@flexghost I was reminded recently that the most important thing about civilization is never to use the guillotine. It takes a lot of strength to keep that lesson in your heart, but we have to do it to stay hooman.
@jwildeboer@notgull that' great! Are there enough gitea-based projects around by now to make federated PRs practically useful? (But great even if not, someone has to start.)
Wonder if @Codeberg are also considering AP support?
Ist antikapitalistisch eingestellt sein dasselbe wie "links"?
Ich bin viel am Nachdenken darüber zur Zeit, auch ob zB Kommunisten oder Anarchisten links sind und ob jemand, der es im Kapitalismus ganz gut schafft, erfolgreich zu sein, links ist.
Vielleicht könnt ihr ja mal eure Gedanken dazu dalassen, wie sich links sein im praktischen Alltag so darstellt, also nicht nur ideologisch irgendwo im Kopf, sondern sich in eurem Leben bemerkbar macht.
"Bei Euch fehlt ja das halbe Dach."
"Ja, von dem Sturm vorletztes Jahr."
"Vorletztes Jahr? 🤔 Sollte man da nicht was machen?"
"Ja, aber wir müssen sparen."
"Oh, OK, was ist denn so wichtig?"
"Daß unsere Kinder mal Geld haben werden, um das Dach zu reparieren."
@frumble habe kürzlich mit Bedauern festgestellt, daß es außerhalb des Fediverse auf ein gewisses Unverständnis stößt, die Vorzüge von Guillotinen zu preisen. K.A. warum.
“If it’s Apple, then I think the biggest question is — if Apple truly cares about the privacy and security of their own iPhone users, why would they try to kill a service that enables iPhones to send encrypted chats to Android users? With their announcement of RCS support, it’s clear that Apple knows they have a gaping hole here. Beeper Mini is here today and works great. Why force iPhone users back to sending unencrypted SMS when they chat with friends on Android?”
@nyquildotorg Yeah. but it's truly something how we really read about one of the richest firms on the planet squashing a small startup because it allows their users to communicate safely with others, something which has far lower priority than locking their users into their ecosystem because apparently apps and hardware and music just don't cut it anymore and we just nod and say "yes. that's how it always was going to be".
@nyquildotorg ok, I also don't say I think they act out of sheer love of mankind. But is there any really good reason for apple to lock them out other than to lock their users in?
@nyquildotorg of course Apple would even have the right to randomise their whole DNS every 24 hours if that were what floated their boat, but I'm talking about how amazing I find it that people don't turn away in troves with disgust.
@nyquildotorg that's certainly true, but almost everyone does the lock-in dance. Just now I'm reading @pluralistic's Internet Con and he details how Apple broke the spell of Microsoft office in the 90s by reverse engineering it and developing iWorks. Otherwise they might not have made it.
This won't be a surprise to any of us, given the way the world has turned since 2003, but here's the views of a couple of political leaders on the death of a notorious war criminal and justice avoider.
Bliar: "There is no-one like Henry Kissinger. I was in awe of him."
Johnson: ""With the passing of Henry Kissinger we have lost a giant of diplomacy and strategy - and peacemaking." #UKPolitics#Kissinger https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/british-political-leaders-pay-tribute-31561817
So years ago there was all that talk of Monads and representing sequential series of side effects as a functional data structure and such and I was like "Fie! I have no need of this in my life!" and never bothered to fully understand "Monads". (1/4)
@mcc Interesting wouldn't have expected this to be a big deal for someone as maths and programming-savvy as you are. I always thought the main obstacle was most programmers being used to stuff that's far more concrete and not ready to work with a couple of symbols and a few axioms.
@mcc Applicatives are a subset of the functors. Their most notable practical benefit is that they allow for easy application of functions embedded inside the functors. If you have f : a -> b -> c and X : F a, f <$> X gives you an F b (<$> is a Haskell operator for fmap). But then you're stuck with F b -> c, which is not a function and cannot be applied. But with an Applicative functor, you can use <> to apply this to another y : F b, like so: f <$> x <> y : F c.
@mcc ah, I see. There are a thousand explanations around, I believe writing your own was some kind of initiation rite for a while. My explanation would be: if you have a basic understanding of how axiomatic systems work, look at the axioms and lots of concrete implementations and it's going to become clear. If you don't, come back when you do.
I think many explanations try to add something extra to explain what they really are, but then what they explain can't be what they really are anymore.
@mcc yes and no. You can define a type constructor that looks like a functor and you can say it's an instance of the monad class and define the require functions in some bullshit way and the compiler will accept that because it has no choice. The syntax is correct and on the semantics it cannot decide (I am pretty confident at least that it cannot). So that's up to the programmer, like making sure that the right invariants obtain in an OOP class is, too, for instance.
Services include free online medical screenings and virtual appointments, discreet delivery with a $90 pharmacy fee, ans a dedicated 24/7 patient hotline
Brought to you by the good folks at The Satanic Temple
@kkarhan@thunderbird I am aware of that, but also of the fact that almost nobody I know actually uses encryption. Their reasons are not for me to judge, I can only say that, were I to move to an encrypted-only approach to Email, I could just do away with Email altogether. Also wouldn't be the worst idea, maybe.
