“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: […] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.” —Jonathan Swift

  • 124 Posts
  • 288 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 25th, 2024

help-circle




  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.worldDirty Talk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago
    • sudo is telling the computer to do this with root privileges.
    • chmod sets permissions.
    • Each digit of that three-digit number corresponds to the owner, the group, and other users, respectively. It’s 0–7, where 0 means no access and 7 means access to read, write, and execute. So 077 is the exact inverse of 700, where 077 means “the owner cannot access their own files, but everyone else can read, write, and execute them”. Corresponding 700 to asexuals is joking that nobody but the owner can even so much as touch the files.
    • / is the root directory, i.e. the very top of the filesystem.
    • The -R flag says to do this recursively downward; in this case, that’s starting from /.

    So here, we’re modifying every single file on the entire system to be readable, writable, and executable by everyone but their owner. And yes, this is supposed to be extremely stupid.



  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldThe Harbinger of the Dystopia
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    I’m actually going to say that I think designing a restaurant for disastrously unhealthy fast food in a way that makes it look and feel like a playground shouldn’t be legal, and I’m happy to see them look as dull and unappealing as possible to young children.

    The ongoing health crisis is so severe in no small part because of things like that 1990s picture getting kids addicted to trash. This post feels like someone from the 1970s yearning for the days of Joe Camel. Plain packaging does work.

    Edit: I thought Joe Camel was much older than it really is.


  • I know it’s just an early mockup, but Calamares looks waaaay better than this, and I wouldn’t want to see this replace it in anything even close to this state. This is not slick.

    Though serviceable, [Calamares is] not as slick as the initial setup on Windows, macOS or even GNOME.

    Setup on Windows? Slick? Dude fuck, I do not want whatever vision this author wants for Linux if the minefield of dark patterns is “slick” to them. Calamares is the slickest, most straightforward OS install I’ve ever had, far surpassing Windows.



  • Basically what @meekah@lemmy.world said: the idea is to be practicable. Here’s a stream of disconnected thoughts about this:

    • What you pointed out is actually consistent with how a disproportionate amount of vegans are staunchly anticapitalist.
    • A cut-and-dry example of someone who’s still vegan but eats animal products based on “practicable” is someone whose prescription medication contains gelatin with no other pill type; vegans aren’t going to say “lol ok too bad bozo you’re not vegan anymore”.
    • The core focus of veganism has traditionally been non-human animals with the idea that a reduction of cruelty and exploitation toward humans is, at most, peripheral. This is changing in my opinion, especially when questions like “vegan Linux distro” don’t involve animals short of what the devs eat.
    • Based on what you say (as someone else pointed out), a distro based solely on FLOSS would probably be regarded as “the most vegan” if that were ever measured by anyone (it never would be).
    • It’s a weird analogy, but after you’re done using and purchasing products derived from animals, what’s “practicable” from there is kind of like a vegan post-game. Many vegans, for example, won’t eat palm oil because of how horribly destructive it is to wildlife.
    • Growing all your own food is in that post-game area of “practicable”. It’s up to you to decide if that’s practicable for you. It’s up to you to implement that if you think it is or, if it’s not, to maybe think about how else you can reduce harm with how you buy vegetables. It’s up to you if you want to share that idea and help other people implement it themselves. It’s widely accepted that it’s not up to you to determine if it’s practicable for others.

  • I would say that most vegans, even if they’ve never heard it, at least approximately follow the Vegan Society’s famous definition:

    Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.

    Striking the parts that seem irrelevant to this specific question:

    Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for […] any […] purpose […]

    Keep in mind that “animals” in that first part is widely treated as “humans and non-human animals”. So you would have to decide 1) to what extent cruelty was inflicted to create the distro, 2) to what extent people and non-human animals were exploited to create the distro, and 3) if there exist practicable alternatives that meaningfully reduce (1) and (2).









  • That’s mainly why I’m curious to see specific examples: I’ve fixed hundreds if not thousands of typos and can’t remember this happening, even long before I had much experience editing. I’m long past the point where I’d be considered a new editor, so any results I’d get now would be bullshit anyway short of violating the rules and starting a smurf account.

    Regarding “in the clique”, people give a shit about who’s who a lot less than you’d think. Despite having 25,000 edits over 8 years, I’ve interacted with maybe three people in the top 100 by number of contributions (let alone even know who they are). I’m not a social butterfly on there, but I’ve interacted in hundreds of discussions when needed. Not only am I almost never checking who an editor is when I check their edit, but I maybe know 100 people total (orders of magnitude less than the pool of very active editors); even among the few people I’d consider acquaintances, I’ve had my edits reverted and reverted theirs.

    The only instance I’ve seen of someone trying to play king shit of fuck mountain and not immediately failing is in our article for San Francisco, where they were insistent that there was a strong consensus for using only one image in the infobox instead of the usual collage we do in 99.9% of major cities. The image used was a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge in front of the San Francisco skyline – neither of which were represented well. They’d been shutting down ideas for a collage for years, and when other editors found out about this, it turned into a request for comment (RfC). Despite their now having 500,000 edits in about 18 years (this ought to put them in the alleged “clique” even though I’d never heard of them before) this swung wildly against them to the point of the RfC being closed early, and the article now has a (I think really nice) collage.

    (TL;DR: the policy against trying to dictate the contents of an article isn’t just there so we can say “but c it’s agenst da rulez so it dusnt happin!!”; it’s there because the wider editing community fucking hates that shit and doesn’t put up with it.)