For fucks sake why isn’t all assitive devices open source already. Making profit over disabled people misery is such a evil thing ! The capitalist are so fucking out of touch it’s crazy. Kids dying, disabled people pressed for every penny they have etc… how the fuck did we let things go this bad.
Call it what you want, those with no morals have no boundaries. This is what laws are supposed to prevent, but y’know, the sociopaths have normalised greed and gluttony, and made it the “dream” of a nation.
My colleague built an ultrasound walking stick for his wife, but can’t even give units to the local sight-impaired community organization due to regulations… He’s given up on getting his design certified.
Open source wheelchairs; and a community of variously abled makers who can come together and build assemblies that are “not medical devices” but come together easily into something that could be used as such.
Speaking strictly for the US, and as a non-lawyer - I’m inclined to think that an open source wheelchair would probably sail right through the 510k process, but… Still doesn’t make that process cheap by any means.
I’ve had similar thoughts re: CPAP/APAP machines, neither the SW nor the HW is brutally complex / poorly understood. Pretty straightforward stuff mostly. But trying to distribute a thing like that even as plans is just asking for a C&D from the FDA, I’d expect.
Mine is also manual, with a push assist(smart drive) its MSRP is 16k!
The software is also really stupid, you have to use a stupid smart watch to control it! You can get other controls(for some functions only) but they didn’t come with the chair without additional costs. The smart watch sucks and my better watch which is also WearOS can’t download the app from the store for some reason… I’d much rather be able to just connect my phone directly.
Most people in my disability community use the smart drive and always have issues! It’s why I didn’t wanna make the change, also the manual bit when the smart drive isn’t on is still too hard for me. But my wheels are like 20kg now which also suck. Anyway, I keep hearing my friends say the same about the smart watch and then it breaking and others recommending letting them build a button on the chair for the drive because the watch KEEPS BREAKING. I have so many strong feelings about all of this honestly.
I may have had a mental breakdown when I still hadn’t found a cute backpack after 5 years, that I truly loved and was my style. Lol.
Gen Z Tech enthusiast here; I hope more Zoomers join.
The fact that a majority of even the older Gen Z (like me) have been reported to not understand file systems or general tech and internet knowledge is scary.
Ikr, ever since I was kid I was told that I am part of generation that knows it’s way around tech. Growing up and realizing that most of gen z can’t comprehend simple IT related concepts was… disappointing.
Though at least they are aware that they need to remember their own passwords (looking at you boomers).
I’ve known about basic computer knowledge since I was a little kid, sneaking around playing half life 2 because my mom wouldn’t let me. It’s astonishing to me that some people don’t understand even the surface level of how a computer works
some people don’t understand even the surface level of how a computer works
Most people don’t understand even the surface level of how a car works, but it’s not needed, they can drive. Same with computers, you don’t need to understand how they work in order to use them, thanks to MS & Apple (no, I will not include Linus Torvalds).
People don’t need to know how an engine works, the same way I don’t necessarily know how a BIOS or a kernel work. Their understanding of computers is worse than that. For cars, they understand that the gas pedal and gear makes it go forward or backward, the wheel turns it, and brakes stop.
Part of the problem is that there are a lotof people who not only don’t understand, they don’t want to, and will actively try to avoid it, even if it’s required for their job. I have a coworker who will actively sabotage her tasks that involve even basic office use because she hates tech. Just yesterday she managed to lock herself permanently out of her apple account and lost EVERYTHING because she refused to do any kind of setup to make sure she knew her passwords or had her shit backed up. Years of stuff gone.
I grew up with an Atari and a C64. We’d move them from room to room and you know, reconnect the cables as needed. I was confused when I came upon adults who couldn’t figure out how to connect their VCR to a TV or assemble a PC… I mean, the cables go into the things they fit into. Fuck, even building a desktop from parts works the same way.
It used to be more common for people to look at a desktop OS and just freeze like “I DON’T KNOW WHAT TO DO”, like they’re going to break something if they do anything. I thought people would figure out wtf they were doing with computers when the internet got big, but it just led to things like tech support where you have to ask “what does the pop up alert SAY? Did you read it? What did it tell you to do?”
Gen X and Millennials are the only ones that really needed to go through the early stages of operating systems. Having to get anything done required you to learn a lot.
Nothing says older millennial quite like having to learn how to edit config.sys with no help from the internet in order to get the sound working for a game that came in a shareware collection.
It’s because even children can be scarily good at specific things. I have a cousin (she’s a child) and has a YouTube channel, knows her way around content creation to a basic extent but absolutely can’t print a document or use MS Word. She was good at using phones when she was a toddler. So she got really good at the things she cared about and didn’t bother with the rest. The older generation didn’t have stuff like this to begin with, so of course they would take longer to learn stuff than a person who lives with it and around it from the time they were born.
In the other hand, I’m impressed with zoomers ability to produce contents with nothing but their phone. A 30-something old fart like me is stuck with the mentality of anything productive like video or image editing require the use of desktop, which apparently not true anymore.
So true. Those of us that became productive and proficient with PCs while growing up with desktop computers had a hard time taking smartphone/ipad productivity seriously. We got stuck in our own bubble as the phone platforms just got more capable.
Man, I feel this in my bones. I was SUCH a luddite about tablets for YEARS, and to this day I don’t really ever use my phone for “serious” things… despite the fact that my current phone (iPhone 12 - waiting for usb-c on the 15) technically has about 3x single core and 2x multi core performance compared to the computer I built a decade ago (2600KF) while using a little over 7% of the power.
I teach 18 year olds and up. When I started, I assumed that everyone would know basic things, like creating folders or copying and pasting with a mouse. I’m surprised how often I have to teach them computer basics.
Same! If you know of any online courses suitable for postsecondary students looking to build tech skills I would appreciate it, otherwise I might need to try getting a duty reallocation for a bit to put time into building one.
Teachers have a difficult time these days with students who don’t comprehend the concept of a hierarchal file system because iOS associates files with apps and not a directory structure.
How much do you know about the inner workings of an internal combustion engine, yet do you still drive?
It’s a good thing imo that we’ve abstracted away the complexity of tech to make it more usable. It was a pain in the ass before (so says one of the “old” techies on lemmy haha)
I agree with this, but we’d need to draw lines in the analogy. For example, my CS students struggle with downloading and installing a program and don’t know how to locate find files that they’ve saved in a text editor. We’d be concerned if the people driving didn’t know where their turn signal was, hah.
A lot of students grew up using Chromebooks as their primary computer, so they’re largely limited to app stores and web browsers.
> How much do you know about the inner workings of an internal combustion engine, yet do you still drive?
A fair bit from a theoretical perspective, actually. I've got a copy of Fundamentals of Motor Vehicle Technology on my shelf and I figure 50 years ago, I'd have been one of those people taking apart and putting together a motorcycle engine during the summer instead of figuring out how computers worked.
I used to play SMITE with a kid, and he didn’t really know anything computer related. It was a bit shocking to me since I always just expected that future generations would become more and more tech literate, but I think smartphones kind of screwed that.
Smartphones truly brought computing to the masses more than desktop OSs, and true, the majority of people have no idea what they’re doing. But… prior to smartphones they wouldn’t have been using a computing device at all.
Me too. In the 90s, when word processing and then the internet went mainstream, I thought that that average people would finally learn basic computer concepts and stop acting like it was super-confusing… just simple things like, what is a file? What is an executable? How do I organize my system? At the most basic, how do I plug all the wires together to set a desktop up? (This one always drove me nuts because there is literally only one cord and socket that fit together for each component).
Instead we ended up with millions of people running Windows 98 with 8 viruses at once and a desktop full of icons, and nonsense like “I’m calling the Geek Squad to come to my house fix my PC!” or harassing the youngest person they know to fix it for them. I can’t count how many times I had to fix my mother or aunt’s computer, then someone would fuck it up again by downloading HottestAlbumListenNow.mp3.exe. The current situation with many people’s Android phones is about as horrifying, with 20 spyware casino apps at once, and they don’t even know where they got them from. Around 2010, I got so tired of my mother saying “my computer’s broken! can you fix it?” that I installed Linux on her machine, and it was somewhat confusing for her for a while as in “How do I get the photos from my camera?” but entirely ended the constant virus/spyware bullshit. Eventually she got a Chromebook, which had the same advantage vs. Windows.
It’s a shame to just have to dumb things down or hide complexity but I think the best choice to give the average person a system like ChromeOS or iOS that they simply can’t fuck up with viruses or spyware. People have demonstrated that they aren’t going to take the time to figure it out.
Ugh, that all sounds really familiar to me too. Boggles the mind that people can’t plug things in, it’s just a case of finding what cord goes from where, and which port it fits in. It’s really difficult to get it wrong. I think the thing I hated the most was being called over to literally read a dialogue. “I was working on my document and this popped up!!”
Do you want to save your document? (Yes/No)
Like please, just read what it says instead of freaking out every time something pops up!
Ha! I have the exact same issue with people and dialogues, like “Okay… did you read it? What did it say?” Somehow they don’t seem to understand that there are words on the screen which are there to tell them information.
I think it might be some kind of expectation that since it’s a dialogue on a computer it’s automatically going to be something complex and technical.
A couple of years back the company I worked for developed a website for this other company. Our point of contact had previously worked with us at a previous company, so he knew people at our company already. He had the designer’s phone number (mistake) and would frequently just call her the moment he hit send on an email. “Hey did you see my email???”
