One case where I find it useful, tho it operates in a more limited way, is code in block blocks within code comments in Rust, which are also printed out in the generated documentation. They essentially get ran as part of your unit tests. This is great for making sure that, eg, your examples left in code comments actually work, especially if they’re written in a way that functions like a unit test.

On the last point you talked about, “prove it definitely will become such a future”. You simply cannot prove that without going there. What we’re seeing is not a natural course of actions, so we cannot simply derive the consequences like we would be able in science. Even in science, often times, the best we can do is probabilistic. The best we can do is show that such a future is possible, and that given the evidences, we may be able to conclude that the chances of realizing such a future is so and so, with caveats to known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

I’ll admit that chalking it up to defeatism is a stretch, but it’s not too far in my opinion. It’s the admission that the “machines” (though it’s really just big tech companies with a vested interest in as much data as possible so that they can sell it one way or another for profit) have already won and there’s not only no point in struggling against it, you get something out of it. I don’t necessarily agree with the gun analogy as I find it difficult to distinguish that from a threat of your life, but I see where you’re coming from: the easy path towards what most people current perceive as a modern life of tech is built in a way that pushes people into line as products, by enticing them with a “service” and taking advantage of their FOMO, and all other ways are either too much work or too technical for the common person.

When these services that people have come to rely on gets enshittified, these people would then just shrug and say “well what can you do,” maybe send some angry message somewhere into the aether and continue with the service, continuing to be a milk cow.

For myself, I see privacy as a tool towards encouraging a healthier variety in the ecosystem. It is a way to attain at least some healthy level of anonymity, as you would walking down streets in different parts of the world, so that I do not have to constantly maintain a single, outward personality everywhere I go. Supporting privacy is my way of saying I don’t like how many big tech business works, by essentially exploiting human nature and stepping all over it. That IS ideological; I simply believe that we can do good business without resorting to dirty tactics and opportunism; that humans should not be milk cows to business or capitalism.

That said, I have some vested interest in having more options: my interest and hobbies are niche and none of these services can or will sufficiently provide for what I seek. By the milk cow analogy, I do not sufficiently benefit from the blanket offers of these businesses. I also do not like the consequences of which they bring to humans and their relationships, and not fixing those consequences is out of a conflict of interest where they are motivated to exploit human nature and relationships to profiteer off us all, as is the many examples that we’re all starting to see and realize from capitalism.

True.

And they’ll follow that up with a somewhat snarky comment that “You’ll be eliminated by the machines first.”

There’s worse.

They already know everything about me anyways. If I can exchange my data for some free and easy to use service, I’m more than happy to give.

I hate defeatism.

This seems like a real knee jerk moment here. You aren’t wrong that there are predatory sellers that do exactly that, but it also seems to assume that people do not have the ability to do their own research, which tbf in a society where attention is apparently a rare commodity and heavily capitalized on, it’s not necessarily an unfair assumption. It’s just unhelpful and honestly pretty damn rude to make a blanket comment that seems to assume that people just won’t or will refuse do their research, and should just listen to your authoritative take.

Wouldn’t it be better to just rephrase your comment into something like, “Please remember to keep an eye on price histories to make sure that the displayed prices are discounted as claimed.”?

Or does it feel better to speak as if people are dumber than you are? I mean, if you need to feel smarter and better, there are other healthier avenues for that, and I would suggest that you try looking into those instead.

The return statement always returns for the function, regardless of scope within the function. So what you want is just Some(link) without the semicolon.

That said, I’m not quite sure if you’re using the for loop correctly here. Are you trying to get just one value out of link_nodes?

Idk about pre-orders but I’d imagine it’s a combo of many things, from Xiaomi already having the finances, to tax breaks and subsidies from the CCP, and subsidies on the domestic consumer side to encourage adoption to further stabilize the industry, which further encourages investments.

Doesn’t mean the defaults shouldn’t be sane

I swear, these bad EULA updates that basically force users to “accept the agreement, or we’ll brick your device” needs to fucking stop and be made illegal. The price that’s set for a product, especially a damn physical product, should include the acceptance of an existing EULA, and it should be honoured even when new ones come out and the user chooses to not accept the new agreement. You’ve basically never owned the product if companies can just pull the rug underneath you, and render your hardware useless. And you can’t foresee such changes too; a predatory company can acquire one that you’ve trusted and pull this shit. It’s borderline daylight larceny.

