This is going to be such a ridiculous disaster that it’d be entertaining to watch it go to shit — if it weren’t such a critical system they’re fucking with.

That’s probably who I’m remembering; I recently discovered his work.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately. I’m from the UK, and whilst things are less politically dire here than the US, it’s still pretty grim. Both the Conservatives and Labour seem reluctant to actually meaningfully tax the rich, even as the working class (and to a lesser extent, the middle class) are being squeezed by a cost of living crisis and general hopelessness. Parties like Reform are taking the racist “things are bad because we have too many immigrants” and I’ve recently realised that I need to stop resenting people for being taken in by that rhetoric; people are desperate and there aren’t people in the mainstream pushing for alternatives (besides Reform). These people have a lot in common with me, such as recognising that we’re being fucked but the system, but we just disagree on the solution. It’s hard, but ultimately necessary to be able to be in solidarity with people like Reform’ voters

I can’t remember the particular phrase that was used, but I heard an argument recently that we need to be more like politicians going on an interview and ensure that we’re more on message. For example, it’s fairly obvious by now that economically, the problem is wealth inequality, but I see fairly surprisingly few people discussing that.

“Discord just last week shut down a server that was my main local friend group, and we had to scramble to reconstitute it.”

Damn, that sucks. How big was the server? Do you know why it was shut down?

(n.b. I am neither a rust, nor C developer so I am writing outside my own direct experience)

One of the arguments brought up on the kernel.org thread was that if there were changes to the C side of the API, how would this avoid breaking all the rust bindings? The reply to this was that like with any big change in the Linux kernel that affects multiple systems with multiple different teams involved, that it would require a coordinated and collaborative approach — i.e. it’s not like the rust side of things would only start working on responding to a breaking change once that change has broken the rust bindings. This response (and many of the responses to it) seemed reasonable to me.

However, in order for that collaboration to work, there are going to have to be C developers speaking to rust developers, because the rust developers who need to repair the bindings will need to understand some of what’s being proposed, and thus they’ll need to understand some level of C, and vice versa. So in practice, it seems nigh on impossible for the long term, ongoing maintenance of this code to be entirely a task for the rust devs (but I think this is taking an abnormally flexible reading of “maintenance” — communicating with other people is just part and parcel of working on such a huge project, imo)

Some people have an ideological opposition to there being two different programming languages in the Linux kernel full stop. This is part of why the main thing that rust has been used for so far are drivers, which are fairly self enclosed. Christoph Hellwig even used the word “cancer” to describe a slow creep towards a codebase of two languages. I get the sense that in his view, this change that’s being proposed could be the beginning of the end if it leads to continued prevalence of rust in Linux.

I haven’t written enough production code to have much of an opinion, but my impression is that people who are concerned are valid (because I do have more than enough experience with messy, fragmented codebases), but that their opposition is too strong. A framework that comes to mind is how risk assessments (like are done for scientific research) outline risks that often cannot be fully eliminated but can be reduced and mitigated via discussing them in the context of a risk assessment. Using rust in Linux at all hasn’t been a decision taken lightly, and further use of it would need ongoing participation from multiple relevant parties, but that’s just the price of progress sometimes.

I’ve been meaning to check out Addy.io for a while now, because you’re not the first person I’ve seen mentioning it in threads like this. Your comment was the straw that broke the camel’s back and I’ve finally gone and checked it out. Thanks for including a link in your comment; it helped reduce the activation energy of setting it up

Well you can color me intrigued! I’m going to go read about what that is

The thing is that this kind of thing works for people who don’t know better. I have spoken to dudes who like the abstract notion of Musk being a gamer, probably because it wasn’t apparent to them that his Path of Exile account was so obviously boosted. Similarly, a script-kiddie can seem like a skilled programmer to people who have little knowledge of programming

I’ve watched/played/read things I wouldn’t have discovered if there hadn’t been masses of people crying “woke” about them; there was a period where it was a really useful recommendation engine, because they’d be especially pissy if high quality stuff was woke. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work as well anymore, because “woke” is increasingly meaningless

Containerized software is huge in the sciences for reproducible research. Or at least it will/should be (speaking as someone adjacent to bioinformatics and genomics)

Incredible. I don’t know enough Prolog to be able to follow it very well, but this is truly what the internet was made for

I don’t think duplicate link protection is what I mean, unless I’m misunderstanding how that feature works. I.e. if I had bookmarks “example.com/a” , “example.com/b”, these are duplicates even though they’re at the same site. But if I visit the page “example.com/c” and I went to go bookmark it, I would like to be able to see a thing that says '"from this site, you have also bookmarked: “example.com/a” , “example.com/b”.

