There was a team of students presenting their work to ~200 people. Right in the middle, a pop-up says updates are finished and the computer needs to restart. It has a helpful 60-second countdown, but "cancel" is grayed out, so all they can do is watch.
I was only in the audience and I still have nightmares.
For every 1 person who knows how to use the windows command line, there are 50 people struggling because they didn't embed their video into their PowerPoint, or worse, their USB stick only contains a shortcut to their actual .ppt file
I love these comments. If you need to use the command line (the largest argument people have against Linux) why are people still arguing to stay on Windows? Hell, Linux you don't even need the terminal if you don't want to use it and choose the right distro.
(I recognize that for schools and offices, people don't have a choice. These students were probably on a personal laptop though, so they could have a choice. The issue is Windows comes as default and no one actually makes a choice. They don't choose Windows. They just have Windows.)
Windows always gets a pass from it's fans. They also tend to overestimate average users' proficiency with computers (meaning windows) way more than linux users.
Most windows users would be afraid to change stuff on CP or Settings never mind opening up policy editor or registry editor.
They regularly fail to install applications on windows (a big part of them would probably not even try) or install something different than intended.
Usually they end up running million unnecessary things on startup, having completely unresponsive systems. They just shrug and cope with it till they pay someone to format their computer or they buy a new one.
The arrogance of some Linux users... You just can't fathom that most people just want to use the OS their PC came with. These people don't want to struggle with the incompatibilities that come with Linux systems. Troubleshooting Linux systems is a daunting task for most casual users. It's great that you use Linux because fuck greedy corporations. But stop being so uppity about it. This toxic behavior is what steers people away from Linux forums.
You just can’t fathom that most people just want to use the OS their PC came with.
No they don't they want to get a task done. The vast majority of users doesn't know what an OS or a browser is never mind that there are alternatives.
These people don’t want to struggle with the incompatibilities that come with Linux systems.
Most people are simply not aware of Linux systems let alone linux system incompatibilities.
Troubleshooting Linux systems is a daunting task for most casual users.
No shit, troubleshooting windows is a daunting task for most casual users. They either nag/pay someone to try and fix it or simply cope with it. And windows fucks up all the time, especially for most users.
It’s great that you use Linux because fuck greedy corporations. But stop being so uppity about it. This toxic behavior is what steers people away from Linux forums.
People don't just randomly get on Linux forums, especially linux memes forums.
Nor is my previous comment in any way or form toxic. I just pointed out the blind spot of windows fans, you just can't handle criticism.
Then it proceeds to take 10 minutes to boot. Happened to me before an important meeting once and i just couldn't believe it. wtf makes Microsoft think they can get away with shit like this?
Some versions like Home and Education might lack the options, but most Enterprise versions and LTSC versions can let you delay updates via the menu or disable updates completely via group policy fuckery.
Other OSes can update everything while running and you just reboot to the updated system. Microsoft could definitely fix their update process they are not incompetent, they just don't care.
The super duper shitty thing is that they could have canceled it by opening the Run dialog box and typing "shutdown -a", so it's not even like canceling wasn't an option. M$ just decided to be dicks about it
It only happens if you neglect to install updates for a very long time, which is a pretty dumb thing to do. This is actually a non-issue if you just install the damn updates once they're announced. Just update when shutting down. Also, using home edition is pretty dumb. With the pro version you'll likely never run into this problem.
I am using 2.99.18 (non release, unstable build). Non destructive editing has landed. You can make adjustments through the usual menus and then enable/disable the adjustment under layer effects.
I’ve tried learning GIMP, and it sucks. I’m not saying GIMP sucks, but you have to be crazy to not see that it’s hard to learn.
I use GIMP for memes and here's my two favorite tips
Hit the forward slash key / to open a command palette and jump to any action
To remove backgrounds, use a layer mask. select around the object and paint a white/black section on the layer mask. Here comes the trick: use a Gaussian filter on the layer mask to create a transition from black to white and the crop job looks a lot less choppy.
