troad

I think it's a stretch to call Apple's ARM transition "planned obsolescence". The M-series chips are very clear improvements on what came before and there is a clear rationale for that transition.

We're talking here about an OS that hasn't even come out yet, that will get years of security support, for computers that Apple hasn't been selling for several years now. Seems pretty reasonable.

Anonymous mirror: https://xcancel.com/Lina_Hoshino/status/2046112493320458649

> Theocracies oppressing their own people while aiming for expansion, particularly, must be dealt with.

> Else, they will eventually oppress the entirety of humanity.

We poured trillions of dollars into Afghanistan trying to do just this. It failed. It is not within the power capability of any state to bring liberty to people that do not want it.

The era of global internationalism you're alluding to is receding. If the Iranians and the Saudis want to nuke one another, that is very sad, but we will not be able to stop them in the long run. The best we can do is to keep as far away from any such conflict as possible.

The world are not children, to be minded by us. They're autonomous humans with agency, many of whom sadly happen to be blood-thirsty fanatics, chomping at the bit for a chance to do some genocide. As demonstrated by the last fifty years of Western policy failure in the third world, we do not have the capacity to fix this and it is folly to try.

"Debate me bro"

They all suck. There are no good polities in the Middle East. At this stage into the genocide-counter-genocide cycle, there are no clean hands left.

We need to switch to renewables asap, and just withdraw completely from the Middle East. They all want to kill one another for fanatical or ethnic reasons, and we clearly have no capacity to stop them. We should insulate ourselves from the region and restrict any involvement to humanitarian assistance.

There's an SMBC strip that makes your exact point, except they intended it as satire, whereas you seem to mean it in earnest.

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/aaaah

That's how all education works. It's the spiral model of teaching. In one grade you learn a bit of this and a bit of that, then the next year you retread, and flesh all those things out by adding more depth and complexity. Rinse and repeat every grade.

What would the alternative look like? Should a foreign language course spend three years on Nouns, just to make sure they're comprehensively covered, before you ever see your first Verb?

Posting this here just in case it saves someone time trying to figure out what's going on with `pnpm audit` (and why their CI might be failing, etc).

It's pretty clear you're not a good faith interlocutor at this point.

That's absurd. Are you, right now, compliant with all relevant laws and regulations in Turkmenistan? Do you have legal advice to back that up? Why not? Is it because you're a criminal?

No! Of course not! It's because you don't care about Turkmenistan, to the extent you've never even bothered to look up what is and is not legal there, let alone get legal advice about it. That's a perfectly fine answer. This random Michigan newspaper doesn't care about the EU. That's a perfectly fine answer too.

That would be rather surprising to the large number of law schools that teach European Law as a core subject, such as the Panthéon-Sorbonne (Droit européen), Bologna U (Diritto Europeo), and Humboldt U (Europarecht).

Equally surprised would be the authors of very many legal books and journals, e.g. https://www.cambridge.org/core/browse-subjects/law/european-...

European law imposes a great deal more obligations on a business than that. This claim is simplistic to the point of disingenuousness.

> "We're unable to serve this website without compromising your privacy... "

More accurately, "we do not have the staff or funds to figure out what every single random law around the globe requires of us, and since foreign countries are not a realistic advertising market for a local Michigan newspaper, there's really no reason for us to try."

Precisely so: the OED's role is descriptive, in that it is to describe English as it is used, not how it ought to be used. It provides evidence of a grammatical rule - it is not the rule itself.

You can speak however you like, there is no language police, but the fact is the average English speaker will perceive certain constructs to be grammatically incorrect. "He eat", "I driving", "a French" etc.

Yes, let's get the protractors out to find out if the man who's turned Twitter into a far right cesspool, and has served in a far right government, and constantly tweets far right things, may just have far right sympathies. /s

Ceasing to believe what your own eyes and ears are telling you, in as far as those things may challenge your political beliefs, is generally a road that leads nowhere good.

It is wrong, in the sense that native speakers do not say that, and it triggers what linguists call a "grammaticality judgment" in a native speaker. Same as "He eat apple" or "I am go to school". These may be comprehensible utterances, but they do not fit into a native speaker's internal grammar of valid English sentence structures.

