

Clearly these beavers don’t know the Rules of Acquisition.
“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: […] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.” —Jonathan Swift
Clearly these beavers don’t know the Rules of Acquisition.
rather than reading an article talking about it
Good as a supplement, but the RPS article gives context itch.io is too much of a cowardly little bitch to include like: “Collective Shout describe themselves as a “grassroots campaigns movement against the objectification of women and the sexualisation of girls”, but are associated with outspokenly homophobic and anti-abortion Christian conservative groups, according to a now-deleted Vice article.”
Edit: and yes, the Vice article was removed because Vice’s ownership bitched out over covering Collective Shout.
This is technically true but extremely deceptive if you don’t know the history. From “Creditworthy: A History of Consumer Surveillance and Financial Identity in America” (Lauer, 2017; Columbia University Press):
Chapter 3: “By the late 1890s systems for evaluating the credit risk of individual consumers existed in metropolitan centers throughout the United States.”
Chapter 4: “During the early twentieth century millions of Americans came under the watchful gaze of newly formed credit bureaus. But these bureaus were only one arm of the emergent consumer credit apparatus. Their counterpart was the credit department of individual stores, where credit managers interviewed, documented, and tracked customers for their own benefit and that of the local bureau.”
Credit reporting has existed for a very long time in the US. So while a computerized score wasn’t there until the late 1950s (basically as soon as such a computerized score could exist, underscoring how eager banks were to implement it), your comment being technically true has no real impact on the argument of the merits of credit scoring.
It’s reasonably common in the developed world. And it’s a good idea that lenders be able to easily know how responsible borrowers are with repayment. That the US’ implementation of credit scores is problematic in some areas shouldn’t be used as a blanket dismissal of a credit scoring system.
A friend brought up Greenland nuking somebody as a joke. And I imagined how disproportionate a retaliatory strike could be, quickly remembering though that the current population is less than 60,000 and that I’m almost certain I’ve seen figures of more than 60,000 nukes during the Cold War, so I imagined a retaliatory strike where literally every person in Greenland had a personalized nuke.
The research was done make sure I wasn’t misremembering, that Greenland didn’t at any point exceed 60,000 (thus necessitating a closer comparison), and that I’m not Senator Armstrong-ing this.
OP, the site you’re linking to is LLM slop. Like seriously just look at this site for a second.
Can’t you please link to an actual source to make this claim?
sudo
is telling the computer to do this with root privileges.chmod
sets permissions.077
is the exact inverse of 700
, where 077
means “the owner cannot access their own files, but everyone else can read, write, and execute them”. Corresponding 700
to asexuals is joking that nobody but the owner can even so much as touch the files./
is the root directory, i.e. the very top of the filesystem.-R
flag says to do this recursively downward; in this case, that’s starting from /
.So here, we’re modifying every single file on the entire system to be readable, writable, and executable by everyone but their owner. And yes, this is supposed to be extremely stupid.
It’s so funny too, because in the very next article, they correctly call another proposal “proposed”. Like, Linuxiac, what is this:
Basically what @[email protected] said: the idea is to be practicable. Here’s a stream of disconnected thoughts about this:
The original Wired article is a substantially better source than the IBT, which is slop that owns the likes of Newsweek and the Latin Times. On Wikipedia, we avoid citing it wherever possible.
I would say that most vegans, even if they’ve never heard it, at least approximately follow the Vegan Society’s famous definition:
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Striking the parts that seem irrelevant to this specific question:
Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for […] any […] purpose […]
Keep in mind that “animals” in that first part is widely treated as “humans and non-human animals”. So you would have to decide 1) to what extent cruelty was inflicted to create the distro, 2) to what extent people and non-human animals were exploited to create the distro, and 3) if there exist practicable alternatives that meaningfully reduce (1) and (2).
OP, you linked to the comments instead of the top of the article. 💀
I’m not agreeing with their dumb point, but just pointing out: this satellite works on radar. I’m genuinely concerned how many people seem to be commenting without reading the article.
I don’t know why you’re assuming their ‘/s’ is alluding to sarcasm around this being surveillance versus sarcasm around needing more surveillance. “We need more surveillance (we actually don’t)” seems to be indicated here, not “This is surveillance (it actually isn’t)”.
Especially when Reddit types are notoriously, chronically unable to read articles before they go spouting uninformed bullshit in the comments.
Did you read the part where this is a radar satellite designed for monitoring the climate? That is, did you read anything besides the headline before you decided: “Yeah, I think I’m able to make informed commentary about this”?
Fucking thank you. Yes, experienced editor to add to this: that’s called the lead, and that’s exactly what it exists to do. Readers are not even close to starved for summaries:
What’s outrageous here isn’t wanting summaries; it’s that summaries already exist in so many ways, written by the human writers who write the contents of the articles. Not only that, but as a free, editable encyclopedia, these summaries can be changed at any time if editors feel like they no longer do their job somehow.
This not only bypasses the hard work real, human editors put in for free in favor of some generic slop that’s impossible to QA, but it also bypasses the spirit of Wikipedia that if you see something wrong, you should be able to fix it.
That’s because every company’s strategy aiming to monopolize is to:
It’s why people who say “Oh, well I wouldn’t mind it if X had a monopoly because they’re way better than those other companies” are so painfully misguided.
“Play has no limits, but your credit card does. Let’s aim for that.”
it shouldn't be that hard?
OP, what’s your background to make you think that way, and if you’re qualified enough to make that assessment, why aren’t you getting to work building the ground floor of something potentially highly lucrative?
The response to “It shouldn’t be that hard” for FOSS is invariably “PRs welcome”.
Another in a line of “turn the desktop UI into a glorified mobile UI, completely negating the benefits of a desktop display so we don’t have to do as much work”.