He absolutely refused to learn how computers worked, at all, which was odd given his role was lead for digital marketing. One stand-out moment was when he emailed us “URGENT FIX NOW!!! WEBSITE BROKEN!” The designer and I both freaked out for a second, until we checked the site and everything seemed to be working correctly. We then asked him what exactly was wrong with it, and he sent a photo of his laptop screen. In the system tray, the internet icon was crossed out.
Dude had a laptop with one of those physical wifi switches. He’d switched it off, tried to access the website. Then gone on his phone to email us that it wasn’t working. The error message was along the lines of “You don’t have an internet connection.”
I no longer have contact with clients, and it’s a blessing.
Yeah, I think you’re exactly right. They expect that they won’t be able to understand or act on any sort of computer problem. That’s what I was hoping people would figure out from experience - that they don’t have to be scared to read it, click around and give it a try.
I dealt with similar things when we had a fairly busy website back in the PHP/MySQL days, around 2008-09. My business partner was a great designer but not technical at all, and was a bit uptight about our site. She didn’t report imaginary problems, but if there was any sort of service interruption she’d act like it was the end of the world and stress me out about it even more than i was already stressed. I still wonder whether it would have been better to just run the site by myself.
I tried helping my ex brother in law over the phone and he couldn’t grasp the concept of right clicking. I told him to just hold on and I would help him when I was back in town.
I know he knows how to right click but when given the instruction to right click on something he somehow forgets what a right click is.
At work I’ve been thrust into a support function for some random system (I’m in analytics) and one of the roles I work with is fairly entry level, so lots of younger folk. I have been floored by some of the basic-ass shit I’ve walked them through. (Like explaining that you can copy and paste the url into a browser if the link isn’t clickable for whatever reason. Also had to clarify what url meant–is this not a common term anymore?) I had just assumed that because they’re younger and grew up with the internet, they’d smoke the hell out of me. But I guess interfaces are so streamlined these days many got away with never having to learn basic troubleshooting the same way I did as a millennial.
URL is very much an out of date term, as far as general use goes. People think in terms of “links”, and if they understand a little more they’ll likely respond to you talking about an “address”. Most of an entire generation only really interacts with these concepts through the streamlined methods of a phone or tablet interface, which have gone out of their way to hide scary concepts like the actual file system.
I am a fellow gen Z Tech enthusiast, but to be honest the age of users on Lemmy has never crossed my mind. But I am sad to say that I am writing this on Linux 😞.
Im also older GenZ and I only found Lemmy and the Fediverse today
I think of myself as above average in Tech and Internet Knowledge but there is so much to know and so many things to not get.
Tech is ridiculously “complicated” in that it has little parallels to other aspects of life. Also the sheer size of knowledge you need to have to get deep into it can be very disappealing
[Example] want to set up your own vpn looking for a guide and you only see guides you have never Heard before you look up these words to understand it only to find many explinations with other words you have never seen before
Im doing my best to understand many things but I dont have the time or the motivation to Learn everything
And I think many people are like me Maybe they dont even want to learn the things because their interest are in a completely different field
The fact that a majority of even the older Gen Z (like me) have been reported to not understand file systems or general tech and internet knowledge is scary.
I think it’s to be expected. When the majority of your tech use is with a phone/tablet, concepts like filesystems are abstracted away from you.
The same goes for troubleshooting that tech, as the most helpful error message you generally get from those kinds of devices boils down to a graphic of a sad face and a completely useless “Something went wrong” type of error message.
I’d prefer if we stopped bringing up Reddit altogether. We no longer use the platform, we should be happy with what we have here instead of constantly peeping into the neighbor’s garden.
It’s a real color (as real as colors can be, which is not very). It’s not a spectral color, you won’t find it on the rainbow. It’s actually the result of your red and blue cones being activated together.
so this is based off my memory so there could be inaccuracies.
but what i’ve heard is that pink is the result of your brain registering a color because of specific color cones being activated but that your brain knows it’s not actually that color and so it fills it in with pink.
So if the can shown wasn’t Coke, but Sprite, it would still appear red? Or is it a mix of both? The eyes are confused and the brain fills in? Like when seeing pink as mentioned elsewhere.
Your brain isn’t filling in anything. Your blue and green receptors get oversaturated by the cyan, which causes your red receptors to be more sensitive to the white light than the other two, which is why it appears red. The effect happens in your eye, not in your brain.
USA mobile carriers have been charging for tethering since devices implemented the tethering feature. Android enforced it through carrier firmware. I don’t remember how apple enforced it.
I remember having to jailbreak all my iPhones so I could get it for free. As iOS started feeling more limited, I bought a galaxy phone from Europe because the international phones didn’t have the carrier firmware.
Then T-Mobile was the first big carrier to offer free tethering - I switched to them from AT&T. And now more carriers are offering free tethering because it’s losing them customers probably.
I get 5gb of tethering included on T-Mobile with an "unlimited" plan. I already have an app that routes the traffic through my VPN so only used a few MB for when I forgot to turn on the forwarding.
It is important for context to understand that this should only apply to unlimited data plans. Conceptually it is because there is limited spectrum available to consumers overall which limits bandwidth. Financially, they should not do this to anyone who is paying per gigabyte for their data plan. It’s your data that you paid for. That has not stopped them from trying. If it is unlimited, it simply stops abusers from running an entire household off of spectrum that everyone has to share.
As per usual, the truth is lost in the nuance.
Under my current plan I get unlimited data and 10GB free tethering.
No it’s not just an American thing. On my carrier I can have unlimited data all I want but hotspot is limited to 5GB/month and I have to pay for more or it goes down to 512Kbps basically unusable. Fortunately changing TTL on computers can trick them though lmao.
Satellite Internet is shit. Even the musk one of us actually any faster needs to fail simply because he would profit from it, and he deserves just nothing but depression.
Don’t assume that’s when it will be available. We had the fiber line dug in through our neighborhood back in March, but they’re still laying it in other areas nearby, and apparently they are waiting to turn it on until they’re done with all of it, which is supposed to be done sometime this fall, according to the original plan announced before they started any of it, sometime last year. If there’s been any delays since then I guess I’m stuck waiting longer.
And since I’m stuck at home due to a major medical issue (hopefully should only be a problem for another year or so), once it does become available I will still have to convince my parents that ditching our cable connection and using online streaming to get all their channels and ad free streaming of anything not currently broadcasting along with Internet that’s literally 40x faster than what we have here now while AT THE SAME TIME saving like $80-$90 per month is worth it. Mom in particular is so hesitant to have to learn anything different that I think she’d rather still pay the higher amount just because she’s used to it.
We’ve had the fiber trunk line run through the back yard for 6 months or so. Luckily they have called and installs are running 4 to 6 weeks out at the time they called.
Feel very lucky fiber is even go an option. We are a good 3 miles from the closest town of 25 or so houses and 20 miles from the nearest city where the fiber originates from. It’s a joint venture with a small company and our electric utility.
Imagine getting a steam deck and you're out and about and you use your hotspot so you can play a game. Your game needs to be updated. Now imagine you have the $35 plan. You won't even make it to playing your game before you get throttled to 128KB/s.
Hotspots are the new thing they've modeled the plans around. First it was minutes, then it was texting, then it was data, now it's hotspots.
edit: I've been arguing about this with them for ages because we WERE on a grandfathered plan from when they bought out cingular. They got rid of our plan (Kicked us off said plan.) and these are the only 3 options they have left.
edit2: Forgot to mention. The rationale they give for this is that they "don't want people using their cellular data to replace their home internet".
My carrier has been giving me weekly data packs since mid May, with a use-or-lose-it condition, so I have been actively not using my home connection and connecting everything I can remember to my phone’s hotspot.
The moment you pay/receive the bandwith, it’s yours to use as you understand; the network can’t interfere with its usage.
Us vzw customers are almost all on some version of an “unlimited” package now, which includes hotspotting. If you had one of the lower valued plans, hotspotting can still be expensive. Hitspotting can still push you over your “unlimited” data allowance however, at which point your traffic gets deprioritized aka slow af.
Definitely a USA thing since Comcast were mentioned.
Here in New Zealand I have a friend who uses his Mobile hotspot to connect his Xbox to it to play games online at no extra cost from the mobile provider.
People should also remember that it costs money for these servers to exist. So if you enjoy using it, try to support the service by donating to your instance, contributing to open source projects, spreading the gospel, etc.
Couldn’t agree more, we need to continue to attract the kind of people who would really be able to help grow this kind of community, so if you have friends you think would like this, try talking to them.
Drop a couple bucks into support the admins and servers - think about streaming services you pay for and use less. $5-10/month to donate to a service you are using daily is pretty cheap considering.
I know a lot of people hate it but I wonder if crypto/digital donation would work. All you would need is a separate wallet setup to pay the host every month. Maybe even have a graph/chart showing how much is in the wallet vs how much the monthly bill is.
I like this for the transparency but crypto is an open ledger, anyone can see the balance of any address at any time as well as see where the addresses where money was sent. Plenty of hosts now take crypto and most larger exchanges are tagged on explorers for btc, ltc, etc. That makes it easier for the public to keep an audit on what’s going on.
I agree and said exactly that. It would show intent to be transparent if that was setup. My point is that even without that we can still keep an eye on things.
One problem with cryptocurrency is that instead of being coupled with mainstream banks (where workers get their pay deposited) it is instead coupled with speculative assets employed by criminals. As such, choosing to work on accepting cryptocurrency instead of working on accepting real-money donations ties the service to a crime economy instead of a mainstream economy.