Ehhh, golang’s pretty down there for me too. Sure, you have types, but the way you “implement” an interface is the sussiest thing I’ve seen in most well-known programming languages. Not to mention all the foot guns (pointers for nullables is a common one, and oh, if you forgot that a function returns an error, and you called it for its effects, you’ve just built a possibly very silent bomb) you end up building into your programs. I use in prod, and I get scared.

For those who’re interested: https://this-week-in-rust.org/

A washer beep is like a webhook: if the recipient fails to acknowledge it, it’s gone forever. A notification is like an /events endpoint: the recipient can catch up on events at their own pace, and be reminded of and see events they haven’t processed.

Reference

Half-jokes aside though, I think what we want here is a reminder, i.e. a todo with a timed alert. Beeps can be missed and timers can be stopped (e.g. when you’re occupied), so they aren’t the most fool-proof solution here. Reminders will at least sit in the notifications list until dismissed.

I mean, if we think of how we sometimes respond to people in a mechanical, maybe even programmed way (e.g. “How are you?” with “Doing fine (though I’m actually not). How’re you doing?”), you ain’t wrong about it.

??? Am I? Never noticed that. Imma go check my settings

Edit: Not sure why that box was ticked. Guess I did that by mistake.

You can force a specific Proton version on each game, though I’m not sure (off the top of my head at least) if that would help with not installing duplicates. Iirc best practice for using Wine for games is to have separate installations to avoid having conflicting dependencies, though I’m not sure if Steam does that.

Also, GE is short for Glorious Eggroll, which is the name of the dev who creates custom Proton distributions. People refer to these distributions simply as Proton GE or just GE. Ref: https://github.com/GloriousEggroll/proton-ge-custom

Bram, thank you to have brought vim to the world.

May you rest in peace.

While this echoes some other comments, this meme should go soon. I’ve used Arch for years at this point, and if there’s ever something wrong, it’s generally my fault, and the official announcement and mailing list do a pretty good job telling you what you should do before upgrading your system. Install a tool informant to check for unread news for you for when you try to update, and stop your upgrade transaction if there are news you haven’t read. These announcements are pretty rare. My system’s also been rock solid. I read that they have an official installer now to help ease installation. Things are pretty great with Arch.

On the other hand, Ubuntu has been a pain in the ass. Putting aside the horrible experience with dist-upgrade, Gnome has been the most painful DE I’ve ever used.

• Odd resizes of my windows on sleep & wake on a multi-monitor setup.
• Randomly spawn the password prompt on sleep & wake, with no way to remove the prompt unless I do a pkill gnome-shell and let the DM restart gnome-shell.
• Software Centre can just randomly fail to fetch package updates. Update installs through software centre can also fail with the most unhelpful messages.
• Software centre will stop a full update if there’s an app in the list that’s running. Arguably a feature, but not all apps require that. That decision should be left to the discretion of the app maintainer. Users can individually update other apps to circumvent the problem, but that’s a paper cut to me.

Just like my luck IRL! :’)

You are correct. This notion of “size” of sets is called “cardinality”. For two sets to have the same “size” is to have the same cardinality.

The set of natural numbers (whole, counting numbers, starting from either 0 or 1, depending on which field you’re in) and the integers have the same cardinality. They also have the same cardinality as the rational numbers, numbers that can be written as a fraction of integers. However, none of these have the same cardinality as the reals, and the way to prove that is through Cantor’s well-known Diagonal Argument.

Another interesting thing that makes integers and rationals different, despite them having the same cardinality, is that the rationals are “dense” in the reals. What “rationals are dense in the reals” means is that if you take any two real numbers, you can always find a rational number between them. This is, however, not true for integers. Pretty fascinating, since this shows that the intuitive notion of “relative size” actually captures the idea of, in this case, distance, aka a metric. Cardinality is thus defined to remove that notion.