I’m curious how software can be created and evolve over time. I’m afraid that at some point, we’ll realize there are issues with the software we’re using that can only be remedied by massive changes or a complete rewrite....
You mean 0 indicating success and any other value indicating some arbitrary meaning? I don’t see any problem with that.
Passing around extra error handling info for the worst case isn’t free, and the worst case doesn’t happen 99.999% of the time. No reason to spend extra cycles and memory hurting performance just to make debugging easier. That’s what debug/instrumented builds are for.
I swear, every time most of the time I see someone being particularly rude, ignorant, and inappropriate on a post (usually political in origin, or they swing it to being political) I click on their profile and see it has been created that same day....
For now, because Lemmy is relatively new. There’s a reason many bot farms run accounts that are unassuming, “normal” people. Accounts that are established have value. They can then sell those accounts to another group who needs to sew discord. The older Lemmy is, the less useful the new account icon will be.
We’re looking at 40 days based on 30 minutes of daily reading at 30% brightness, and with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth turned off. Dropping the brightness down to 10% nets an increase to 53 total days of runtime.
So as long as you don’t use it, the battery will last a long time!
An application can know that a file represents a soft link, but they don’t need to do anything differently to follow it. If the program just opens it, reads it, writes to it, etc, as though it were the original file, it will just work^tm^ without them needing to do anything differently.
It is possible for the software to not follow a soft symlink intentionally, yes (if they don’t follow it unintentionally, that might be a bug).
As for hard links, I’m not as certain, but I think these need to be supported at the filesystem level (which is why they often have specific restrictions), and the application can’t tell the difference.
In /etc? Are you sure? /usr/share/applications has your system-wide .desktop files, (while .local/share/applications has user-level ones, kinda analogous to installing a program to AppData on Windows). And .desktop files could be interpreted at a high level as an “app”, even though they’re really just a simple description of how to advertise and launch an application from a GUI of some kind.
For wake from screensaver/sleep, this should be configurable. Your window manager is locking your session, so you probably just need to turn that option off.
For installations and updates, I suspect you’re used to Windows-style UAC where it just asks you Yes or No for admin access in a modal overlay. As I understand it, this is easier said than done on linux due to an insistence on never running GUI applications as admin, which makes sense given how responsibilities are divided and the security and technical challenges involved. I will say, I agree 100% that this is a serious area that’s lacking for linux, but I also (think I) understand why no one has implemented something similar to UAC. I’ll try to give the shortest version I can:
All programs (on both Windows and Linux) are run as a user. It’s always possible for any program to have a bug in it that gives another program to opportunity to exploit the bug to hijack that program, and start executing arbitrary, malicious code as that user. For this reason, the philosophical stance on all OSes is, if it’s gonna happen, let’s not give them admin access to the whole machine if we can avoid it, so let’s try to run as much as possible as an unprivileged user.
On linux, the kernel-level processes and admin (root-level) account are fundamentally detached from running anything graphical. This means that it’s very hard to securely, and generically, pop up a window with just a Yes or No box to grant admin-level permissions. You can’t trust the window manager, it’s also unprivileged, but even if you could, it might be designed in a supremely insecure way, and allow just any app with a window to see and interact with any other app’s windows (Xorg), so it’s not safe to just pop up a simple Yes/No box, because then any other unprivileged application could just request root permissions, and then click Yes itself before you even see it. Polkit is possible because even if another app can press OK, you still need to enter the password (it’s not clear to me how you avoid other unprivileged apps from seeing the keystrokes typed into the polkit prompt).
On windows, since the admin/kernel level stuff is so tightly tied to the specific GUI that a user will be using, it can overlay its own GUI on top of all the other windows, and securely pop in to just say, “hey, this app wants to run as admin, is that cool?” and no other app running in user mode even knows it’s happening, not even their own window manager which is also running unprivileged. The default setting of UAC is to just prompt Yes/No, but if you crank it to max security you get something like linux (prompt for the password every time), and if you crank it to lowest security you get something closer to what others are commenting (disable the prompt, run things as root, and cross your fingers that nothing sneaks in).
I do think that this is a big deal when it comes to the adoption of linux over windows, so I would like to see someone come up with a kernel module or whatever is needed to make it happen. If someone who knows linux better than me can correct me where I’m wrong, I’d love to learn more, but that is how I understand it currently.
The actual executables shouldn’t ever go in that folder though.
Typically packages installed through a package manager stick everything in their own folder in /usr/lib (for libs) and /usr/share (for any other data). Then they either put their executables directly in /usr/bin or symlink over to them.
That last part is usually what results in things not living in a consistent place. A package might have something that qualifies as both an executable and a lib, so they store it in their lib folder, but symlink to it from bin. Or they might not have a lib folder, and just put everything in their share folder and symlink to it from bin.