Yes, languages can change, but there is no evidence that native speakers have started saying "a French". The only context I've ever seen that in is "As a French...", which strongly implies a non-native speaker of English. The evidence suggests that it's a common language interference error from French, not some future development of English.

No, Frenchman is fine. It's a neutral and common descriptor, and I've far more often heard it said by French people than about them. Similar to Spaniard.

Not everything needs to be perennially problematised.

The original claim was "People shouldn't even be in the industry unless they can administer a Linux server, even if that has nothing to do with their role." It is a very significant moving of the goalposts to now suggest this is all about "updating an OS". That's not a good faith claim.

This whole thing is merely cheap online snark masquerading as wisdom. No, not all SWEs know how to maintain Linux servers, and many (most?) SWE roles have all of zero overlap with that kind of work. If businesses could fire all their expensive server admins and replace them with some college kid and a $5 VPS, they would long since have done so.

If this is anything more than poseur snark, put your money where your mouth is and either write a comprehensive resource yourself, or at least compile a list of resources that would suffice for someone to be able to securely run and maintain a live server in production. No, not Hello Worlds, actual prod. Then, when next this comes up, link us to your guide rather than just spraying spittle on the plebs who lack your expertise.

Do something more constructive than low effort snark.

I keep reading posts like this, but the people who say this never actually seem to enlighten the rest of us troglodytes by, say, writing a comprehensive, all inclusive, guide to doing this.

If it's so easy, surely it's no big undertaking to explain how one self hosts a fully secured server. No shortcuts, no "just use the usual setup" (we don't know what it is!), no skipped or missed bits. Debian to Caddy to Postgres, performant and fully secure, self upgrading and automated, from zero to hero, documenting every command used and the rationale for it (so that we may learn).

Or is it perhaps not as simple as you say?

I'd be dependent on pre-existing binaries that are closely wedded to a particular platform (OS, libc etc), and it over time it would become more and more difficult to attest to build integrity / ensure reproducible builds. (Is the ARM build meant to run an x64 emulator as part of some lengthy historic bootstrapping process?)

I feel like there's too much of a fetish for self-hosting. There's this pernicious idea that a language isn't a 'real' language until it's self-hosted, but a self-hosted compiler imposes real costs in terms of portability, build integrity, etc.

If I ever write a compiler - God forbid, because language design is exactly the kind of elegance bike-shedding I'll never crawl my way out of - it's going to be a straight-up C89 transpiler, with conditional asm inlines for optional modern features like SIMD. It would compile on anything and run on anything, for free, forever. Why would I ever give that up for some self-hosting social cachet?

Thanks, that's a great answer and I really appreciate it!

> For me, the table is extremely powerful. I like it that it can be used as a sparse array, a hash, a vector, whatever. Of course one must know, at heart, the difference between pairs() and ipairs() and what it means for your data, though ..

So, as someone only very peripherally familiar with Lua, can someone please explain the table thing to me? I've heard Lua fans gush that Lua is tables all the way down, except it seems like there's these tables on the one hand that work like arrays, and those other tables on the other hand that work like objects, and you can't mix them up...

Is that not just an ordinary dynamically typed language with arrays and objects then, except it overloads the word "table" to refer to both?

I'm sure I'm missing something, happy to hear what that is.

That's quite a shift from your earlier post that US conduct "led to" the Islamic Republic, and a more measured and reasonable take. But in as far as the US had a secondary role in recent Iranian affairs, it was a very distant second to the Iranians themselves. It does the Iranians no favours to edit them out of their own history.

The thing is, it's very easy to get caught up in this kind of rhetoric and lose a lot of perspective. This is the kind of logical chain that leads people to end up deciding that Germany had "legitimate grievances" about the Treaty of Versailles and end up in some pretty dark places. Not saying that's you in the slightest, just noting the problems with that rhetorical style. It's fast, somewhat lazy, and greatly lacking in perspective.

If there's something I think we can agree on, the US role in '53 (corrected date) is nothing to be proud of, any more than *points generally towards the Strait of Hormuz* whatever the hell this is.