So you are saying that HSBC getting caught helping launder cartel money at the teller is fake news?
USD Is still the preferred currency of criminals across the world and even more so they use assets like paintings to facilitate non traceable payment and smuggle extremely large dollar amounts. They also use art work to launder money.
I’d suggest you pull your head out of your ass and get on the crypto train because it’s leaving you behind. Look at btc, ltc, dash and others.
To add. USD hasn’t been backed by a real asset in nearly a century. It was once backed by gold but now the only thing backing it is full faith in the USA. At the moment that means something, it might not always.
You need to educate yourself on this stuff because you sound like a moron.
The difference is that the entire world economy would need to collapse for the US dollar to be worthless. Crypto can become worthless because some 22-year-old video game addict steals everyone’s deposit.
The USD, just like any other fiat currency, is backed by the trustworthiness of its central bank and the economic base of the currency area.
In other words: Euros are backed by the fact that if you’re in Italy and have a Euro, you can exchange it for an espresso. You can trust the ECB that it will do its darnest to keep prices stable, and you can trust Italians to continue making espresso, which means that the Euro indeed is a hard currency.
I see a lot of people willing to support the servers, but little conversation on how to support the admins. I support a living (and competitive) wage for folks, and don’t think instance admins should be doing this work for free. If you set up your own tiny instance for your family, sure, I bet you won’t be charging your family for it, but a huge instance with constant needs and a bunch of strangers is a totally different thing. Just donating toward server costs does not allow admins to pay their personal bills, while they put in hours of work to keep this place going. So, I appreciate you for including “admins” in the support needs!
Yeah, I used to pay $3/month for Apollo - would be very happy to donate that to lemmy server admins instead. My issue is that I don’t know what instance(s) to donate to given that I’m absorbing content from quite a few different instances at the moment. One of the issues with decentralisation is that I don’t really know who deserves my financial support the most! Maybe I’ll just donate to my home instance.
You’ve inspired me to be honest. I really didn’t use much of Wikipedia in high school or university but I’ve definitely fallen down the wiki-hole very many times and leanred things that there’s no way I’d have learned if not for the convenience. Gonna donate them a fiver now; it ain’t much, but it’s honest work.
I’m glad to hear that! I’m the same, I don’t recall using it for school or uni, but I can’t begin to imagine how many random pages I’ve looked up as an adult. If it disappeared tomorrow I’d be gutted.
Eh, I like free software the same way I like free beer - I don’t ever have to pay for it, and no one can compel me to. The beauty of community projects and free software. I enjoy being a freeloader, thanks very much. I will contribute by making this an active project with my posts.
Eh, I like free software the same way I like free beer - I don’t ever have to pay for it, and no one can compel me to.
Right, and no one is even attempting to compel you to. In my opinion, this is one of those “within your means” kind of thing. If you went to your friends house, hung out, and drank his beer every weekend, month after month, his reaction might depend on your ability to contribute. If he knew you struggled to make ends meet, he might be just fine with it, especially if you tried to help out in other ways. He you make more money than he does, and he was the one scraping by, he might get resentful. Either way, he can’t compel you, but one is kind of shitty.
Some of us have more ability to financially support than others, and that’s fine. Last night I made a donation to the developers and another to my instance admins. I’m thinking about making that automatic monthly, but we’ll see. The point is, I think it’s fine if this is a bit socialistic, with some paying a lot, some paying a little, and others not paying at all, as long as the community is able to thrive. By the same token, some instance owners will likely consider it a hobby and not need/want any donations, while some others won’t be able to support growth without them.
Well, I will sound immensely selfish, and maybe it’s because I’ve been so used to “free everything” on the Internet, but I will never pay for an online service ever. I pirate all my books, all my TV shows, and use scripts and archive.is to read online newspapers and magazines for free. Life costs so much money already, I will never ever feel bothered to actually donate to an online service or free software.
If Lemmy.world goes down due to lack of funds, no problem from me. I’ll join a different instance and carry on. Or go back to Reddit.
I’ll happily admit to being a loafer on the Internet. I expect little from my services so long as I don’t have to pay shit for it.
Rent and food come first for me. Online services are fungible. Like if it’s free to use or free to take, I’ll take advantage. We all have to eat first and some of us don’t earn enough money to donate to a free project. Donations are a luxury to me.
Don’t judge, 99% of the people using Lemmy and its various instances will never donate. We contribute happily through our posts.
I disagree with this attitude, but you’re for sure not alone. If everyone was like that, we just wouldn’t have a lot of things we do now.
When our boys were young and torrents and ad blockers were new, I tried to get them to understand that, while not everything is about money, people generally don’t invest huge amounts of their own time and money into things that they aren’t getting paid for. If everyone started using ad blockers, sites would close down or move to a subscription model because ads are what paid for content. If everyone stole their music, some bands might just hang it up or put less focus on making new music, etc.
And here we are: lots of publications have moved behind paywalls because they weren’t getting much ad revenue anymore, many have started putting out content that’s just regurgitated crap from Twitter and Reddit because they can’t afford journalists, and some have just gone under. Bands spend a lot more time touring because it’s harder to steal a concert so they make more money doing that than putting out albums (though the Spotify model has changed some things). People are all about stealing content and thinking they should get everything for free, but it really is selfish and unrealistic.
Here’s the thing: the rest of life (rent, food, retirement etc.) cost so much already that anything I can get for free or don’t have to pay for in some way I will make that choice to pirate or not pay. If capitalism wasn’t breathing down my neck with all this crazy inflation in food costs, rent increases, student loan repayments, etc., perhaps I would be more amenable to paying for newspapers and online services and all that nice to have stuff. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
I understand this position - I used to be of the “it’s the internet, steal anything that isn’t nailed down” mentality too.
And I still have a lot of that, to be fair. But COVID taught me a general lesson that I’ve been trying to take to heart: if you want nice things that cost money to function to keep existing, at some point people are going to need to chip in. My town lost a ton of good local businesses to the pandemic, and many others got dangerously close to closing. I don’t go out and support every local business, but shit I care about (my local independent movie theatre, live music venues, etc.) gets the amount of money I’m willing to contribute.
If people don’t do this, nice things either disappear or become less nice in an effort to secure funding by alternate means.
You’re welcome not to - the means exist where you don’t have to - but think about the declining quality of some of the stuff you enjoy and why that might be the case.
This might not compel you to, but the only way to keep Lemmy from turning into Reddit 2 is by donating so they don’t have to seek out investors. We all have to do what we can to help out - that said, by posting you are creating content for the website. That’s not nothing.
Beehaw has a periodic financial update. It would be great if each instance had a similar kind of update so that we can understand what is needed and where to help.
I like it, and it represents the spirit of the fediverse well, but power does cost money. It seems like you want to run a small hands off instance, which is great, but if it starts to grow you might want to keep that in mind.
One nice thing about using parts scavenged from roadside signs is they’re incredibly power efficient. If everything was pulling its full power, I think I’d be pulling 100W maximum, and they don’t run like that.
Fanless commercial grade sign PCs are fairly available on the second hand market, relatively inexpensive, and they’re not super high powered, but they’re good enough for small instances of stuff.
This meme is funny but they are pretty similar. The only “gear” Yejin is wearing is the shooting glasses, which is basically a prescription lens (no magnification is allowed - these lens make things look less blurry, but can’t make them look bigger) on a frame that allows more adjustment than normal eyeglasses, with a piece of plastic instead of lens over the other eye. You can achieve something very similar by taping a piece of paper to the left lens of your own glasses.
The advantage shooting glasses provide is the ability to move the lens up/down/sideways. Depending on your specific shooting stance, if your head is tilted too much, normal eyeglasses may not provide the best field of view if you’re only looking through one side of it. In those cases, you buy a pair of shooting glasses and move the lens. If you look at Yejin’s shooting stance, her arm is almost parallel with her body, whereas Dikec’s arm is slightly angled forwards (not much, maybe 10 degrees?). This means Dikec can see more out of his regular eyeglasses than Yejin can in their respective shooting stances, which is probably why Dikec didn’t need shooting glasses.
Besides ear protection (which Dikec is actually wearing - if you watch videos of the match he has bright yellow earplugs in), no other gear is allowed in this event - shoes cannot go above the ankle, clothing cannot restrict movement. Most people wear some sort of flat-soled shoes, whatever clothing you wear literally doesn’t matter except to keep you warm/cool. This is in contrast to air rifle, where stiff clothing is allowed - competitors basically wear what looks like clunky armor (upload.wikimedia.org/…/Air-rifle-shooting.jpg), it’s hard to bend your knees in them and nearly impossible to squat. I used to train with those guys, I’d take the piss out of them by pretending to be nice and offering them some water, then putting it on the floor in front of them.
And before anyone mentions it, putting their hand in the pocket is the standard stance for air pistol shooting. Only one hand is allowed on the gun. And in a sport where your breathing and heart rate interferes with your accuracy, having one hand free means it might move around and cause micro movements to your body, so everyone puts their other hand in their jacket/pants pocket, or tucks the thumb in their waistband.
It does look badass though.
Source: I used to compete in ISSF 10m and 25m air pistol events like these (this is 10m)
FINAL EDIT: I just wanted to end by saying that Dikec (the Turkish guy) may look cool and casual, and I enjoy all the “retired hitman rolls out of bed casually” memes just as much as everyone, but don’t let that diminish the decades of training and dedication he’s put into the sport. Dude has been competing for more than 20 years and first set a world record in a different shooting event in 2006. Shooting is one sport where age isn’t a big disadvantage.