For example, I’m using Debian, and I think we could learn a thing or two from Mint about how to make it “friendlier” for new users. I often see Mint recommended to new users, but rarely Debian, which has a goal to be “the universal operating system”....
And know how to use an existing btrfs partition. And always [at least have an option to] show exactly what the automatic installer is going to do before I run anything. There’s gotta be a middle ground between “we’ll just surprise you” and “here, do everything yourself”.
I’ve got a weather station outside and I use this add on to bring it into HA. We only had 79.8% coverage during the eclipse, but there was a noticeable drop in temperature!
The seats are assigned. People have been standing in line for 15 minutes now. Why on earth would anyone want to stand there, when they could just sit and wait until the line clears?...
From the airline’s point of view, having the next person right there ready to get in their seat is preferable to having everyone come up one at a time. This is why they have boarding groups. You usually see between 3 and 5 boarding groups because it’s a reasonable number between 1 and N (N being the total number of passengers). I’m curious how ~10 boarding groups would fare, but presumably there’s a reason airlines don’t do that.
I was initially interested in the idea of Gemini, but when looking for a client, I happened upon this blog post by the creator of one of the clients about why they were abandoning it.
After a lot of thinking, I’ve realized there is one main reason I don’t keep coming back to Gemini: it offers no advantage over how I already use the Web.
In practice, the Web already has all the Gemini content I’m interested in from various people, and then of course everything else. Having everything in one place (whether my web browser or feed reader) makes for a much nicer experience.
Gemini is a reaction to bloated modern websites, but in fact I don’t actually visit that many gross websites like that. When I do, my ad blocker and paywall bypasser usually make them decent again. Otherwise, I spend the majority of my non-work Internet time on lightweight sites like my feed reader and Hacker News, and some time on sites that Gemini can’t emulate: YouTube, Reddit, Discord. The reality is that Gemini just wouldn’t actually improve this experience for me.
These are exactly the reservations I had about the concept, so to have someone so invested in it reach this exact conclusion and leave it made me decide to forego it. I think it’s a neat toy, and if it becomes relevant I’ll definitely take another look, but I think it’s a bit of putting the cart before the horse. I don’t want to use a protocol for the sake of using a protocol, I want it to serve a purpose and solve an actual problem I have.
I’m not familiar with the Gemini protocol, but how does it differ from just starting up a webserver pointed at a single folder with an index.html? Isn’t it still just as possible to make a simple site using http?
It’s the one thing when I’m configuring things that makes me wince because I know it will give me the business, and I know it shouldn’t, but it does, every time. I have no real idea what I’m doing, what it is, how it works, so of course I’m blindly following instructions like a monkey at a typewriter....
If IP addresses are for finding the specific computer on a network you’re wanting to talk to, Ports are for finding the specific application you want to talk to on that computer. So kinda like a phone extension. When an application “opens” a port, they’re just telling the OS “hey, if any packets come in on this port, send the data my way, I’ll know what to do with it”.
A firewall is a special program the OS uses to control access to its ports. It says what programs are allowed to access what ports, effectively controlling the ability for all apps to access the network.
The only other thing to know is that the first 1024 port values are usually heavily controlled by the OS because there are specific protocols that are traditionally used on those specific ports, so you usually don’t want just any application claiming one of those ports willy-nilly.
Oh, and you may have had to deal with “port forwarding” on your router. This is because, if some computer outside your network sends a packet to your router targeting a specific port number, the router doesn’t know which computer it should go to. So by default, it just ignores it (which is usually the safest thing to do). Port forwarding tells your router, “if any packets come in on this port, send them to the computer at this IP, they’ll know what to do with it.”
Yeah, didn’t want to dig deep in the interest of brevity, but I didn’t want to say that specific applications use those ports, even though I already said that ports in general are for applications. You can use whatever ftp, ssh, or http server you want as long as they “speak” the expected protocol.
There’s a video on YouTube where someone has managed to train a network of rat neurons to play doom, the way they did it seems reminiscent of how we train ML models...
Hah, tbh, I didn’t realize it was originally formulated to argue against consciousness in the room. When I originally heard it it was presented as a proper thought problem with no “right” answer. So I honestly remembered it as a sort of illustration of the illusion that is consciousness. But it’s been a while since I’ve discussed it with others, mostly I’ve just thought about it in the context of recent AI advancements.
If you truly, in your wildest imagination, can’t think of a single way, no matter how extremely and unbelievably unlikely, that someone could become the wealthiest person on earth without exploiting the labor of others, I’m happy to agree to disagree on the issue.