Except we're not talking about the Pahlavi dynasty, we're talking about the Islamic Republic. You're trying to draw some direct causal link from the '56 coup to the '79 revolution, just because that's the conclusion your preconceptions demand, facts be damned.

Why stop there? France engineered and supported an anti-British coup in the underdeveloped but resource rich American colonies in the late 18th century, setting in motion the train of events that led to the Islamic Revolution!

And the Polish General Kosciusko fought valiantly for the Americans, on account of the partitions of Poland. Were it not for those partitions, he'd have been at home! So it is the Austrian, Prussian, and Russian Empires - the partitioning powers of 18th century Poland-Lithuania - to blame for the Islamic Revolution!

But why did Austria desire to get involved in the partitions of Poland, and what long game was it playing vis-a-vis the Shiite scholars of then-Persia...

Hold up, we need a corkboard and some pins. Where's Pepe Silvia in all of this? Who has the Jack Ruby?

You can draw the bowstring all the way to Mars if you want to, but the only people to blame for the monstrous regime of Iran are the people who put that regime in place, and that certainly wasn't the Americans. No amount of "well this encouraged that, which caused blowback to this, leading to that" Substack-level motivated reasoning is going to change that fact.

The gay kids being executed by Iran are not cursing the name of America, or Empress Maria Theresa of Austria, they're cursing the ghouls who are hanging them, who are their countrymen.

But you don't need an Apple device to contact iMessage users. Every iMessage ID is a phone number (SMS/RCS) or email.

You've listed a whole bunch of alternatives available to you, but for some reason you demand that Apple change its unique offering into just another one of those for you. Why? Is that not a completely enforced monoculture?

Apple has always been off to the side, doing their own thing, and for some reason that fact utterly enrages people. They demand that Apple become just like everyone else. But we already have everyone else! And in every single field Apple is in, there is more of everyone else than there is of Apple.

Have you considered people like Apple products precisely because they're not like everything else? That making Apple indistinguishable from Facebook or Google is no victory, but a significant loss for customer choice?

The 1979 Islamic Revolution was staged by Iranians, in response to the despotism of the Pahlavi dynasty, founded in 1925 by Iranians.

It is a disease of the Western mind - and particularly Western academia - to deny agency to others, especially people in the Middle East, as you're doing here with your painfully unsubtle attempt to link US support for the Pahlavis in 1956 to the 1979 Islamic Revolution 23 years later. Worth noting that the Pahlavi dynasty started out as autocratic as it ended, well before the US ever showed up.

This is a lazy reverse Orientalism, where people in the Middle East are othered and cast as a perennial victim incapable of taking any role in, or responsibility for, what happens in their own countries. It's disempowering racism in academic garb.

Iranians caused the Islamic Revolution and only the Iranians can undo it. I wish them the best of luck in doing so.

Idk, I was kinda expecting to be downvoted to oblivion, but these were surprisingly upvoted posts (with the post noting that the other fellow comes off as young being more upvoted than the others). So it seems like there's some support.

Not that I see why that matters? The popularity of an opinion is a very poor proxy for its veracity. Not everything in life is about optics. (One's public image being of especial concern to the young, I might playfully add. :) )

If I seem disagreeable, it's because I'm quite literally disagreeing. You're telling me I'd seem less disagreeable by not disagreeing. Cool? Noted? Obviously? This little pile on strikes me as a fairly hamfisted attempt at peer pressure. It's a bet that I care so much about the social approval of a bunch of anonymous usernames, that I would pretend to have changed my opinion so you can all feel vindicated and we can all feign harmony. It's a very bad bet.

This may be an age or geography thing, but Weather.com/Retro looks a lot more like the weather channels I remember than either of your two links.

I don't think they were trying to recreate the thing you were expecting, but it seems a little harsh to call it low effort. It's neat! A fun little nod to their history.

That's a really good point, thank you. I'm running Elixir in prod right now, so F# would be up my alley.

As someone with all the memory of a fruit fly, I love a good REPL when I'm trying to recall the various magic incantations that make the computer go.