I did look at the picture again, and those glasses seem a lot more custom then that guy explained.
Like, in something where eye sight is so important, corrective lens/surgery/contacts/whatever does seem like a super grey area.
Like, they could “dial it in” so her vision is perfect for the set range. And having adjustments be possible on the fly makes it seem that’s what they’re doing. 20/20 isn’t “perfect” it’s average. I got LASIK and right after mine was like 20/15 from being 20/200 or something ridiculous. How do you prove corrective lenses only bring them up to average eyesight? And it’s safe to assume people without them are better than 20/20, so should they be allowed to go as high as them?
And honestly, that elephant was just a joke the first time I saw it, but it’s tied tight around her finger.
That makes pulse a lot more noticeable, and controlling heart rate and breathing is also important here.
So like, she’s not cheating, she’s just going up exactly to the line. Which is why it makes the old dude more impressive
Eyesight is not the issue here - this isn’t an eye test. At 10m the target looks like a small circle, there isn’t any further detail to see. Air pistols can only have iron sights, so there are three things to look at while shooting: the rear sight, the front sight, and the target. If you’re focusing on the right thing (your sights), the target will be slightly out of focus anyway.
So yes, anyone with perfect eyesight can get lenses made, but it doesn’t help much. Back when I was shooting, the best guy on my team had like +0.75 in his shooting eye but he didn’t bother wearing corrective lens while shooting. That said, I was a teenager so standards were different - maybe you do need perfect eyesight to compete at an Olympics level. But everyone can buy shooting glasses with corrective lens anyway.
The glasses are custom in the sense that nobody wears them outside of shooting because you look like a dork in them, but they can be bought off the shelf - this is the first result I found on Google, there are tons more:
The elephant… I’ve never seen it before, it’s probably light enough that it doesn’t work as a counterweight. But you don’t need that to judge your own heart rate. When your gun is lifted you can feel your own heartrate.
As for cheating… The real cheating occurs with stuff like heart medication to make your heartbeat slower, and beta blockers to reduce anxiety. A lot of shooting is a mental game. At a high enough level, nearly every shot needs to be a bullseye, so it’s about maintaining that consistent standard and not letting the occasional 9/10 shot creep into your head and affect the rest of your shots.
I know what you said intuitively sounds like it makes sense, but I’d encourage you to try a shooting sport in person if you’re really interested in the subject.
Hunting and precision shooting is different. Not to mention air powered guns are very different from gunpowder based firearms.
Look, I’m not the right person you should be arguing this with - there isn’t anything else I can say to convince you, except to say that the international world of shooting has accepted that corrective glasses don’t confer an unfair advantage in competition. If you’re really interested, find your local gun club, see if they have any air pistol events, try it out, ask the club director about the rules.
Improving your vision means being able to differentiate details better. Magnification means that you can make something look bigger.
Having a prescription glasses that adds detail but not magnification means that the small target will still look just as small to you as it would to a person with perfectly healthy vision. How do you think this gives them an advantage over someone with normal vision?
If you’re focusing on the right thing (your sights), the target will be slightly out of focus anyway.
One description I found said that the lens part of her glasses contains an adjustable “iris that can be adjusted to change the perceived depth of field” - which sounds to me like an adjustable aperture in photography. With a smaller aperture (larger f-number in photography) I believe she would potentially be able to have both the sights and the target in focus? Otherwise I’m not sure what the point would be.
Edit; Oh - and the elephant is her daughter’s. :-)
As someone else already said, you don’t see the target anyway. You focus on your sights, not the target, because unlike stuff like hunting, it’s much more important to line up the shot perfectly than keeping track of what you shoot at (the discs tend to not run away). And at 10m, the palm-sized target is just a black circle.
Iirc most people aim below the target on purpose (and adjust the sights) anyway. That stuff confuses the hell out of me when I pick up someone else’s gun. Is it set to aim dead center? Is it set to aim just below? Is it set to aim at 4.20 mm to 69° down to compensate for that dude’s preference? Who knows!
Yeah - I read the other comments thanks - it would be helpful if you read mine.
So you don’t look at the target at all? Like you’re only looking at the sights and hope there is a target downrange somewhere? No - right? Because “most people aim below the target” right? And near-sighted people wouldn’t need glasses at all if they “didn’t look at the target”. I don’t doubt that the focus is on the sights, but the sights are pointing at something… right?
So what I’m wondering is - what is the point of an adjustable aperture on her lens then? I was speculating that it’s because it would keep the tiny distant target in focus while she also lines up the sights. Or maybe it helps keep the near and far posts of the sights in focus at the same time? Human vision can have a pretty narrow depth of field.
“Because the light is reduced, the shooter’s eye acts like a camera lens and adjusts the depth of field (range of distances at which objects appear in focus) to the maximum. That’s what keeps both the sight picture and the bullseye in sharp focus, but the shooter wants the front sight to be in the sharpest focus, because it’s what he focuses on.”
So you get a sharper target while focusing on the very close (by comparison) sight.
I have had some involvement in very similar rifle shooting and there is obviously crossovers with pistol shooting. Honestly the fact that you consider those glasses a “gray area” of cheating made me snort laugh. No one in that sport would consider that even close to cheating. Full stop. I’m not trying to be rude but you clearly know nothing about this sport. Those glasses are ubiquitous in many types of competitive shooting at this level especially air pistol/rifle.
In fact if you think this is cheating you need to see what rifle shooters wear because those rules allow way more gear (including your “grey area” glasses).
Also you don’t need something tied to your finger to feel your heart rate…You can clearly see your heart rate in your sights (yes, even irons).It could be a counter balance if it was measured perfectly but that’s risky because if her stance changed at all it could pull her off. I’m honestly surprised her coaches let her risk having that thing at all. It looks like a liability to me.
Edit: I just went back and looked a d there’s no way that things a counter weight. It would need to be close to the weight of that pistol to be helpful. Air pistols are light but they aren’t “stuffy” light.
What would a person do who needs prescription glasses? Put me there with ±0 glasses, and I’d be just a threat to the environment, because I had a hard time to know where I’m roughly pointing that thing…
Prescription glasses are allowed - both competitors are wearing them. Those lens can correct for short sightedness, astigmatism etc, but they’re the exact same lens you find in eyeglasses. I used to wear these - I bought the shooting glasses off the shelf (or rather our club got them in bulk for us), then to get the lens made, I went to the exact same optical store where I got my prescription glasses made and basically told them to just order one lens for my right eye.
What I meant by magnification was, you can’t put optics on it so it works like a 2x scope. So the lens can make stuff look less blurry but not make it look bigger.
Well, then I guess they wouldn’t be allowed to wear them backwards.
Glasses actually make everything we see smaller, though the effect is lessened the closer the glasses are to the correct distance from our eyes. And the reason glasses change the perceived size of the wearers’ eyes is because they specifically are bending light to change how it hits our eyes.
If the glasses are for someone who is farsighted, they make their eyes look bigger, if they are to correct nearsightedness, they make the eyes look smaller.
And actually, despite what I say in my first sentence, they don’t even make stuff bigger when you wear them backwards. That effect is limited to the distance eyes are away from the lenses normally, beyond that things are actually still smaller even when looking through them backwards. How much smaller depends on how far they are from your eye.
Eyeglasses unblur the world to those who need them, but there’s no magnification.
Look through binoculars and things look a lot closer because of the magnification. But you can also make it look blurry if you turn the adjustment the wrong way.
Thanks for posting this. He looks bad ass and she looks bad ass.
Fuck anyone comparing the two for whatever reason, especially if you actually watch and notice the majority of competitors are wearing the shooting glasses, which is why the guy is unique. Even his teammate (he won a team medal) is wearing special gear. And he’s been doing this for decades!! He was at 2008 Olympics
The korean shooter Yeji Kim became a (positive) meme first for her cyberpunk aesthetics, which many people found cool. Shortly after the turkish shooter Yusuf Dikeç also became a meme for his own, very different aesthetic.
I’m not the one making the comparison. This post is… It names her in the description. I’m not talking about other posts. I’m talking about this one.
I’m saying the post could have been “this bad ass from Turkey came with no specialized gear and took home silver!” Or even “vs All the other teams decked out in gear!” Not singling out “South Korea sent this knitted out player” when she was wearing what the vast majority were.
She and her partner also won gold and silver. There was a more positive way to make them both sound awesome, not making him sound like he’s better than her by comparison because he does it without gear
I talked about the other posts to provide context. These are not unknown people and she is not the only one who gets compared to the turkish shooter.
The poster likely chose the korean shooter as counterpart, because she already garnered attention beforehand for her aesthetic. She is already relatively famous, so I don’t think it is surprising if somebody chose (and named) her over other, less known athletes. The poster also described her as “record-breaking” in the description, so I do not think it was the intention to make her look bad.
Both Windows and Linux have their respective SIGTERM and SIGKILL equivalents. And both usually try SIGTERM before resorting to SIGKILL. That’s what systemd’s dreaded “a stop job is running” is. It waits a minute or so for the SIGTERM to be honoured before SIGKILLing the offending process.
I once spent several angry hours researching zombie processes in a quest to kill them by any means necessary. Ended up rebooting, which was a sort of baby-with-the bath-water solution.