My anti-tip
Adding text and shapes sucks and I never found a way to make it better. Export your image and finish the job in Krita, Pinta, Photopea, ...
Smart people use terms like gaussian blur to refer to a blur distribution rather than a non technical term such as feather. Feathers are what helps birds fly for example.
Let's try:
"You can feather the pedals on your car to make it drift."
"You can feather the pedals on your Ford to make it do the Tokyo style turns."
Any tricks on getting the fuzzy select tool to work? Even after adjusting the threshold, it is just garbage in my experience. Nothing close to Affinity/Photoshop. Unless I am selecting something that is in front of a very solid background, I just use a paint brush on a layer mask in order to "cut out" an object.
The Autodesk forums are 40% this, 20% "just learn to program, spend a few years getting good at it, then write yourself a custom script to do what you are struggling with", 20% "you are wrong for wanting that in the first place" or "you are wrong for having this issue", 15% "this has been brought up once at some point in the past two decades, try searching", 4% "OMG yes I have this issue too!"...
...and 1% split between actual helpful answers, and confirmation that it's a known issue.
It's infuriating trying to find solutions to issues with Autodesk.
But you did forget a classic one: "Hello I'm X from Autodesk support, you should open a support ticket so we can discuss this issue in a more one on one manner." And then the thread is closed without a solution.
Yeah, I recently found a post there where a person wanted to modify a downloaded mesh. The first comment was telling them they would need years of experience to do it well. The OP responded that they had figured out a solution that they were happy with, to which someone told him that his results were shitty and then explained a way to do it better. When the OP got upset at this back to back dismissal, everyone unanimously decided they were an asshole.
I've been using Gimp for years. It's the only way I know. If I tried to use photoshop I would have a hard time getting anything done too. I'm really good with gimp though.
I've used Gimp all through my teenage years. And I used it a LOT. It was quite a difficult transition to Photoshop (which my workplace uses). But once I got the hang of photoshop, I realized how convoluted Gimp really is.
Half the time spent in Gimp is making backups before making an edit. A third of your layers will be backup layers in case you change your mind about a design decision. The whole design process is super inflexible and therefor kills creativity.
Want to use an effect like gaussian blur or drop shadow? Make sure you backup your layer!
Want to edit text after you stretched it all out? I hope you made a backup of that layer!
Want to work with large files with many layers? You better hit ctrl S after every edit, because the program just might crash on you if you make a difficult selection!
To be fair, I haven't used much Gimp since 2.8, so if stuff is different now: awesome!
And I admire all volunteers that work to make stuff better. But for now, I'll stay away from it if I need to do heavy editing.
It has the same problem as most FOSS packages that are too wide in breadth and have multiple contributors with their own hobby horses pulling in all different directions, and to this day does not actually provide a feature-complete whole, nor an interface that actually makes sense. And it's not a matter of the workflow just being different -- it categorically fails to replicate functionality that is core to its commercial competitors. Numerous other "big" productivity packages have the same problem including FreeCAD (boy does it ever), LibreOffice, etc. I say this as a staunch supporter of FreeCAD, by the way. It's the only CAD software I use even though it's a pain in my ass.
The shining exception to this I see is Inkscape, but it is still significantly less powerful than even early versions of CorelDraw.
For 2D graphics work these days, I hold my nose and just use Corel. I use it for work. Like, actual commercial work. That I get paid for. It is at least a lesser evil than doing business with Adobe.
And if you want to stick it to the man, it is easily pirated.
I always wondered if I could contribute/volunteer to a FOSS somehow with some UIX stuff, but I don't even know where to start. Would you just draw a concept ui for the team to work out or something?
Not that I'm great at it, but man, we gotta start somewhere, right?
This is probably common. The people that work on UI often aren't the people who do pull requests. But I think if you want to contribute it would be best to get in touch with a maintainer on the chat of the project. Projects often have a matrix/irc/discord on the git page.
