I can’t seem to find it, but I think it was James Gosling, where he was blocked from reviewing code at Google because he hadn’t gone through the company’s approval process. I hope this wasn’t a myth I’ve been carrying on for this long.

Right, I did hear about that lawsuit way back when, I just didn’t know of these types of consequences. Very appreciated, especially the sources.

Is this for hardware RAID controllers, or have you experience software RAID like LVM or ZFS exhibiting the same drop out behavior? I personally haven’t but it be nice to look out for future drives.

Regex is Turing Complete after all.

Does Backblaze work for what you are doing? It been a bit since I’ve price compared them, but I think it was something around 5$ a month per TB?

Oh so its just referring to writing the mod’s code in the same file the mod is declared in being bad form? That seems very reasonable; since the point of a module is code separation so it makes sense to always put it in its own file. Good, I’m already doing that at least!

I don’t understand how to follow this bullet point that I was replying to.

do not use mod unless it’s test for the current module. No I don’t want to Star Wars scroll your 1000 line file. Split it.

I already know what mod does in a basic sense, I wanted to know what the commenter meant by this.

I don’t know enough Rust to understand by what you mean by the last one. My understanding was that mod name was just declaring the module that this file depends on. Could you explain what I should do instead? Since your other statements I totally agree with, I should probably agree with the last one.

That’s sorta the curse of an open protocol is that anyone, even your enemies, can use them. I am no fan of Meta. I am a big fan of open standards, monkey’s paw and all. It is not a case of tolerating the intolerant. To restrict Meta out of using ActivityPub is against the spirit of open standards. The protocol is no longer open, and THEN we really have something to worry about.

Don’t worry I’ve been quoted EEE enough times. I really don’t think that is the direction this will go down. If Meta actually embraces it, then the whole of the fediverse grows over all. Then, if Meta does extend the ActivityPib protocol in a way the that becomes incompatible with the rest of the ecosystem, we just let them go and do their own thing. ActivityPub already has a userbase, if they join us, and then later on cause problems then everything just goes back to how it is right now. The final E can’t realistically happen because the existing ecosystem will just carry on exactly as it is now. If people on Threads want to communicate with us, then they need to speak the same protocol. If they don’t, then they don’t get to participate.

Do you genuinely believe that the whole community of the fediverse would just lie down and accept breaking changes to the protocol without resistance? There are too many talented and passionate people invested in this ecosystem, the absolute worst case scenario is the protocol itself gets forked, and again the exist communities just carry on. There is no extinguish time line. Everyone points to how Meta handled XMPP, please compare the user bases of ActivityPub vs XMPP. The world has changed a lot since then. Another example I’d like to point out is Hashicorp’s Terraform. They explicitly tried to EEE, and the moment they attempted the final E, it was instantly forked, and the open licensed fork was adopted into the Linux Foundation and the ecosystem carried on.

Take that what you will, but I am reasonably convinced ActivityPub has enough support and community that any EEE attempt will inevitably fail. The front ends will change, the hosters will come and go, the open standard is here to stay.

What do you mean by Mastodon selling out to Meta? Isn’t Meta just building an ActivityPub based platform so we can talk to their users as far as I know. If they want to talk to us, then the onus is on Meta to stay compatible. If they aren’t, then we just continue on as we have.

There’s also Bitmagnet, it you’d like a local tracker for the Arr stack.

100% agree. Universal Basic Income feels inevitable as a solution. Better and better technology puts machines in place of human labor, with no guarantee that other jobs will come into existence to replace the ones lost. Is it not the ideal goal to have machines do all labor, leaving humans to do what they actually want without fear of homelessness and starvation.

It just kinda sucks right now because these systems don’t exist to support this changing landscape.

Which is exactly the same as how there were no new jobs for horses created. Employment is not a right. You have to either adapt with the changing times, or become unemployed. I agree that it sucks.

Improvements in technology do not guarantee employment for tradespeople of current technology. A whole lot of horses became unemployed when cars became ubiquitous. I’d say the improvement of cars to society is worth the loss of employment to all those who maintained the horse’s infrastructure. Like all those manufacturing jobs lost from the improvement in machines, professional creatives must adapt to the times, or seek other forms of work. No different than any other job in all of history.

By writing text on their platform, you consented to their free and unlimited use of your text. Terms of Service and EULA on practically all platforms has this boilerplate legal agreement. You DID consent. Facebook has access to a massive amount of text, same with Google. They don’t need to bother stealing when so much is already in their databases.

Now if you never wrote any text published on any platform with that agreement, sure you could have an argument there.

I would argue they already have. Just as cars used to be slow, inefficient, and loud, compared to today. Overtime their will inevitably be improvements in how they run, but also improvements in dedicated hardware support. Timeline wise, we are enjoying the hot new Model T, knowing eventually we will get to have a modern Honda Civic.

I despise that the artwork generators are all based on theft.

Ownership of anything is difficult to define. The internet has accelerated this loosening of definition. If I pay a subscription to use my coffee pot, do I really own it? If I take a picture of the coffee pot, do I own the picture? If I pay a photographer to take a picture of the pot do I own the picture, do I own their time?

I don’t intend on trying changing your opinion on theft, but its interesting to think about how ownership feels very different as time goes by.

Bash being on the same level as actually fake code is a pretty hot take to me. What are your opinions on Python, or Ruby, or any other interpreted language? You could very well use them as your login shell, just like Bash if you wanted. In your eyes, if Bash *isn’t * a programming language at all, how do you describe a programming language? Languages that express code are just the same as languages that write stories, and whether you do it in German or Vietnamese makes no difference on what story you can write.

When you describe a language as constricted what do you mean? Bash can do anything Python or Rust can do, each of them is just specialized to being better at specific aspects for human convenience in writing code. There is no inherit limitation on what can be done by the language you use to express it.

Pseudo code is literally fake code. Scripting is an actual type of code. Scripted languages while not strictly defined, usually refers to languages you don’t compile before running them. Bash is considered a scripting language because you don’t ship a binary compiled executable, but rather ship a file that is human readable and converted into machine code when it is run. Scripting languages are compared to compiled languages, like C or Rust. Where the file you run is already compiled, and executed directly.

What do you mean by this?

i’m referring to the aspect of a scripting language being generally constricted.

Any Turing complete system, or this case language, can do anything any other one can, depending on the level of suffering you are willing to endure to make it happen. Anything JS can do, Rust can do. Anything Rust can do, Bash can do. The differences between languages is the assumptions they make, and performance characteristics as a result of those assumptions. Functionality is not practically different from one another, though some absolutely make it easier for humans to do.