This is a little outside my bubble - what specifically are you worried about?
I have a couple acquaintances that are trans and they seem like normal happy people that aren't overtly oppressed. I'm under the impression that the state of trans rights is more or less equivalent to black rights, is that not the case?
I don't think we should try to draw any conclusions about the mental state or hopes and fears about people who we consider acquaintances. We just don't know them well enough, and they don't know us well enough to open up about the hard stuff.
To be clear, trans people face much more violence than you would think. It doesn't help when the GOP runs ads showing "trans women" as burly grown men who beat up little girls. Yes, that's real.
It's very difficult to not see the right's treatment of trans individuals as a slow genocide. Not only do they offer them no protections, but they also take healthcare rights away. But worst of all, they demonize them as monsters and sic their followers on them. The GOP doesn't actually need to kill trans people, it just needs to convince people to kill trans people. So far, that has been incredibly effective.
If you want a real 'farmers box', look into Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). I've never seen those programs not be local seasonally-appropriate food. The change in produce over the year is part if the fun.
I've come around to that conclusion on other verboten words, if other people don't like them it's not a big deal for me to stop using them. And I suppose it's less typing to push to main than it is to push to master.
Yeah, but usually it isn't about the "deletion" of a word (however that would look like) it is about becoming aware about the way that word impacts the world around us — and then potentially wielding it with more care — or wielding it to hurt and stump people — if that is what we want.
There is always a gap between what we mean to say and how the actual words we use are received on the other side. Only if we are able to anticipate how our choice of words might be received within different contexts we have a chance to narrow that gap. And since language is an interpersonal, intercultural, intergenerational beast that is not an easy achievment.
The worst we can do is assume language as a fixed static thing that isn't allowed to evolve over time and has one definitive meaning for all people always.
That means understanding how words are received is always beneficial to people who want to communicate effectively — whether you avoid words because you know what thoughts/feelings theh produce in others is more a question of your character and your upbringing.
Agreed, and I've also come around to the inverse conclusion: if there are words people would like me to use (someone's preferred pronouns, the in-house terminology, the name someone introduced themselves with) then it's not a big deal for me to use them.
It's weird to frame this as some imposition and that you're doing a favor to everyone by being a thoughtful communicator. Language is all about thinking about how what you say is going to be reflected in the minds of others. If you aren't already doing that constantly you are a bad communicator. You can choose to say things that sting intentionally if you want, but doing so because you haven't thought about it is just poor form.
Please stop using contractions. As a non-native English raised English learner the use of the contractions is difficult to hear the distinction at times.
It's funny, and common, to hear new-learners complain that git's too complex. It's so much better than all the alternatives, and 99% of the time it's incredibly simple to interact with.
Definitely feels a little weird to be the one saying 'back in my day, we had to walk 2 miles up hill, both ways, to commit our code. and lord help you if you needed to submit a patch.'
Git is terrible for real-world development, and it's a damn shame that industry has standardized on it. For something like the kernel, which is managed as a series of patches, it's fine, but so many real-world projects depend on large amounts of binary assets or data. Where is the most logical place to put these? The repo.
Guess what you CAN'T do efficiently with Git :)
So a lot of industrial Git users have to do these contortions involving S3 buckets, etc., or else reinvent their own bespoke versions of Git (like Microsoft GitVFS) in order to stand up a working tree on a fresh machine. Plus those external dependencies need to be kept track of, updated, and the updates kept track of.
We used to have an industrial-strength VCS that could handle source code, binary data, and huge repositories of both very efficiently: Perforce. Which is kind of on private-equity life support now.
The problem of versioning binaries is more fundamental, not tied to the tool.
Binary assets themselves don't belong under traditional source control because they are not suitable to be diffed. That is why git LFS stores them seperately and only versions their hashes.
Although I think it's extremely unlikely, I almost wish subversion would have a resurgence. I like git, personally, but I've seen so many people struggle with it, and the problems of putting large/binary assets into the repository are real. Yes, there's LFS now, but (as far as I know) you then need to make up front decisions about what to store directly and what to store indirectly as LFS objects.
Subversion was much better than anything existing before, but a very fundamental problem is that it treats branches and tags, which are conceptually different, the same way. This results in branches not tracking well their history and tags behaving like moving targets.
Do any modern cars have OBD readers integrated into the infotainment system?
It seems like a no brainer to show the error code w/ a description. Though that might decrease the number of dealer visits compared to a non-descriptive check engine light.
Tesla vehicles display error descriptions prominently whenever an error code is presented, and detailed error diagnostics are available for anyone to browse in the service mode menu on the touchscreen. (Service mode is publicly accessible but does require looking up online how to open it.)
There is not a distance that is good or bad to focus at.
Having little variance in focus distance throughout the day (long or short) can be bad, while focusing to either end of your visual limits can be tiring.
That's not what I mean. I mean the display inside the lens would require a radically different focal distance (it's less than a millimetre from the lens) than the world outside (where you would view between 20cm and infinity). I don't really see how they could consolidate that within one lens.
It's actually impossible to focus on an image within the lens, sort of by definition. It said the display is holographic, which I guess means that it will diffract light to create the appearance of an image at infinity, while not actually making an image in the traditional optics sense.
I think the most important thing for its survival is it needs young contributors who care and thus can one day take over, which seems difficult to do consistently.
It will keep evolving until it's faced with a situation where it just can't move on the correct direction. Probably because of some social reason, not a technical one.
It's hard to imagine this happening to Linux in particular because it's ridiculously flexible. But things always change.
At least with Chrome (and stock chromium, IIRC), you don't have to sign into the browser. If you sign into any Google property, the browser will use that auth to log you in.
Firefox does not, but it sure prompts the hell out of you to do so.
In Chrome Settings, You and Google, Sync and Google services, there's a toggle "Allow Chrome sign-in", which says "By turning this off, you can sign in to Google sites like Gmail without signing in to Chrome".
Sure. But it's on by default, isn't it? Just like Apple's upload is on by default.
Also, chromebooks require such a sign-in as well, and I'll bet they enable that syncing by default as well.
Singling out Apple here is kinda silly when they're encrypted (if you don't trust Apple to tell the truth there, running their OS at all is risky), and when the behavior is that which we'd expect.
And at the end of the day, using Apple's password manager is mostly (exceptions including wifi passwords) optional.
The blog post is about how it was off and then got silently toggled on.
> Singling out Apple here
I'm not a journalist covering tech companies. I'm an Apple user complaining about something that happened on my own Apple devices. It's silly to characterize that as "singling out Apple".
I do use Chrome, though, and it never silently switched that toggle back on. If it did, I'd definitely blog about that.
Why wouldn't you use local solutions for that? There is no profitability in that for companies and a lot of headaches to maintain another solution that they are just going to see as a money-sink. Companies pretty much -have- to provide a password solution on a modern OS, but they don't have to provide 2. It will have to be done by you with something like KeepassXC or Vaultwarden or something.
I have a couple acquaintances that are trans and they seem like normal happy people that aren't overtly oppressed. I'm under the impression that the state of trans rights is more or less equivalent to black rights, is that not the case?