So, why do UI people not use and contribute to FOSS then? Are they all on Mac? Then go complain to them or contribute your desired UI improvements. FOSS isn't an all you can eat buffet.
Personally, I think UI people are less idealistic and I do look down on them for that.
It's super hard to get involved as a UI person. If you're a developer, you can just rock up to a project and fix bugs, and if you follow the coding style they'll probably get accepted.
If you want to successfully contribute as a UI person you have to convince a bunch of developers that you know what they should be doing better than they do. It basically never happens.
My old best friend and I used to be a programming tag team that worked pretty well; he'd slap together w semi-functional version of the idea we had and then id go in and make the UI make sense and fix all the logic bugs and typos.
I'm not saying I'm some perfect UI guru or anything but the way he (and other people I've met) seem to have no internal base knowledge of shit like "similar settings probably shouldn't go on completely opposite sides of the screen under different menus" or "5-deep nested drop-down menus hurt people's souls"
Honestly I still struggle a lot with this. I can click around a UI and feel what might confuse a user, but building a UI from scratch feels like such a shot in the dark.
There's also two main plus one lesser issue that are less commonly discussed:
Lack of manpower. FOSS devs often doing it as a side project on top of some other and/or a full-time job, so that even lowers one's ability of concentrate on stuff like the UI, when you're already working hard on fixing bugs, looking up things (which is getting harder and harder thanks to AI slop - I once managed to destroy a Linux on my Raspberry Pi while trying to adjust the path variables).
Getting comfortable with the uncomfortable parts of your application. There are many times I haven't noticed a a very uncomfortable part of my GUI after months of use, then I had to refactor things, which obviously took time away from other things. This also affects the users already in the userbase.
Elitism is also a factor. A lot of people like the feeling of being part of a special group, and for them, the steep learning curve is a feature, not a bug. I've seen Blender users being angry at the devs for "spoonfeeding" the normies, and letting in all kinds of people. Also just look at OP's image.
KiCAD has also improved greatly over the last few years. It still has an opinion on how the work flow should be, but that work flow moves pretty well. It's gotten easier to find pre-made footprints, too.
I stuggled with GIMP at first, it was super frustrating because it does UI things differently than other image tools.
i.e. in other tools your active layer masks your drag selection, and in GIMP I would constantly be grabbing lmages from another layer, till I realized the pixel under pointer determines what image is moved. That function can make you highly productive since you don't need to preset layer, but god was it enraging at first
Photoshop is also hard to learn. What's your point? Just because it's different to what you used to does not means it's more or less difficult to learn.
Not having Paint.NET sucked when I switched to Linux. I got very used to it and that was the one I missed most... it took a few years bouncing between programs but I'm happy with Krita now. GIMP just never clicked for me unfortunately.
I sometimes think about making a Paint.NET clone for linux but i have too many other projects and hobbies i wanna do instead yk
Just how old this meme is: OSX 10.9 mavericks was the first free mac update, it was released in 2013. The meme should be created before that. Iirc Windows 7 was the first win with forced and annoying updates, it was released in 2009. So this meme should be from that era, 11-15 years old.
Use debian oldstable, usually 1-2 security updates each months, nothing else. If you need a newer app, install it as flatpak, they can't bork your system.
I tried to install Win 10 in a VM recently and it spend hours updating after installing from the ISO. Also you have to turn off the internet to not create a Microsoft account? What a pain it is now.
There are newer releases, obviously if you download an older build of windows, you have to download and install each updates manually. It's not a win only thing, it's the same with every os, e.g. download Ubuntu 16.10, it will take a while to upgrade to the current version. Windows 10 was released in 2015, I don't know which release you downloaded.