So wouldn’t you be relying on the unfalsifyability of your claim? Reminds me of Russell’s Teapot. Your claim is that there is a vanishingly small, yet unprovably non-zero chance of something being true, therefore your claim must be true. I’m ok with conceding that.
But it seems like that’s more a lack of imagination on your part than anything.
I never said I was imaginative :D
Hell, here’s a simple one. Elon Musk decides to will his entire fortune to a random stranger drawn by lottery, you end up winning, and then he dies. Congrats, you’re now the richest person on earth. Did you exploit someone’s labor to get that money?
That’s the lottery example again. It sounds like we both agree it was accrued unethically, but would you agree that for such a person who is handed that wealth to maintain it, they would need to behave unethically?
All money on earth has at some point belonged to someone who did, and I’m not culpable because the $20 bill in my wallet was once probably owned by Jeff Bezos (or, you know, someone who’s dead and evil). Are you now responsible for every ill thing that Elon Musk has done because you won his death lottery?
I’m arguing that it’s almost tautologically true that if those events could happen, then my position holds water. I’m only arguing that it’s within the bounds of the possible.
But I think we’re still talking past each other. Imagine a contrived situation where people are picking apples, and each have their own basket they’re collecting them in, and their own strategy for collecting them. I’m saying that person A’s strategy will never result in them having the most apples, and to me it sounds like you’re saying “well if they happen upon a secret trove of apples, then they would have the most apples”. Which, yeah, you’re right, but that’s not my point.
Or like how the optimal strategy to the Secretary Problem is to search ~37% of applicants without accepting, and then take the first one that is better than all of them. No, you’re not guaranteed to accept the best applicant, but it’s still provably the best strategy for any random set of applicants.
Seems pretty easy to maintain your wealth that way. Am I missing something there?
You would not remain the richest person in the world with that strategy, any other strategy that gains more than 2%/yr would overtake you.
Edit: I probably am moving goal posts here at this point, but you are helping me refine what it is I’m actually trying to say. I agree that ethical behavior could theoretically result in the most profits, but I’m also convinced that it is not even close to the winning strategy in our current society.
I still maintain that I didn’t set the original goalposts, but yeah, I hoped I had made my edit in time for you to read it. I’m enjoying the respectful discussion, regardless.
no one has ever had a winning strategy to becoming a billionaire.
If that were true, wouldn’t there not exist any billionaires?
If there was an implementable strategy that anyone could do if they were unethical enough, there would be a hell of a lot more than 3000 of them in the world.
Not if the game is zero-sum, the initial conditions for each participant are randomized, and some execute the strategy better than others. You can take the 100 best battle royale players in the world, all of them execute their strategy perfectly, but at the end of the day they can’t all be winners as defined by the parameters of the game. In the real world the parameters aren’t clearly delineated, I’d say the limit on the number of excessively rich people possible is emergent based on various factors (laws, how unethical parties are willing to be, amount of value being generated, etc.).
(And to head off the “how can you say zero-sum, but also wealth is being generated?”. If the volume of exchanges of value between parties exceeds the amount of value being generated, then there is effectively always a cap that parties have to operate within, thus it is effectively a zero-sum system for those parties despite total value in the system increasing.)
The apple gathering metaphor was intended to convey my point about the difference between a wealth gain attributed strategy vs good fortune. We would need to extend it quite a bit to talk in terms of ethical apple picking, at which point I think we would just be talking about actual dollars.
No current billionaire strategized their way into that position. They all found the apple lotto pile.
And we’ve circled back to where we disagree. “Billion” (or rather, X) doesn’t happen purely by chance. There exists a value over-which you cannot get purely by chance, it takes unethical exploitation, and there are people beyond that value.
What does it mean to “maintain that level of wealth”? Stay the richest for 5 years? 10? 20? 100? Your whole life?
This seems like a red herring. The rate of change that employing a certain strategy gets you is the more relevant quantity. An unethical strategy will diverge into unreasonable amounts of wealth territory, whereas an ethical one won’t ever (and I have to keep saying, in this late-stage capitalist society.)
Notch isn’t a good example to bring up because, like the other lottery winners, they’re the exception, not the rule. And again, Zuckerberg didn’t become a billionaire from his initial rollout, that took years of deliberate decision making. Can we agree on that?
Regardless of their goals, they executed a strategy that directly resulted in them being billionaires. It wasn’t random, it was years of decisions they actively made.
My counter to that is, “sure they can, by winning an X+1 dollar lottery.” And I don’t think you’ve made any sort of counter to that point
My counter was the apple picking example. When discussing the viability of various apple picking strategies, it subverts the discussion to say “but if the strategy results in them randomly finding a trove of apples, then that strategy could possibly win out”. In that case, it’s not their strategy that earned them those apples, is it?