Zombie processes still infuriate me. While I’m not a Rust developer, nor do I particularly care about the language, I’m eagerly watching Redox OS, as it looks like the micro kernel OS with the best chance to make to it useful desktop status. A good micro kernel would address so so many of the worst aspects of Linux.
Performance is the major flaw with microkernels that have prevented the half-dozen or more serious attempts at this to succeed.
Incurring context switching for low-level operations is just too slow.
An alternative might be a safe/provable language for kernel and drivers where the compiler can guarantee properties of kernel modules instead of requiring hardware guarantees, and it ends up in one address space/protection boundary. But then the compiler (and its output) becomes a trusted component.
Quite opposite. Most firmware microcontrollers run is giant kernel. Some microcontrollers don’t even have context switching at all. And I’m not even starting to talk about MMU.
I was not meaning to say that all microcontrollers (or microcontroller firmwares) run a microkernel but, rather, that microcontrollers are an environment where they can work well because the limited scope of what the device is expected to do and its necessarily supported peripherals can be much smaller, making the potential impact of context changes smaller.
For some good examples of microkernels for such purposes, take a look at FreeRTOS, ChibiOS, or Zephyr pre-1.6 (at which point architecture changed to a monolith because it is creeping towards general computing functionality).
Some microcontrollers don’t even have context switching at all.
As long as there’s some processing RAM and sufficient ROM, I’m sure that it can be crammed in there via firmware (in a sub-optimal way that makes people who have to maintain the code, including your future self, hate you and wish a more appropriate part were used).
And I’m not even starting to talk about MMU.
Some madlads forked Linux to get it to work without an MMU, even getting it merged into the mainline kernel: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ΜClinux
So, doable. Adviseable? Probably not in most cases but that’s subjective.
At least in the docs, I see it described as a microkernel but, with a kernel that small, the differences are probably academic (and I’ll leave that to people with more formal background in CS than myself).
You can’t even emulate MPU without MPU. The only way is running bytecode, which is still not context switching.
You are correct here. Should have said MPU instead.
Oh yes! That makes a lot more sense. I’ve been on-and-off looking at implementing multithreading and multiprocessing in CircuitPython. Memory protection is a big problem with making it work reliably.
RedoxOS would likely never become feature complete enough to be a stable, useful and daily-drivable OS. It’s currently a hobbyist OS that is mainly used as a testbed for OS programming in Rust.
If the RedoxOs devs could port the Cosmic DE, they’d become one of the best Toy OS and maybe become used on some serious projects . This could give them enough funds to become a viable OS used by megacorps on infrastructures where security is critical and it may lead it to develop into a truly daily drivable OS.
They are planning to port Cosmic DE, and have already ported several applications from Cosmic including the file manager and text editor if I remember correctly.
Zombie processes are already dead. They aren’t executing, the kernel is just keeping a reference to them so their parent process can check their return code (waitpid).
All processes becomes zombies briefly after they exit, just usually their parents wait on them correctly. If their parents exit without waiting on the child, then the child gets reparented to init, which will wait on it. If the parent stays alive, but doesn’t wait on the child, then it will remain zombied until the parent exits and triggers the reparenting.
Its not really Linux’s fault if processes don’t clean up their children correctly, and I’m 99% sure you can zombie a child on redox given its a POSIX OS.
I haven’t tried this, but if you just need the parent to call waitpid on the child’s pid then you should be able to do that by attaching to the process via gdb, breaking, and then manually invoking waitpid and continuing.
Zombie processes are hilarious. They are the unkillable package delivery person of the Linux system. They have some data that must be delivered before they can die. Before they are allowed to die.
Sometimes just listening to them is all they want. (Strace or redirect their output anywhere.)
Sometimes, the whole village has to burn. (Reboot)
Ok, how change of kernel would fix userspace program not reading return value? And if you just want to use microkernel, then use either HURD or whatever DragonflyBSD uses.
But generally microkernels are not solution to problems most people claim they would solve, especially in post-meltdown era.
This particular issue could be solved in most cases in a monolithic kernel. That it isn’t, is by design. But it’s a terrible design decision, because it can lead to situations where (for example) a zombie process locks a mount point and prevents unmounting because the kernel insists it’s still in use by the zombie process. Which the kernel provides no mechanism for terminating.
It is provable via experiment in Linux by use of fuse filesystems. Create a program that is guaranteed to become a zombie. Run it within a filesystem mounted by an in-kernel module, like a remote nfs mount. You now have a permanently mounted NFS mount point. Now, use mount something using fuse, say a WebDAV remote point. Run the same zombie process there. Again, the mount point is unmountable. Now, kill the fuse process itself. The mount point will be unmounted and disappear.
This is exactly how microkernels work. Every module is killable, crashable, upgradable - all without forcing a reboot or affecting any processes not using the module. And in a well-designed microkernel, even processes using the module can in many cases continue functioning as if the restarted kernel module never changed.
Fuse is really close to the capabilities of microkernels, except it’s only filesystems. In a microkernel, nearly everything is like fuse. A linux kernel compiled such that everything is a loadable module, and not hard linked into the kernel, is close to a microkernel, except without the benefits of actually being a microkernel.
Microkernels are better. Popularity does not prove superiority, except in the metric of popularity.
Create a program that is guaranteed to become a zombie. Run it within a filesystem mounted by an in-kernel module, like a remote nfs mount. You now have a permanently mounted NFS mount point.
Ok, this is not really good implementation. I’m not sure that standard requires zombie processes to keep mountpoints(unless its executable is located in that fs) untill return value is read. Unless there is call to get CWD of another process. Oh, wait. Can’t ptrace issue syscall on behalf of zombie process or like that? Or use vfs of that process? If so, then it makes sense to keep mountpoint.
Every module is killable, crashable, upgradable - all without forcing a reboot or affecting any processes not using the module.
except without the benefits of actually being a microkernel.
Except Linux does it too. If graphics module crashes, I still can SSH into system. And when I developed driver for RK3328 TRNG, it crashed a lot. Replaced it without reboot.
Microkernels are better. Popularity does not prove superiority, except in the metric of popularity.
As I said, we live in post-meltdown world. Microkernels are MUCH slower.
As I said, we live in post-meltdown world. Microkernels are MUCH slower.
I’ve heard this from several people, but you’re the lucky number by which I’d heard it enough that I bothered to gather some references to refute this.
First, this is an argument that derived from first generation microkernels, and in particular, MINIX, which - as a teaching aid OS, never tried to play the benchmark game. It’s been repeated, like dogma, through several iterations of microkernels which have, in the interim, largely erased most of those performance leads of monolithic kernels. One paper notes that, once the working code exceeds the L2 cache size, there is marginal advantage to the monolithic structure. A second paper running benchmarks on L^4^Linux vs Linux concluded that the microkernel penalty was only about 5%-10% slower for applications than the Linux monolithic kernel.
This is not MUCH slower, and - indeed - unless you’re doing HPC applications, is close enough to be unnoticeable.
Edit: I was originally going to omit this, as it’s propaganda from a vested interest, and includes no concrete numbers, but this blog entry from a product manager at QNX specifically mentions using microkernels in HPC problem spaces, which I thought was interesting, so I’m post-facto including it.
First, this is an argument that derived from first generation microkernels, and in particular, MINIX, which - as a teaching aid OS, never tried to play the benchmark game.
Indeed, first generation microkernels were so bad, that Jochen Liedtke in rage created L3 “to show how it’s done”. While it was faster than existing microkernels, it was still slow.
The paper is about hybrid kernels. And gutted Mach(XNU) is used as example.
Nowdays(after meltdown) all cache levels are usually invalidated during context switch. Processors try to add mechanisms to avoid this, but they create new vulnreabilities.
Can you elaborate? I am not an OS design expert, and I thought microkernels had some advantages.
Many people think that microcernels are only way to run one program on multiple machines without modyfing them. Counterexample to such statement is Plan 9, which had such capability with monolithic kernel.
That’s not something I ever associated with microkernels to be honest. That’s just clustering.
I was more interested in having minimal kernels with a bunch of processes handling low level stuff like file systems that could be restarted if they died. The other cool thing was virtualized kernels.
nah, you can have micro-kernel features on linux, but you can’t have monolithc kernel features on microkernel, there’s zero arguments in favor of a micro kernel, except being a novel project
Do explain how you can have micro kernel features on Linux. Explain, please, how I can kill the filesystem module and restart it when it bugs out, and how I can prevent hard kernel crashes when a bug in a kernel module causes a lock-up. I’m really interested in hearing how I can upgrade a kernel module with a patch without forcing a reboot; that’d really help on Arch, where minor, patch-level kernel updates force reboots multiple times a week (without locking me into an -lts kernel that isn’t getting security patches).
I’d love to hear how monolithic kernels have solved these.
I thought the point of lts kernels is they still get patches despite being old.
Other than that though you’re right on the money. I think they don’t know what the characteristics of a microkernel are. I think they mean that a microkernel can’t have all the features of a monolithic kernel, what they fail to realise is that might actually be a good thing.
I thought the point of lts kernels is they still get patches despite being old.
Well, yeah, you’re right. My shameful admission is that I’m not using LTS because I wanted to play with bcachefs and it’s not in LTS. Maybe there’s a package for LTS now that’d let me at it, but, still. It’s a bad excuse, but there you go.
I think a lot of people also don’t realize that most of the performance issues have been worked around, and if RedoxOS is paying attention to advances in the microkernel field and is not trying to solve every problem in isolation, they could end up with close to monolithic kernel performance. Certainly close to Windows performance, and that seems good enough for Industry.
