It’s a matter of priorities. A large portion of Linux users don’t actually care about adoption. They’re not selling the os, so the docs aren’t designed for anyone who isn’t already a user.

Valve on the other hand is paying people for documentation and good ux. That’s enough to significantly boost the quality.

It’s even still a valid course of action if there’s literally no interest in making the world better.
They’ve potentially found a way to make their nearly omnipresent e-commerce platform share a name with the operating system, which is coincidentally mostly developed by others. They get to associate their name with a few tens of billions of dollars of development effort for a fraction of the cost.

To be clear, this isn’t bad or anything. It’s quite literally what a lot of the people doing all that legwork want. It just doesn’t require any altruism from valve. They make money selling games, and they sell more games when people think it’s easier to play them. A desktop with the ease of a console is a big selling point for a lot of people.

Their streaming system works fine with desktop apps, and it already works with their VR setup on different headsets.

I’ve streamed desktop to a different headset. I was able to also do stuff like mounting an app in a picture frame on the wall of a little VR house.

Using the video player on desktop while streaming was a little jank, but since this is a proper desktop I imagine it’ll be easy enough to switch over and use a normal video player without streaming another computers video player.

They’ve been pretty great on Linux. They built on the great work of the wine people and have done a lot to push the state forward.

I believe they’ve had a lot of good things to say about the stability of the Linux platform from a development perspective. For all the jank and instability that Linux software exposes, it has a lot more stability in terms of things like kernel and driver interfaces as a point of deliberate design choice. So there’s a lot less work needing to code around the specific versions of drivers being used.

Management isn’t your friend, but managers are still people. The job is not the person. A good, nice, friendly person can have a job where their work interests aren’t necessarily aligned with yours and still try to do what they can to see that your interests are met.

If they fire me, no manager is going to ask me how I’m holding up or what my plans for the future are

That’s just not true. It’s not universally untrue, but it’s just wrong to default to such an antagonistic view from the outset.

All that to say: it sounds like you’re mainly having difficulty reconciling your thoughts on how you behave towards people with how you behave towards management. If you replace job related words with words like “people” or “person” then the question gets a lot easier.

I had an argument with this person everyone likes and after thinking about it, it was mostly my fault we raised our voices. She raised her voice first but because I wasn’t listening to her because she triggered me.

It’s pretty obvious to me that you apologize. Then ask if they’d be open to a conversation about what you feel could have gone better.
“Hey, do you have a minute? Sorry about how I acted when we were talking the other day. I thought about it and realized that I hadn’t been listening, which wasn’t right of me and made things worse. Would you be open to discussing it now that we have a little distance from it? I’d like to explain myself a bit and share some related concerns that I had, if nows a good time.”

They’re a person. If you feel your wronged them, apologize. If you feel like you want to explain things and offer feedback, just make it clear this isn’t a prerequisite for the apology or anything.

Exactly. If you’re apologizing, apologize. There’s nothing wrong with also asking to have a conversation about what caused the conflict.

“I’m sorry” and "can we talk about what happened?” are both valid, but ultimately aren’t dependent on each other.

Yup. I’d definitely think it’s more to do with utility 10 years ago than AI now. That’s enough time to see that some people who went to college aren’t using their degrees and some people who didn’t are doing just fine, and that for a lot of people then biggest difference is debt. Current AI tools haven’t had enough time influencing the market to make it clear if they’re actually going to change things significantly or not.

I think the political difference is between which groups value education in the abstract more, and see college as a way to get that, despite a possible lack of utility. College can be a way to learn critical thinking and such. In an ideal world, we’d also be more okay giving anyone who wanted it knowledge for knowledges sake without making it so focused on utility.
I’d love if I could pop over to the nearby university and sign up to take an intro course on something that I know I will never practically use.

Ah, alright. :) sometimes these things are hard to tell in text.

I think you missed that the next portion of their statement was connected to the part you (inappropriately) added the missing word to.

They’re saying, essentially, that it’s important to learn math just for a rounded education, even if it lacks application. They’re saying closer to “even if we’re eating sushi, we still need fire”.

There’s a lot of different things that get pumped into “intelligence”. There’s “reasoning ability”, “knowledge”, “wisdom”, and a whole host of others, some in the category of traditional intelligence, and others around things like emotional intelligence.

Raw knowledge is something that schools can teach through memorization. You have facts. Memorization isn’t the best way to do it, since context and such can often make information stick better, but some things you’re eventually going to memorize, intentionally or not (I don’t calculate 6*6=36 every time).

Reasoning or analytical ability is much harder to teach, since you can’t really make someone more able to have insights and such.

Wisdom is something that can be trained I’d phrase it. I don’t think you can be taught it like you can a history lesson, but it needs to be trained like a sport. How to apply reason to a situation, how the knowledge you have relates to things and other bits of knowledge. Which things are important and which aren’t.

It sounds like you’re mostly taking what I’ve called wisdom, with a dash if introspection tossed in, which can play very well with wisdom. “How sure am I about this?” Is a question wisdom might make you ask , and you need to know yourself to know the answer.
Knowing how to question the right part of something, so that you’re not getting caught up in the little inconsistencies and missing the big one, or considering the wrong facts that are unimportant to a situation.
(A pet peeve of mine) Sometimes people will bring up statistics of race in relation to crime. People with perfectly good reasoning ability and knowledge will get caught up debating the veracity of the statistics, or the minutiae of the implications of how other statistics interplay to lead to those numbers, both in an attempt to deny the conclusion of the original argument.
The more wise thing to do is to question why this person is making the argument in the first place. Use your knowledge of society to know there are racists who want to convince others. Your reasoning to know that someone more interested in persuasion than truth can twist numbers how they want. Reject their position entirely, instead of accepting their position as valid and arguing their facts.