Well, now they just make you throw out the old Mac hardware and buy new for $1299 (8gb RAM lol) because it's now out of support for the latest MacOS and the newest versions of Adobe Suite/MS Office/insert productivity work related proprietary software suite here is on board with Apple's bullshit and won't run on older MacOS versions.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
It's far, far more expensive than renewable energy. It also takes far, far longer to build a plant. Too long to meet 2030 targets even if you started building today. And in most western democracies you wouldn't even be able to get anything done by 2040 if you also add in political processes, consultation, and design of the plant.
There's a reason the current biggest proponents of nuclear energy are people and parties who previously were open climate change deniers. Deciding to go to nuclear will give fossil fuel companies maximum time to keep doing their thing. Companies which made their existence on the back of fossil fuels, like mining companies and plant operators also love it, because it doesn't require much of a change from their current business model.
Agreed, building a nuclear facility takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money. However... This doesn't need to be the case at all.
A lot of the costs go into design, planning and legal work. The amount of red tape to build a nuclear plant is huge. Plus all of the parties that fight any plans to build, with a heavy not in my backyard component.
If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly. Back in the day we could build them faster and cheaper. And these days we build far more complex installations quicker and cheaper than nuclear power plants.
The anti-nuclear movement has done so much to hold humanity back on this front. And the weird part is most people do think nuclear fusion plants are a good thing and can solve stuff. But they have almost all of the downsides nuclear fission plants have in terms of red tape, complexity and cost.
You can't cut the red tape. The red tape is why we're able to say nuclear is safe.
the weird part is most people do think nuclear fusion plants are a good thing and can solve stuff. But they have almost all of the downsides nuclear fission plants have in terms of red tape, complexity and cost
Huh? Nuclear fusion doesn't have any downsides or upsides. Because it doesn't exist. We've never been able to generate net power with fusion. (No, not even that story from a couple of years ago, which only counted as 'input' a small fraction of the total energy used overall. It was a good development, but just one small step on the long journey to it being practical.)
Being anti-nuclear was a poor stance to have 20, 30 years ago. At that time, renewables weren't cost effective enough to be a big portion of our energy generation mix, and we should have been building alternatives to fossil fuels since back then if not earlier. But today, all the analysis tells us that renewables are far cheaper and more effective than nuclear. Today, being pro-nuclear is the wrong stance to take. It's the anti-science stance, which is why it has seen a recent rise among right-wing political parties and media organisations.
I have never heard being pro-nuclear is the anti science stance and it being on the rise among right wing political parties. All the right wing is talking about it more coal and less things to be done about the climate.
The people who I talk to who are pro nuclear seem very well informed and not anti science at all.
I believe nuclear can help us get to the future we want and we should have done it a lot sooner. Nuclear doesn't mean anti-renewable, both can exist.
Nuclear doesn’t mean anti-renewable, both can exist.
Not easily, for the reasons explained in my reply to @Frokke.
The people who I talk to who are pro nuclear seem very well informed
I doubt it, because the science itself is against nuclear. Evidence says it would be too expensive and take too long to deliver compared to renewables.
Very well, let's agree to disagree. Perhaps I am wrong. But I am in no way right wing or spreading misinformation.
The people I've spoken who work in the nuclear field bitch about unneeded red tape all the time. Some of it is important for sure, but a lot of it can be cut if we wanted to without safety becoming an issue. The price of nuclear has gone way up the past 20 years, whilst the knowledge and tools have become better. This makes no sense to me. We should be able to build them cheaper and faster, not slower and more expensive. And there are countries in the world, that can get it done cheaper, so why can't we?
I'm all for renewables, I have solar panels. But I'm not 100% convinced we have grid storage figured out. And in the meanwhile we keep burning fossils in huge amounts. If we can have something that produces energy, without fucking up the atmosphere, even at a price that's more expensive than other sources (within reason) I'm all for that. Because with the price of energy from coal, the money for fixing the atmosphere isn't included.
We should be able to build them cheaper and faster, not slower and more expensive. And there are countries in the world, that can get it done cheaper, so why can't we?
It's because we stopped building them. We have academic knowledge on how to do it but not the practical/technical know-how. A few countries do it because they're doing a ton of reactors, but those don't come cheap either.