I don’t think microkernels will ever compete in the HPC field, but I highly doubt anyone complaining about the performance penalty of microkernel architecture would actual notice a difference.
Windows is a hybrid kernel, and has some interesting layers of abstraction, all of which make it slower. It’s also full of junkware these days. So beating it shouldn’t be that hard.
Yeah to be fair in HPC it’s probably easier to just setup a watchdog and reboot that node in case of issues. No need for the extra resilience.
That’s my point. If you’re l33t gaming, what matters is your GPU anyway. If HPC, sure, use whatever architecture gets you the most bang for your buck, which is probably going to be a monolithic kernel (but, maybe not - nanokernels allow processes basically direct access to hardware, with minimal abstraction, like X11 DRI, and might allow even faster solutions to be programmed). For most people, the slight improvement in performance of a monolithic kernel over a modern, optimized microkernel design will probably not be noticeable.
I keep getting people telling me monolithic kernels are way faster, dude, but most are just parroting the state of things decades ago and are ignoring many of the advancements micro kernels like L4 have made in intervening years. But I need to go find links and put together references before I counter-claim, and right now I have other things I’d rather be doing.
And I was agreeing with you! I was leaning on your sympathetic shoulder, while I suffered the slings and arrows of outrageously misinformed miscreants, and commiserating to your compatriotic ear.
I’ve been hoping that we can sneak more and more things into userspace on Linux. Then, one day, Linus will wake up and discover he’s accidentally made a microkernel.
you don’t need a micro kernel to install medules, nor to make a crash in certain module don’t bring the kernel down, you program it isolated, they don’t do that now because it’s unecessary, but android do that, and there’s work being doing in that way www.phoronix.com/…/Ubuntu-Rust-Scheduler-Micro
the thing is that it’s harder todo that, that’s why no one does, but not impossible, you also need to give the kernel the foundation to support that
bro thinking a chromecast OS gonna run in google servers 💀, micro kernels has their utility in embedded system, we know, saying that they are replacement for monolithic kernel is dumb, also companies can’t do different/hacks project anymore?
Been a while since I’ve been on Windows but I distinctly remember some button to kill a task without waiting. Maybe they removed it to make Windows soooo much more user friendly.
Off the top of my head: right click the task and hit end process. That has literally never failed me. Back in windows XP it might sometimes not actually kill the process but then there was always the “kill process tree” button to fall back on.
Yep, typically “Kill Process Tree” was like the nuke from orbit. You’ll likely destroy any unsaved data, but it works nice when steam has 12 processes running at once.
It’s not really a nuke as some processes might be protected. The nuke is to use debugger privileges. Far Manager can kill processes using debugger privileges, that will literally nuke anything and in an instant: the app won’t even receive any signals or anything.
The normal Windows task manager’s ‘end task’ button just politely asks the app to close - but then later will tell the user if the app is unresponsive, and offer to brutally murder it instead.
There is also the sysinternals Process Monitor, which is basically ‘expert’ version of the task manager. Procmon does allow you to just kill a task outright.
The end task doesn’t terminate the app, it only sends a message to the window to close itself. The app will then decide what to do on its own. For example, if the app has multiple windows open, it might close the active one, but still continue running with other windows open. Or it might ignore the message completely.
Stop jobs are a systemdism and they’re nice. I think the desktop environment kills its children on its own during reboot and it might not be as nice. Graphical browsers often complain about being killed after a reboot in GNOME.
AFAIK running firefox in a terminal and pressing ^C (SIGINT) has kind of the same effect as logging out or poweroff in GNOME (SIGTERM, if you’re using systemd). This gives the browser (or other processes with crash recovery) enough time to save all its data and exit gracefully for the crash recovery the next time they are run.
That’s what systemd’s dreaded “a stop job is running” is
The worst part of that is that you can’t quickly login to check what it is (so maybe you can prevent it in the future?), or kill it anyway because it’s likely to be something stupid and unimportant. And if it actually was important, well… it’s gonna be shot in the head in a minute anyway, and there’s nothing you can do to prevent it, so what’s the point of delaying?
In the best case the offending process actually does shut down cleanly before the time is up. Like, some databases like redis keep written data in memory for fast access before actually writing the data to disc. If you were to kill such a process before all the data is written you’d lose it.
So, admins of servers like these might even opt to increase the timeout, depending on their configuration and disc speed.
I know what it theoretically is for, I still think it’s a bad implementation.
It often doesn’t tell you clearly what it is waiting for.
It doesn’t allow you to checkout what’s going on with the process that isn’t responding, because logins are already disabled
It doesn’t allow you to cancel the wait and terminate the process anyway. 9/10 when I get it, it has been because of something stupid like a stale NFS mount or a bug in a unit file.
If it is actually something important, like your Redis example, it doesn’t allow you to cancel the shutdown, or to give it more time. Who’s to say that your Redis instance will be able to persist its state to disk within 90 seconds, or any arbitrary time?
Finally, I think that well written applications should be resilient to being terminated unexpectedly. If, like in your Redis example, you put data in memory without it being backed by persistent storage, you should expect to lose it. After all, power outages and crashes do happen as well.
BTW you can control systemd and how fast it chooses SIGKILL after sending SIGTERM. I don’t know why people complain so much about it. It’s really just there such that things on your computer end properly without any sort of data corruption or something bad going on after a reboot or the next time you turn on your computer.
The philosophy behind FOSS is inherently left wing and anarchist; communities working together to provide and produce tools for the common good, without a profit motive. Coupled with the lack of advertising and promotion of the sites, people have to seek them out, leading to a self-selecting user population that skews left :)
I would say that FOSS typically draws a more educated crowd, and right wing rhetoric and propaganda typically target those of lesser education and lower cognitive ability, simply because those people are the most likely hosts for rightoid brain worms. Why do colleges skew heavily left, gee it must be brainwashing /s
Eh, there’s plenty of educated right wingers. Not fascists as much, but the kind of fiscally conservative economists who preach austerity are often as not highly educated, just lacking in empathy.
You’re speaking of pundits and politicians whose opinions are public and widespread. There is little reason to believe that those folks are sincere in their public statements. They are motivated by greed to lie in an effort to sway the opinions of uneducated people.
Among the general public, those that sincerely hold conservative political views are cognitively impaired. Source: they vote for things that are objectively against their own prosperity.
There are definitely plenty of well educated, intelligent fascists as well. It’s pretty dangerous to start thinking that what separates two ideological groups is intelligence.
I was mainly responding to the previous comment which characterized right-wingers as having “lesser cognitive ability”. Just saying that that kind of thinking sets up a “we’re superior” mentality that can too easily lead to the same kinds of consequences as thinking you’re superior based on race or social status. There are so many environmental and experiential factors that go into where a person lands politically and how effective certain forms of propaganda are on them. Blanket statements that characterize entire people groups as less intelligent are not in any way accurate or helpful.
Just saying that that kind of thinking sets up a “we’re superior” mentality that can too easily lead to the same kinds of consequences as thinking you’re superior based on race or social status.
It already does, it’s called ableism and it has such deep roots in society it is everywhere no matter political leaning, which is why it is rarely addressed - because most of society still sees it as perfectly acceptable that disabled people are inferior (even though ableism impacts them too, not just because accessibility and inclusion benefit everyone, but because people just don’t like to think about getting hit by a car, having a stroke, or just growing old, nor about their child being born neurodivergent for example).
I think what you said is true. But you’re referring to people who have an actual handicap and are discriminated against for it.
What I’m referring to is the idea of allowing myself to believe that a people group are less intelligent than I am just because they don’t align with me politically or ideologically. There is no actual handicap for which they are being discriminated against, simply having a different life experience and different view point is enough. It’s ironically a deeply fascist mentality…and I agree it is everywhere.
What I’m referring to is the idea of allowing myself to believe that a people group are less intelligent than I am just because they don’t align with me politically or ideologically. There is no actual handicap for which they are being discriminated against
They might not have a disability, but using intelligence based insults isn’t ableist because of that, just like calling someone “gay” as an insult isn’t problematic because the person they’re trying to insult isn’t actually gay, but because it frames being gay as a negative term and something worthy of derision and mockery.
The educated and the well-travelled may have a broader set of view points to see how many different ideas and values work (or don’t work) in practice.
I don’t disagree on some just lacking empathy. But I also think not all education creates exposure to a wide range of ideas and values that stick (or the education is just too narrow), so you’ll still find plenty of people who are educated on paper, but not cognizant of a broad set of world views. I also think we are too quick to label foreign ideas==bad ourselves. Empathy is a two way street. The key in navigating this may be in identifying when an idea comes in good faith or if it is hostile.
… I’m not sure Foss is inherently left wing. Inherently anti authoritarian for sure, but I can totally see a libertarian type making a pro-FOSS argument from a capitalistic-individualistic and it being rather sensible. (Aaaaas long as we ignore the ways it’d contradict other beliefs right wing liberals tend to hold, but yknow. Compartmentalisation is a human superpower)
I think I’d still argue the free open source part is inherently left wing. Why would I, a right wing libertarian, lend my time to developing a piece of software that I am unable to make a profit from? I have no motive.
Something like bitcoin is the kind of tech project of that mould that i think attracts the right wing libertarian. Just my opinion though.
Why would I, a right wing libertarian, lend my time to developing a piece of software that I am unable to make a profit from? I have no motive.