Except that with the website example it’s not that they’re ignoring the price or just walking out with the item. It’s that the item was not labeled with a price, nor were they informed of the price. Then, rather than just walking out, they requested the item and it was delivered to them with no attempt to collect payment.

The key part of a website is that the user cannot take something. The site has to give it to them.
A more apt retail analogy might be you go to a website. You see a scooter you like, so you click “I want it!”. The site then asks for your address and a few days later you get a scooter in the mail.
That’s not theft, it’s a free scooter. If the site accused you of theft because you didn’t navigate to an unlinked page they didn’t tell you about to find the prices, or try to figure out payment before requesting, you’d rightly be pretty miffed.

The shoplifting analogy doesn’t work because it’s not shoplifting if the vendor gives it to you knowingly and you never misrepresented the cost or tried to avoid paying. Additionally, taking someone’s property without their permission is explicitly illegal, and we have a subcategory that explicitly spells out how retail fraud works and is illegal.

Under our current system the way to prevent someone from having your thing without paying or meeting some other criteria first is to collect payment or check that criteria before giving it to them.

To allow people to have things on their website freely available to humans but to prevent grabbing and using it for training will require a new law of some sort.

It really does matter if it’s legally binding if you’re talking about content licensing. That’s the whole thing with a licensing agreement: it’s a legal agreement.

The store analogy isn’t quite right. Leaving a store with something you haven’t purchased with the consent of the store is explicitly illegal.
With a website, it’s more like if the “shoplifter” walked in, didn’t request a price sheet, picked up what they wanted and went to the cashier who explicitly gave it to them without payment.

The crux of the issue is that the website is still providing the information even if the requester never agreed or was even presented with the terms.
If your site wants to make access to something conditional then it needs to actually enforce that restriction.

It’s why the current AI training situation is unlikely to be resolved without laws to address it explicitly.

The thing is a robots.txt file doesn’t work as licensing. There’s no legal requirement to fetch the file, and no mechanism to consent or track consent.

This is putting up a sign that says everyone must pay, and then giving it to anyone who asks for free.

It’s from a time when you bought undried and planned wood rather than dried and planned like we typically do now.

It’s less a quirk of the imperial system and more a quirk of the lumber retail system, which is older than the metric system.
The biggest difference is that in places that use dimensional lumber and the metric system the pattern is to sell by actual dimension, rather than nominal. So a wall stud might be 45mmX145mm, or 63mmX75mm for a rafter, depending on your country.

Most north American hardware stores also sell by finished sizes now.

If someone gives you tips, advice, or constructive feedback: there’s a good chance they’re worth listening to.

Hostile, critical with no other feedback : almost certainly garbage.

The first comment in the image, to my mind, wasn’t actually bad. It didn’t tell them not to do something and it wasn’t critical. It just said they the category was very saturated and they should temper their expectations.

And, you’re also entirely correct that you should take even the feedback worth listening to with a grain of salt, or maybe a shaker. :) There’s a thousand and one ways to do anything, and it can be difficult to convey the difference between “this is how I would do it” and “this is how you should do it”.
(Doing software code reviews is a skill that can help teach the difference, and not everyone learns it)

It’s frustrating because they used the technical term in a knowingly misleading way.

LLMs are artificial intelligence in the same way that a washing machines load and soil tuning systems are. Which is to say they are intelligent, but so are ants, earthworms, and slime molds. The detect stimuli, and react based on that stimuli.

They market it as though “artificial intelligence” means “super human reasoning”, “very smart”, or “capable of thought” when it’s really a combination of “reacts to stimuli in a meaningful fashion” and “can appear intelligent”.

Because disabling JS is unheard of in the open source world, right?

They implemented a feature that breaks the website for people who otherwise have no issues while providing no functional value to the site “rather than spending time building their actual product that people want to use.”

It’s one thing to expect them to do special work to support an uncommon configuration, and it’s another to feel frustrated that they did extra work to break a less common but still unremarkable configuration.

I entirely support people not wanting bots to scrape their shit, but there’s a handful of websites I use that use this specific blocking software and it frequently gets angry and blocks me if I’m on my phone for no good reason. It’s annoying, and getting angry at the user for being upset that your website is broken is about the only thing more unreasonable than demanding that an open source developer do work for you for free.

I wouldn’t call that “seething”, the project is targeting an English speaking audience (English is the source, other languages are translation targets), effectively no one is a native speaker of Esperanto, and it’s usage is small enough that someone could quite possibly never encounter the language.
Bad project names are common enough in programming and open source, and complained about, that I wouldn’t jump right to xenophobia as the reason someone might complain that a project picked a name knowing it would be difficult to pronounce.

They can name it whatever they want, but getting that angry that someone didn’t recognize a word in an anglisiced spelling of a word from a niche language is uncalled for.

100% thought you had done that, and just wanted to ramble some clarification in case. :) it’s pretty easy to focus on the “big” elections, and how what makes them shitty is essentially the “small” elections working properly-ish.

Personally, I’ve always wondered about a system where people directly vote for the representative they want regardless of geography, and then that person represents their constituency.
Geography used to represent a much more significant part of a persons interests, since you likely worked reasonably near where you lived, shopped and everything else. That’s less true now.
It’s moot since we’re not changing the fundamentals of our system anytime soon, but it’s interesting to think about.

It appears you’re saying that in some circumstances it’s appropriate to layout voting districts based on the political affiliation of the people who would end up in the various districts, with the intent of ensuring some seats are won by a minority party that would otherwise not hold power.

I’m saying that districting should be based on shared interests, predominantly geographic in nature because that’s how our system is designed, but that it should definitely not factor in political affiliation.

This means that if a political group is spread out and in the minority, they will not be represented by someone sharing their party affiliation, and that’s as it should be in our system.