Atkeast in my country, the only two pro-nuclear parties are fsr-right climate change deniers and the same old fucks who're only pro-nuclear because the green party isnt.
If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly.
That's a pretty big ask for a democratic government where half of the politicians are actively sabotaging climate initiatives....
The only countries where this is really feasible are places where federal powers can supersede the authority of local governments. A nuclear based power grid in America would require a complete reorganization of state and federal authority.
The only way anyone thinks nuclear energy is a viable option in the states is if they completely ignore the political realities of American government.
For example, is it physically possible for us to build a proper deep storage facility for nuclear waste? Yes, of course. Have we attempted to build said deep storage facility? Yes, since 1987. Are we any closer to finishing the site after +30 years.......no.
Blah blah blah nobody wants to hear actual evidence and suggestions that solar and wind might be better. We're on a mission for Nuclear power damn the Fukushima refugees and who cares if we store the waste encased in concrete at the bottom of the ocean which we know will eventually leak into the food stream
Huh. So those of us that have always advocated for a nuclear baseline with wind/solar topping off until we have adequate storage solutions are climate change deniers? That's new.
First, no, that's not what I said. If you're only going to be arguing in bad faith like that this will be the last time I engage with you.
Second, baseload power is in fact a myth. And it becomes even worse when you consider the fact that nuclear doesn't scale up and down in response to demand very well. In places with large amounts of rooftop solar and other distributed renewables, nuclear is especially bad, because you can't just tell everyone who has their own generation to stop doing that, but you also don't want to be generating more than is used.
Third, even if you did consider it necessary to have baseload "until we have adequate storage", the extremely long timelines it takes to get from today to using renewables in places that don't already have it, spending money designing and building nuclear would just delay the building of that storage, and it would still end up coming online too late.
I used to be a fan of nuclear. In 2010 I'd have said yeah, we should do it. But every time I've looked into it over the last 10 years especially, I've had to reckon with the simple fact that all the data tells us we shouldn't be building nuclear; it's just an inferior option to renewables.
Aaaw, someone doesn't like the tone used? Well that's unfortunate. How about you start with leaving dem bad faith arguments?
Renewables will not cover your usage. Period. You will need something to cover what renewables won't be able to deliver. Your options are limited. Nuclear is the only sustainable option for many places. Sure you got hydro (ecological disasters) or geothermal in some places, but most do not have those options.
False. Multiple countries are already able to run on 100% renewables for prolonged periods of time. The bigger issue is what to do with excess power. Battery solutions can cover moments where renewables produce a bit less power.
All the countries that manage 100% renewable power use high levels of hydropower. Which is not an option for many countries and has it's own ecological problems associated with it.
Also, these 100% renewable countries have very little electricity requirements.
The United States produces at least produces four million Gigawatt hours of electricity per year. Compare that to some of these "100% renewable" countries.
Oh noes, facts. The bane of all renewables evangelicals.....
Just wait till you have to tell them they're looking at irrelevant data. Not only are they using specific usecases that are not applicable to a large majority of countries, but they're also using data that doesn't support the long term fossil fuel goals.
Just wait till you tell them how much the electricity requirements will skyrocket once we're transitioning to EV, dropping fossil fuel heating, cooking, cargo trucks switch to EV, etc etc.
Sure, most countries that already made it use hydro. But Denmark is already up tp 80% without hydro, and the UK and Germany are already nearly halfway there without any meaningful hydro. And there's still so much solar and wind that can still be installed. They're nowhere near their maximum production capacity yet.
100% from renewables is clearly feasible and achievable. Of course it takes time and investments, but nuclear energy will takre more time and investments to get going again.
Sorry to report, hydrogen is also hopeless. It’s cool tech, but making it work in practice is hopeless because it diffuses straight through every container you try and keep it in, and achieving reasonable energy densities requires cryogenic storage.
