want to complain too much it was probably in the manual, but as a young teen during my DOS days (there are manuals? read?) The distinction was lost on me.

My understanding today is that one of them(fail?) gives the application a chance to do something clever. Did any application actually handle this gracefully? Something like, Disk 11/15 error(fail) Please put in recovery parity disk.

On the subject of being slightly too pedantic for my own good, using "disk" in a conversation sort of worries me, It does not really matter, everyone knows what you are talking about, but it is not often an actual disk anymore. Is "storage" fine as a replacement? as in, memory vs storage.

I could go full nerd and call it "non-volatile storage" but nobody wants that.

The article covers it, but to reiterate. Yes, The idea is to have a mechanism to map phone numbers to hosts.

The normal path for voip phones given a phone number is to end up at a sip trunk provider go over the traditional phone network (which at this point probably routes over the internet anyway) hit another sip trunk and end up at the receiving sip phone.

This provides a method to bypass the traditional phone network and go directly over the internet. The sip phone looks up the host responsible for that phone number and directly connects. The sip providers would be responsible for maintaining this number to host mapping in dns.

When you think about it DNS is really just a big distributed phone book, a key value store to look up numbers based on names. The reverse records are a method to look up names based on numbers using that same distributed architecture.

There is also an interesting legacy architecture interaction here, traditional phones can only enter numbers. Cell phones could use dns names directly(but don't) or we could use ip addresses as a sort of modern phone number(but don't), The whole world was connected via phone numbers and that is now how we expect phones to operate.

Scorched Earth always comes to mind as an influential early artillery game, but it too was PC, so hard to say.

I actually remember it's stupid tagline better than the name, "The mother of all games" indeed. But that is what I was searching for to get the name.

I am always hit hard by the paradox of choice, it is very hard for me to just rank something, But it is easy to compare two items. Considering the metaphysics of this a little too hard I put together this silly little web toy to explorer my ideas on ranking things. https://compare.outband.net/compare/app/compare.html

It still sort of sucks and you can tell I am not a web dev, but it was interesting to think about.

It does not matter, X11 is also not a display server it is a protocol. That distinction changes nothing.

For what it's worth Xorg is the display server, before that it was XFree86, there was also Xsgi and Xsun and for mac Xquartz, I even saw a neat project once where the Xserver was in javascript, I am trying to find it again but our modern search engines are a bit shit. The point being all of these can interoperate with one another.

  Around computers it is difficult to find the correct unit of time to
  measure progress.  Some cathedrals took a century to complete.  Can you
  imagine the grandeur and scope of a program that would take as long?
                -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982

We have our cathedrals, only we are such barbarians as to call them worthless garbage and unfit for purpose and do our best to tear our legacy down.

I mean sure, but anything the build script could do, the build artifact could also do, That is to say, if you don't trust your source why do you trust the thing it compiles into?

The theory is simple, it is a 90 degree rotated polarizing layer, How comfortable you are doing surgery on the delicate LCD assembly is another matter. If I were to do it I think I would buy a couple cheap watches to practice on first.

And Opinion: I wear a factory blackout casio, I like it because it does not have all that great 80's casio text all over the place (I am not sure what is wrong with me) but a downside is the inverted LCD display, it looks very cool, but is also much harder to read, I was trying to see if I could do the mod the other way, back to a light background.

Probably. I was trying to figure out if it could be done with an address family translation, and while ip4 is trivially embedded in an ip6 address, going the other way just does not have enough information. but if you know the domain, that is a simple lookup.

The fun part is, with a dns entry like that they could technically get certs issued for peoples domains if they wanted to. I will be charitable and assume it is just a neat relay someone put together, but they could get up to some real shenanigans if they had a malicious bent. Really nothing worse than cloudflare where much their business is ssl hijacking(correction)termination.

It may be a case of needing write only logging, I always think of the nuclear power station logging all events to the line printer, But I can see a NOC doing the same, How finger ended up triggering it would probably be a fascinating case study of early innocent decisions getting ossified into the infrastructure.

It does not help that things fundamental to the new tech, even though they took real effort to develop, are now exactly those items that are now "obvious to experts in the field" and "overly broad" And then have fun trying to distinguish real fundamentals from items in the form of (existing invention "with a computer") Or whatever the hot new tech of the day is.

A good example(old enough to not matter any more) is the how the Wright brothers invented something fundamentally new, their patent was on how to control an airplane, The problem is, once you see it, it is obvious how to control an airplane. Birds do it, Why should such an simple thing be protected? But conversely. This is a discipline that took the Wrights many years of hard and meticulous work to figure out. Is it morally correct to say "No, we are not going to grant you exploitation rights to this thing you invested so much time and effort developing"?

I don't think patents are inherently evil, however they certainly can be used for evil.

But The basic idea is sound. If you invent a novel mechanism and publish it the government will grant you exclusive economic exploitation rights to that mechanism for the next 25 years. After that it is now fair game.

It is an attempt to solve the real problem that it is much harder to be first than second, the guy in first place has to spend all that time and effort to develop the thing, and the guy in second just has to copy the guy in first. To rectify this social injustice the patent system was developed, where the government would grant and enforce economic exploitation rights of the mechanism to the inventor.

The wright brothers patent was not on wing warping, it was on controlling a vehicle in the air. In short the Wright brothers did not invent the aeroplane they invented how to control a aeroplane.

https://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Wright_Story/Sh...

"We wish it to be understood, however, that our invention is not limited to this particular construction, since any construction whereby the angular relations of the lateral margins of the aeroplanes may be varied in opposite directions with respect to the normal planes of said aeroplanes comes within the scope of our invention."

Some people (Curtis) felt this claim was far too encompassing and should not be enforced. But I don't know, These guys just spent a decade working out an entirely new discipline, aeronautical control. And you don't think they deserve exclusive exploitation rights to that discipline for the next 20 years?

The turbo button was always on, or it should be. you would turn it off to downgrade your pc to run at the speed of the original IBM PC in the mostly vain hope that whatever old game that was programmed for that exact speed would start to run right. It was slightly be fore my time(we had a 286 with the button, but I was to young to be curious about it) Would the pc take the speed change without problems or was it best to reboot? I sort of hate whatever marketing genius figured out to label it "Turbo" instead of "Slow" But they definitely earned their bonus.

The real weird one from that era was the 7 segment led MHz displays that were popular in the 386/486 era. It was weird because the the chips could not change speed in the first place. And I don't want to say every system was like this, but every one I ever saw was set by a set of static jumpers or a dip switch. When you upgraded your cpu you put the little sticker that came with it on the chassis and changed the jumpers, they served the same purpose.

A lot of early dos development was trying to see how many unix concepts they could fit, directories, pipes, environment, devices.

2BSD is still hanging on getting updates and forked projects to this day. My understanding is that it's longevity in the face of the existence of 4bsd is because it is 16-bit clean, These days it is mainly for people who want a unix for their microcontroller.

Here is one, https://github.com/RetroBSD/retrobsd. This is for the pic32, so I may be wrong about the 16-bit thing.

I don't know if anyone has done it but it looks like it could fit, perhaps not on a original 8086 PC, but perhaps a 286 with 640K.

Glad I am not the only one who carts an id1 directory around. Mine originally came from a retail disk with a funny story, I had bought it for a friend. a birthday present. and a couple years later I bought their old pc from them and that quake disk was in the box of parts. It had came back me.