Because you do stand to gain regardless. “I have my code on the source of <major FOSS project every tech guy has heard of>” is like. Amazing portfolio material for any job interview. I had a friend get a job in the games industry (though they regret it to this day because the game industry sucks–) with nothing on his resumé except for a smattering of mods for popular games.
Any pro-capitalist person with a functioning brain will acknowledge the role of non-monetary “Profits” in every human relationship, yanno?
That’s true, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the FOSS ethos runs in direct conflict with the ideals of capitalism and private ownership, and libertarians are nothing if not fanboys of those things.
Yeah. It’s long been said Libertarians are just Republicans that want to smoke weed and distance themselves from the outwardly racist rhetoric. They are inherently selfish just like Republicans. They don’t want to help the poor, but they would balk at the notion of actively hurting the poor.
Libertarian here. According to you I don’t want to help the poor so can you please explain to me why I’m spending hours every month doing volunteer work that has positive impacts for the disadvantaged?
It’s long been said Libertarians are just Republicans that want to smoke weed and distance themselves from the outwardly racist rhetoric.
Some are but not all. The people who repeat that line really don’t like to be confronted with the reality that there’s a lot more to a libertarian than weed. As an example the party platform started pushing LGBTQ rights clear back in the late '70s, long before anyone else was.
There certainly are selfish bastard libertarians but undesirables exist in every party and I maintain that we shouldn’t define a group by its worst members.
According to you I don’t want to help the poor so can you please explain to me why I’m…
Lemme stop you right there. It’s a decidedly libertarian trait to read a broad generalization and conclude someone was referring to them personally. Take a step back and peruse the most widely available libertarian positions.
Just because you in isolation are doing it. Does not mean it is a characteristic of all economic liberals. More importantly. We know that Aid and Outreach is more effective when it is handled by larger organizations. Larger than private individuals. And of course larger than Church congregations. Something rothbard liberals heavily oppose. Mutual Aid absolutely should be one of the primary things our government is involved in. Especially a Dejacque libertarian government.
Libertarians and other groups even in the United States supported lgbtq far earlier than 1970. Don’t get me wrong I’m glad that for all the damage Rothbard, the Koch brothers, and others have done masquerading as Libertarians that is one of the things they’ve kept lip service to at least. They won’t actually do anything to actually improve the lives of lgbtq. But at least they support not overtly visibly discriminating against them.
There certainly are some selfish bastards in every ideology. But economic liberal rothbard Libertarians have a higher concentration than natural. It’s possible that you might be an actual libertarian. But you would be more the exception in the party than the rule.
Because you vote that the government shouldn’t help the poor. Whatever you do on your own personal scale is meaningless compared to the impact that could be caused if you voted to have the government do the helping.
As to why you hold such contradictions in your mind, I don’t know, maybe you feel guilty about depriving the poor of healthcare and education that you try to make out for it? Maybe you are a good person with good intentions who never really thought that whatever help a single person can give is meaningless on the large scheme of what the government could give so you think you are helping by serving soup to the people you deny healthcare, or maybe you’re just an egoistic bastard who likes to see people in misery to feel better so you vote for them to be miserable and you do volunteer work to be near them. I don’t know, I’m not in your head, but your political views directly contradict your thoughts, if you think people deserve help when they’re vulnerable you’re left leaning.
and distance themselves from the outwardly racist rhetoric.
The ones I met were even more racist. They were just afraid of saying it in public because they thought the feds were watching them, and wished they didn’t have to live with that fear.
Yeah. I don’t know what the % breakdown is, but I get the sense that while the general community is inherently anti-corporate/anti-commodification, there are some that view this in the left wing sense of communities supporting each other and some who view this more of as a consumption/voting with your wallet individualized choice. They recognize that some or even all corporations are bad, but think opting out of those structures without directly challenging them is all that they need.
But like I said, idk what the actual distribution of these views are. It’s just the sense I get from seeing some of the comments.
Why would I, a right wing libertarian, lend my time to developing a piece of software that I am unable to make a profit from?
You are making a reductionist argument that the only thing that motivates a libertarian is profit. It is certainly a motivator but it’s certainly not the only one. Libertarian’s have a long history of association with FOSS, for example my own stretches back to the mid-90s. I have no desire to make money from it but I have a strong desire to stay out of the clutches of BigTech as much as possible and so I contribute to FOSS as I can.
Something like bitcoin is the kind of tech project of that mould that i think attracts the right wing libertarian.
A lot of libertarians push on cryptocurrency not because of a profit motive but because of the freedom and privacy aspects. To use myself as an example I don’t hold crypto as an investment but rather as a way of holding a currency that isn’t subject to the US Federal Reserve system.
Are there some libertarians who fit your descriptions? Absolutely there are, and they are generally referred to as Anarcho-Capitalists, An-Caps for short, but just like every Democrat isn’t a Progressive not every libertarian is an An-Cap.
I know a lot of libertarians oppose corporatism because they say the corporations market power and monopolies derive from government, but for big tech they mostly come from economies of scale and network effects, neither of which I think right wing libertarians oppose.
If you oppose it because corporate power, even if gained through fair free market principles, is a barrier to liberty than I think your on the left for a libertarian. The recognition that corporate power can be just as tyrannical and coercive as state power is not an idea held by most libertarians in the u.s. who tend to focus solely on state power. Recognizing both puts you to the left of most of them, and on the far left you have Chomsky who identifies as a socialist libertarian and thinks corporate/capitalist power is so much more of a threat than state power that we should give the state more power to be able to reign in corporations.
I don’t think those are inherently opposed, the whole point of libertarianism being about liberty. Power gained through free market principles is no different than any other power, and thus can and should be opposed through competing ideas/services. If I don’t like your service being provided, I or anyone should be free to provide a competing service that matches my needs/values.
Being a libertarian doesn’t require keeping Fountainhead as your Bible and worshipping at the feet of oligarchs instead of politicians/the State, and I would argue selling your soul to the company store is as antithetical to liberty as selling your soul to a centralized State. But as you’ve indirectly mentioned, there is a rather huge spectrum under the libertarian umbrella.
I won’t speak for other libertarians, as I know there are those that think do worship the oligarchy, and many of my views do probably put me on the left side of libertarianism. If I didn’t believe that government has a role is keeping free markets free and providing stability and peace for liberty to exist (most fiscally conservatively paid for by collapsing all social safety nets into an actual UBI requiring miniscule overhead, Universal Healthcare, and more Georgist tax codes), I’d probably be closer to the anarcho-capitalists maybe? Maybe some offshoot or flavor of Minarchist?
Profit isn’t the only individual motivator. Power is another big one, even if it is power over a very small fiefdom. At a certain point that’s all money is: a way to keep track of how much power you have. That’s why they keep going for the high score.
FOSS isn’t inherently left wing. It is often charitable work but that’s far from unique to the left wing. That can also just stem from “I wanted this program to exist and it didn’t, but I don’t want to put even more effort in to monetize it.” Plenty of FOSS projects start as someone wanting to learn something early on in their career as well (which is both a pro and a con because … if you’re learning you might be making some bigger mistakes).
Anarchism … I just don’t really agree with that at all. Lots of larger FOSS projects do very much have governing bodies that decide what to do and how it shall be done. In many cases FOSS authors are a one person governing body making all the big decisions.
Organized charitable work is far from anarchy even though anarchism dreams of everything being organized charitable work.
I think pretty much everyone views their political ideology as “the one that stands for freedom”, and it just comes down to what it means to be “free”, and the follow up of free from what.
I feel like libertarians would love the concept of FOSS and decentralization, and I don’t think anyone would argue they skew left.
So, I disagree that FOSS is inherently left wing. I think it’s attractive to the left wing for many good reasons. I think people project their own politics onto whatever they love, and things can be loved by very different groups for different reasons.
It was weird. I actually paid for imgur back in the day, when you could. You would scroll randomly through images which I later learned were popular or Reddit. There was a simple, linear comment chain. The nested comment style of reddit confused me. I was on imgur for like 3 years before I tried reddit.
Cause it’s one big part of why the Fediverse and Lemmy exist in the first place.
We wouldn’t need all this decentralization overhead if centralized sites were trustworthy and focussed on serving their users. The fact that they are not is what leads to privacy violations and enshittification, hence why people created the Fediverse and why we are here (at least most of us I presume).
I download the internet archive once every month and copy it to stone tablets. Even if the world’s electricity reserve runs out, we’ll still have those.
In unrelated news, I’m looking for people with access to big stone quarries.
And people are abusing the fuck out of it by uploading tons of copyrighted movies. No one seems to be policing it either. I’m very worried that its days are numbered.
Yeah probably. It’s the ordinary playbook of allowing one site to become extreamly popular so it’s much easier to monitor users and shut down if needed.
The Internet Archive has special status that gives it protections. What might kill it is the erosion of support for public libraries and such. The advancement of media companies’ attempt to have absolute control over everything they release, by binding it into their own services.
I really love the Internet Archive and have relied on it many times, but this is going to kill it and I’m just watching it happen in real time with nothing being done.
Imagine how many copyrighted books are in IRL libraries. Now imagine that IRL libraries can copy any book in any amount. Congrats, now you imagined what libraries in Europe can do.
I’m not sure what that has to do with people uploading copyrighted movies to the Internet Archive. You can’t just upload Disney movies to YouTube and expect Disney to not give a shit. They still have legal recourse.