I don’t imagine this is possible. I was probably going to make something to give me that functionality at some point, because I haven’t seen anyone having the same problem as me.

I have a question which may turn out to be a feature request

The question: How easy would it be to use Linkwarden to check whether I have already bookmarked something from the site I’m currently on? To clarify why I’m asking this, I have been generally trying to be more mindful in what media I consume, which means the things I enjoy reading are fragmented pieces that I may stumble upon through word of mouth.

For example, I read post ‘a’ on blog ‘A’ and I enjoy it so much that I bookmark it (‘Aa’) so I can find it for later sharing. Many months later, I am linked to post ‘b’ on site ‘A’, but I don’t remember whether I have been to this site before, and knowing that I had previously enjoyed post Aa may prompt me to actually read post Ab (or properly set aside for later)

Native Firefox bookmarks don’t do this, I know that much. It’s something I’ve been meaning to figure out how to solve, because one of the delightful, if somewhat overwhelming parts about floating on the ‘small web’, is the trust that builds up gradually after seeing sometime put out consistently good coverage

Yeah, maintenance is undervalued.

> Things are going well

“What are we paying you for?”

> Things are breaking

"What are we paying you for?

I love and hate in equal measure the hubris with which one regards a “simple” problem that turns out to be very difficult. I love it because it usually ends up being productive eventually. I hate it because it’s hard to emerge from the rabbit hole once you’ve committed to it.

“Ask a person and they’ll remember the exact reason why, both in the context of the requested change and the coding project limitations.”

Or if it’s something that they don’t directly know, they’ll know who will know. There’s a knowledge accountability chain that evolves out of pragmatic necessity and AI simply can’t replace that

I’m guessing that this question arose because you noticed that feeling full after eating is linked to needing to poop. This is because in an simplified model of your digestive system, there’s your stomach, your small intestines and your large intestines (which includes the rectum, where poop is stored).

Often, when we eat a meal, the last meal is still being digested in our small intestines. When we eat a new meal, it is likely to spend around 2 hours in our stomach, after which point the partially digested new food will move into our small intestines. So that this can happen, it’s necessary for there to be space in your small intestines, so eating a new meal sends messages to your digestive system to ensure the old meal moves along into the large intestines, where the final stages of digestion can happen and the mostly digested food is processed into poop, which gets stored in the rectum. Basically, you can think of it like a conveyor belt, that starts moving when something enters the stomach.

If you put poop up your butt and into your rectum, it would probably just make you feel like you needed to poop, especially if there was an old meal slowly making its way through your intestines. The short answer is that the systems that produce poop are connected to but distinct from the parts of your digestive system that processes food. Your stomach is the place where food goes, so parts of your body that are listening out for a message “we have recently eaten” are expecting that message to come from your stomach (or possibly your blood, because of nutrients being absorbed from early digestion).

That’s the simple answer, but the complicated answer is that feeling hungry is actually, weirdly separate from whether we are full or not. For example, there are receptors (special messengers that watch out for certain signals) in your stomach called stretch receptors, and they can detect when your stomach is full. They are one part of the system that helps you tell when you’re full, but it’s not a super quick system. This is why it’s possible to eat too much and notice until a while after, when you feel sick. It’s also why drinking a lot of water can make you feel bloated, but it doesn’t necessarily make you feel not hungry.

But feeling hungry isn’t just determined by your stomach. Have you ever eaten meals on a particular routine, and then switched to a drastically different routine? I started a job where lunch time was relatively early, and I didn’t have time for breakfast in the morning, so I decided to have my lunch be the first meal of the day. For the first few weeks, I was hungry all morning, but then gradually, I started to only become hungry when lunch time was approaching. Our bodies are incredibly adaptable, but they really like routine. This is especially significant when we look at hormonal control of hunger. I’m a scientist who studied some of this stuff at university, and the honest answer is that what makes us feel hungry is really complicated and we don’t actually understand all of the little systems that work together to coordinate hunger.

The short answer to your question is no, because the rectum being full isn’t what tells us we’re not hungry.

Oh yeah, that’s one of the things that I’m tempted by. I just recognise that it’ll be a bit of a time sink (not necessarily a bad thing), and I should probably try it on a spare device or drive first. I’ve just been too busy to be able to sink my teeth into something like that, but hopefully some day.

A good guide or wiki makes a huge difference — I opted for Arch as my first Linux run, for example, because I kept seeing the Arch wiki be a useful resource when learning about general Linux things. Similarly, I have had a nosy at the Gentoo handbook and that too looks like a thorough and accessible resource (though it’s more Gentoo specific obviously).

As someone relatively new to Linux (been using as my daily driver for a couple of years now, but I still feel like a novice), I’ve been considering tinkering with Gentoo, and it low-key feels like considering starting using hard drugs.