Same strategies. Same exploitation. Same formula. What makes Facebook different isn’t that they did those things better. It’s that they did them in the right place at the right time to corner the market.
This is effectively my “battle royale” analogy. Agreed.
I think there’s a good analogy to the music industry. The most popular/famous/wealthy musicians aren’t that way because they are more talented, or ruthless, or have the “winningest” music strategy.
Not the musicians, the record labels. But yes, record labels have been ruthless in the music industry since, afaik, around the 1950s. As I mentioned before, I’m not well versed in the music industry, but I know of numerous examples of corporations cornering the music industry. There’s a reason radio stations are always playing the same 30 songs, and why the vast majority of musicians end their careers in debt to their labels (at least 20+ years ago).
And there’s a reason people call them “starving artists”. It is a supremely rare occurrence for the actual musician to see much of the profits from their work. That’s something the internet is changing (in both directions. No one’s looking forward to those fractions of a cent per play on Spotify, but now you don’t need to sign with a label to get a reasonable audience).
the most they could end the day with is, let’s say, 10 million apples. But we know that some people have 200 billion apples. So how do we reconcile that?
Sorry, I don’t follow where these values came from or are supposed to represent. How do we know the max number of apples in this under-defined analogy I’ve come up with? It sounds like you’re envisioning 10 million apples out on trees, and 200 billion stashed away to be found, while I’m picturing the vast majority (200 billion I guess) to be out on the trees needing picking.
But how this ties back to reality…you’re saying that you believe the primary way to reach an unreasonable amount of wealth is in bulk, via pure luck? That’s where we disagree. Going back to the top of your post, and my “battle royale” example, luck can get you a lot, but to amass an unreasonable amount X, you need a pattern/strategy, that keeps wealth coming towards you and away from competitors. And in order to amass an unreasonable amount, you need to use unethical means.
Hm, I’m not sure it’s possible to say which of our worldviews is right here without a large amount of data that…which I don’t know if is available.
think about it like this. Did Bill Gates ruthlessly stomp on others people and companies to grow Microsoft to what it is today? Absolutely. But how many competitors were there in that space that he needed to stomp? Five? Six? That means that out of 8 trillion people on Earth, he was one of 5, maybe 6, that even had the opportunity to corner that market.
I agree 100% (except for the part where the list of competitors was WAY larger, but that’s neither here nor there). Yeah, obviously luck is always a factor for everyone, and opportunities don’t present themselves to everyone, but for those who do have the opportunity, the person willing to be the most unethical will have the largest advantage, and thus is most likely to beat out the rest.
I agree that I don’t think we can take the discussion further than this. Good talk. I’m just glad I found someone on here that didn’t call me a proto-captialist nazi for calling the original post oversimplified.
Are there any things in Linux that need to be started over from scratch?
I’m curious how software can be created and evolve over time. I’m afraid that at some point, we’ll realize there are issues with the software we’re using that can only be remedied by massive changes or a complete rewrite....
Does anyone else notice an uptick of extreme troll accounts?
I swear, every time most of the time I see someone being particularly rude, ignorant, and inappropriate on a post (usually political in origin, or they swing it to being political) I click on their profile and see it has been created that same day....
Kobo's new color E Ink eReaders start at only $150 (www.pocket-lint.com)
Noob Question Thread: Ask Any Questions About Linux!
I thought I’ll make this thread for all of you out there who have questions but are afraid to ask them. This is your chance!...
What could your distro learn from another distro?
For example, I’m using Debian, and I think we could learn a thing or two from Mint about how to make it “friendlier” for new users. I often see Mint recommended to new users, but rarely Debian, which has a goal to be “the universal operating system”....
Tracking the temperature drop during the eclipse with Home Assistant! (lemmy.world)
I’ve got a weather station outside and I use this add on to bring it into HA. We only had 79.8% coverage during the eclipse, but there was a noticeable drop in temperature!
Why stand in line to board an airplane?
The seats are assigned. People have been standing in line for 15 minutes now. Why on earth would anyone want to stand there, when they could just sit and wait until the line clears?...
What is an interesting fact that you recently discovered?
Can someone demystify computer Ports for me? Please? Blocking, unblocking, opening, allowing, VPNs and their effect, what ports are and what they do, step by step, when you have to interact with them?
It’s the one thing when I’m configuring things that makes me wince because I know it will give me the business, and I know it shouldn’t, but it does, every time. I have no real idea what I’m doing, what it is, how it works, so of course I’m blindly following instructions like a monkey at a typewriter....
Could real neurons be used for LLMs?
There’s a video on YouTube where someone has managed to train a network of rat neurons to play doom, the way they did it seems reminiscent of how we train ML models...
Gabe looking good (lemmy.ml)
More games should do this (lemmy.world)
What is something the world would be better without?