I hate copyright law, but it still exists. I don’t want the Internet Archive to shut down and I have harvested a lot from the public domain video they archive. But those videos are at risk because people are uploading copyrighted stuff, and eventually a big enough lawsuit is going to take the site down unless they do something about it.
Also, the video storage end of the site is becoming more and more unusable because of it. It used to be easy to search through videos and find the legitimately public domain ones which you could then use in your own projects. Now if I’m not 100% sure, I have to do a bunch of research… and I know for a fact from talking to some people that they think that if they download video from the Internet Archive, it isn’t copyrighted. And if they then use it in one of their projects, they are at legal risk.
And if the Internet Archive isn’t going to be the global digital repository for public domain video, then it’s going to be YouTube. Do we really want public domain video to be monetized?
Not sure how exactly it worked, but some time ago in Russia it was completely legal for library to copy book, but it seems now laws became more strict. Probably some member of United Russia got a shiny new yacht.
Russia is not necessarily representative of all European legal systems. E.g. they literally proposed legalising piracy of content made by western companies: ria.ru/20230622/blokirovka-1879702649.html
Because this needs to be done 1000% right, there is no margin for error, everything has to be done in an iron clad manner that cannot be dismantled by half-assing it. Indicting a former president is a first in the history of this country, and this former president is nothing short of a cult leader with millions of unshakable followers, many of whom are armed to the teeth and ready to burn this country to the ground for him. So this has to be done very friggin carefully.
If it was really that bad the cia would have him killed. It’s just because he had a good team of lawyers to make sure that when he did anything he did it was either defendable or on someone else so it’s hard to get him.
Absolutely. You can estimate the number of true followers he has by looking at how many people use truth social (it’s still a thing) in comparison to pre-musk twitter. It’s a vocal minority. The only reason trump was able to get where he did was by getting the electoral college to believe he was the lesser evil (not gonna get into voter fraud) (and being really, really rich). They have him killed in such a way that it seems like it wasn’t them and he is still viewed as a martyr by few, but not all. Even if they truly believe that he was what they said he was, it won’t matter because no one rich enough exists that would want to replace him. They would be okay to do that.
The CIA really isn’t going to assasinate a prominent politician, let alone a former president. It would have massive consequences from delegitimizing the democratic system to causing riots all around the country.
Muller half assed the investigation, on top of that corrupt Barr hid all the important findings, and Bitch McConnell swept the whole treason under the rug - that all lead Orange Man to be even bolder with his treason and rise of blatant lawlessness within the Republican Party.
I don’t disagree with what you said but I just wanted to point out how entire republican machinery is responsible for the imminent death of democracy in this country. Not just Muller’s half assed investigation.
Mueller didn’t half ass anything. He conducted his investigation and determined that crimes were likely committed, but that he didn’t have the power to bring charges in his position as special counsel and it would be up to the AG.
Which is true. A DOJ special counsel is not the same thing as the independent counsel that used to exist, which was what Ken Starr was when he investigated Clinton.
A DOJ special counsel is completely beholden to the AG and DOJ policies and can’t bring charges without the AG signing off on them.
If you actually read the mueller report, it’s extremely damning and he turned it over to the AG and Congress to do something about it. The AG declined to bring any charges based on a DOJ memorandum that says a sitting POTUS cannot be charged. The House impeached Trump over the findings and the Senate failed to convict and remove him.
The current AG could still bring criminal charges over the conclusion of the report, but at this point it’s been so highly politicized that it would be impossible to get a conviction on.
@Earthwormjim91 I am wondering if that is the reason we are not seeing any of the Trump kinds getting indicted To not make it look like justice is hunting them and legitimize the poplitical lies?
It was the only thing that could have been done when republicans controlled the DOJ and the Senate.
Maybe if people in the Midwest weren’t complete idiots we would have had Clinton instead and not had four years of irreversible damage plus a generation of scotus that is hell bent on dismantling everything.
Just because it didn’t lead to the right conclusion doesn’t mean it accomplished nothing.
Plus the evidence discovered during te investigation stillnexists and is still part of the official record, meaning it can be used to support any future legal actions. And will serve as information for future historians looking back at this era.
Hopefully it can be used as part of some future “those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it” systemic improvements.
Stop saying “the AG”. Say his fucking traitor name. William Barr. Who only got cold feet at the 11th hour when the groundwork for the coup was already being made.
The Mueller report - as you say, damning - was completed and then given to this scum, who withheld it, released a “summary”, claimed it found no wrongdoing whatsoever, eventually released a heavily redacted version…
I mean I remember it happening. This slimy fuck. He got a report that said the many ways Trump did illegal shit, but since he was the one who could choose when and how to release it, he was able to get ahead of the media by saying all kinds of bullshit lies. By the time he was finally forced to release the real report, it was too late, the “Trump did nothing wrong” story was already too far out there.
Look, I’m glad he finally, barely, by the skin of his teeth did the right thing and said there was no fraud in the 2020 election. But we should not forget that brazen bullshit he pulled in front of Congress and the American people.
I would kind of agree with you but I think it’s more that there are Republicans blocking any way they can and the ominous shadow of a compromised SCOTUS:
this former president is nothing short of a cult leader with millions of unshakable followers, many of whom are armed to the teeth and ready to burn this country to the ground for him
They didn’t show up for the last coup, and I don’t think he’s gonna have another one.
So why do we have to be so afraid of his followers that we are giving him special treatment to dissuade their violence? Instead of, you know, fighting back or having them jailed too. 🤦
In addition to being done right, he has to be pampered. I hate him passionately, but I really mean that. Subjecting him to the indignities of stuff like handcuffs, a mugshot, an orange suit, etc will turn him into a martyr in the eyes of his cult followers. And while the rest of us would enjoy seeing it, that’s not necessarily bringing out the best in us either. Donald Trump is an enormous pot-stirrer and unless you really want the pot to boil over you need to tiptoe around him, as unfair as that is.
Choosing not to aggravate them is not bowing to them. Remember we’re talking about how we’ll prosecute Dear Leader. Get him where it counts, even if it has to be done quietly.
Even if he was indicted, those millions of followers will burn the country down anyways. Because they’re all self-fulfilling, selfish, egotistical, narcissistic, irresponsible and demented people.
I am an older folk. I grew up with an Apple II. I just have gotten used to autosave being on automatically in pretty much every word processor I’ve used since probably the mid-1990s. I just can’t imagine why they decided to not have it on when you install it.
Yep, my thoughts exactly… my company doesn’t want us to use OneDrive because of some security fears, so none of our work has autosave. Just because it’s 2024 doesn’t mean everything has autosave. Even working in a browser doesn’t always have autosave, I use some online programs daily that you have to remember to Ctrl + S.
I think your memory might be failing on this, because we’re about the same age and autosave wasn’t really a common feature in the 90s. MacOS didn’t introduce autosave until OSX Lion in 2010, and Microsoft’s auto-recover (which was their only feature even close to autosave until office365) wasn’t introduced until the 2000s and didn’t work properly until 2007.
I just can’t imagine why they decided to not have it on when you install it.
Different generational audiences expect different UX about their software, as this topic has aptly shown.
I’m sure there’s a bunch of people who would be pissed off at the fact that they only want to control when a save happens (by default), and not the app.
Personally I would expect it to be on automatically (normal modern UX), but also after I’ve written big blocks of very important text I’d do a manual save, as I don’t know where in the interval cycle between automatic saves I would be at (when’s the next autosave happening). Best of both worlds, basically.
Finally, only because I’m talking to you right now, as far as you and your child goes, only you as their parent knows what’s best for them.
Take heart that if you’re trying, you’re already halfway there, as many parents don’t even bother.
And don’t take the negative downloading you’re getting on this topic as a criticism of your parenting skills, aholes on the Internet trying to keep the world exactly how they expect it to be from way back when, and are so hung up on responsibility to a fault, are not the best sources for knowledge on how well or poorly you’re doing as a parent.
I am an older folk. I grew up with an Apple II.
I as well. Still have fun memories of loading Choplifter into my Apple via a cassette tape recorder.
I was going to say, it was absolutely drilled into our heads to save after every paragraph.
My high school teacher would occasionally flip the breaker for the computers in the school computer lab just to give those of us with bad saving habits a hard reminder.
Young folk who have lost hours of progress in robotics programming projects too… Once is enough to learn your lesson. The inevitable second time is traumatizing. By the third time, you hit Ctrl+s five times after every paragraph.
I don’t think OP’s kid is gonna learn the lesson here. Sounds like Dad was handling the typing for her, and then when things screw up he’s blaming others for it. Not a good environment for a kid to learn in.
And “save as” every few times (or every time if the document is important).
I lost a lot of work hours once because I was using a program that saved a backup copy every time you saved (so that you’d always be able to recover the previous version), and the damn thing crashed while saving, thus corrupting both the save file and the backup. Never. Again. Hard drive space is less expensive than my time and what’s left of my mental health.
I worked as a kitchen designer and for each customer’s meeting I’d made a new file with everything the same except the date in the filename. So worst case I’d lose a day’s work.
Auto save with Google Docs style snapshots has so little overhead I’d hardly consider it a trade-off. We have insane amounts of disk storage and extremely reliable non-volatile memory. The only reason against it that I can conceive of is confidential data you don’t ever want to exist outside of volatile memory.
All modern word processors use auto save and it kinda blows my mind libre does not do this.
I’m barely an adult and I do this. I think it’s less your age, and more the type of programs you tend to use—ei. programs where you may not want things auto saved, for me game engine, but there’s plenty of examples.
kbin.life
Top