They will die there, because they need a slightly older version of some minor library for compatibility, and nobody cared enough to continue hosting it.
Seconding that, made the switch and nothing broke since(almost 2 months now, ^o^) . Can’t say that for windows tho, where not only auto updates meant I had to wait half an hour to use my PC half of the time or disable them and not be up to date with security, but the OS itself was riddled with problems, sometimes just opening Firefox with a few tabs (like 4 or so) would bsod (and I have 16 gigs of ddr4 ram, so it wasn’t a ram problem) not to mention now that I’m on Mint everything is faster, I didn’t have to pay a license key and I know my OS isn’t trying to fight me for my data.
Thanks for your addition! It is working fine for me, but I may have changed the config a bit from the default, don’t remember everything. I have default tiling now and that works really well.
One of the things that is a must for me is 1 panel that shows the windows and apps per monitor. I can’t work any other way, I’m not looking to drastically change my workflow more so than Linux alone already is. My quick Google search said that it wasn’t possible on Gnome 44 and I gave up.
That said, KDE is laggy and unresponsive. It’s also fairly unusable. Everything else besides those 2 is like going back 20 years to desktop environments of the olden days. I just want something modern that works with my workflow.
Not really. Having heterogeneity among operating systems is better than pure homogeneity. Say, if everyone ran Linux, and some massive security flaw was discovered, we would all be screwed at the same time. However, if we ran different stuff, and some massive security hole was found for just one operating system, then only a small portion of the world is vulnerable at once. Besides, more operating systems can lead to more innovation, as long as there is good competition between them.
If the whole world focused and used just 1 OS for every system for a long enough time line, I think it would evolve fast enough to reach a point of perfection, where there are no security holes or flaws of any kind. I do believe that while programming has many ways of doing the same task, there is always an objectively best way to do it. Eventually the best way to do everything an OS needs to do would be found; it would be faster if there was only 1 OS to work with to reach that point.
I do believe that while programming has many ways of doing the same task, there is always an objectively best way to do it.
I’ve been writing code in one form or another for some 30 years now, and my observation so far has been the exact opposite: there are many problems in programming for which there is no one clearly superior solution, even in theory. Just like life in general, programming is full of trade-offs, compromises, and diminishing returns.
where there are no security holes or flaws of any kind
this in itself is straight up impossible to know or prove. when can you say your program has no vulnerabilities? ever hear of zerodays? finding the best way to do everything in software will never be found or stay constant either.
My favorite YOLO-Driven Development practice (from a former employer) was Customers as QA. We would write code, build the code, and ship it to the customer, then the customer would run the code, file bugs for what broke, and we would have a new build ready next week.
It provides many benefits:
No need to hire QA engineers.
Focuses developer debugging time on features actually used by customers instead of corner cases that no customer is hitting.
Developers deliver features faster instead of wasting time writing automated tests.
Builds are faster because “test” stages are no-op.
One time a developer was caught writing automated tests (was not sure in the correctness of his code, a sign of a poor developer). Our manager took 15 minutes out of his busy day to yell at him about wasting company resources and putting release timelines in jeopardy.
I’ve been thinking about this. I estimate a few people per 1000 would do an atrocity for no reason if they were guaranteed no consequences, and the deaths if the switch is pulled are 2^(n-1) for the nth switch. The expected deaths will cross 1 somewhere in the high single-digits, then (since it’s outcome*chance), so the death minimising strategy is actually to pull yours if the chain is at least that long.
Edit: This assumes the length of the chain is variable but finite, and the trolley stops afterwards. If it’s infinite obviously you pull the switch.
Could you elaborate what you are analysing here? If I dont misinterpret the model, the option where you dont double the victims minimizes deaths every time.
Ah, but then you’re giving the opportunity to the next guy to kill even more, if he wants. Most people obviously won’t want to do that, but a rare few will, and the body count gets so big so fast that it only takes a few switches before that’s a bad risk.
I was expecting a bigger number of switches, but I guess that’s just another example of humans being bad at tracking the consequences of large quantities.
But if you assume that such a person exists, then it is inevitable that someone will pull the switch. The very best case is that such a person is immediately after you. Therefore, the only minimizing choice is to kill however many people you have.
Oh, I see. Yes, the context here was that we assume all possible chain lengths. If it’s infinite the death-minimising strategy is obviously to pull it, and if your switch is the only one you obviously don’t. The question was where it changes from one to the other.
Makes me wonder what happens when the number of people tied to the tracks exceeds rhe number of people currently alive. Should be around the 33rd lever.
I don’t have to be a soldier on anyone’s ethical recursion war, so since the default position is set to kill 1 person, that gets done by the problem itself and the whole thing is solved without me having to do anything.
As a further bonus, now the lever people on the next branches are free to get out of the levels and go release the other prisoners.
Half of it. This gives you the running count. You need to also keep track of “number of decks in shoe” -“number of cards dealt since last shuffle”/52 to tell you how many decks are left in the shoe, then divide the running count by the number of decks left to give you a true count.
True count higher than 1? Start increasing your bet accordingly.
programmer_humor
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.