Also, developments have been stalling out relative to electrical solutions because of this and because of the heavy investment in electrics.
I can only see it really working in practice in niche applications where you will be close to cryogenic facilities.
Locking hydrogen up in ammonia is what the industry looks to be moving to to avoid the problem you describe.
Also, look up the 7 Hydrogen Hubs in the US as an example of this market getting started. There are no downsides to developing a hydrogen market if we're going to have oodles of excess renewable energy.
Locking hydrogen up in ammonia is what the industry looks to be moving to to avoid the problem you describe.
I believe we’re still using more hydrogen to make industrial ammonia than that we produce from green sources, so I guess even if we only switch over ammonia production without worrying about fuel cells or hydrogen vehicles or power generation, we still come out ahead.
Then there’s the hydrogen used in oil refining that, iirc, is still mostly sourced from methane, but I’m hesitant to suggest we replace that with green hydrogen since if you want to be carbon-negative the oil refining will have to go down A LOT anyway.
Anyway, I guess my point is that hydrogen is an important commodity for all sorts of things. Before we start burning it for energy it’s easier to use it as is in industrial processes. The methane we save that way (that would be used to produce industrial hydrogen) we can burn as is in existing gas power plants.
But this is the kind of pragmatic common sense thing that gets no one excited.
I mean, if anything, the fact that the Oil & Gas industry uses hydrogen for refining means that there is a possible, robust market for green hydrogen to get into (don't like this because it means oil is still the focus, when we need to consider green chemistry and stop with oil).
The O&G industry also helped usher in solar PV at an early stage because of the needs of remote power in hazardous environments such as offshore rigs and near potential sources of release like oil tanks (I used to work as an engineer in O&G myself).
There's actually a lot of work by GE and Mitsubishi to start shipping new gas turbines to be capable of firing a non-zero amount of hydrogen in addition to natural gas. I think some plants are even capable of doing 50/50 hydrogen/natural gas, with that former number increasing year over year.
Hydrogen could outstrip conventional fuels someday. The bottleneck has always been supply though.
If renewables are so abundant and cheap, then we'll finally have a reason to deploy hydrogen infrastructure on a massive scale (at least in the US). Hell, you look at the major inverter manufacturers for utility PV like Sungrow, and they have containerized electrolyzers ready for implementation. I haven't done a market survey, but if they're in the game, then so are other players.
If you want to be convinced of the progress of hydrogen, I would look into the project that Sargent & Lundy is working on in Utah. They're planning on using a salt cavern for hydrogen storage, and I believe there is a CCGT onsite as well to make use of the generation.
Hydrogen is even on the minds of offshore wind developers like Siemens.
The substance isn't doomed like others in this thread make it out. There is active interest in the market to develop a supply chain and economy.
Edit: The one thing I don't see a lot of people talk about though is where the raw materials for this hydrogen will come from... Likely groundwater unfortunately. Since groundwater is already a highly sought after resource for consumption and agriculture, I'm not sure if hydrogen in this way will take off. This is why offshore hydrogen seems to be more promising, but as we see with wave and tidal power, the ocean environment just sucks for any commercialization.
It's an uphill battle, but the same can be said for the climate crisis in general. Hope we make enough progress before it's too late.
There are a bunch. But solar panels have gotten a lot better in the last decades, whereas thermodynamics has remained the same. They are not worth the investment anymore.
Australian politicians have been arguing about nuclear energy for decades, and with whats going on now, petty distracting squabbling while state governments are gutting public infrastructure
The most frustrating thing is the antinuclear party is obviously fine with nuclear power, and nuclear armaments, just look at the aukus submarines
labors cries about the dangers to our communities and the environment are obviously disingenuous, or they wouldnt be setting a green light for the billionaire robber barons to continue tearing oil and minerals out of the ground (they promise to restore the land for real-sies this time)
Anyway, a nuclear power plant runs a steam turbine and will never be more than what, 30% efficient?
Photovoltaic cells are even less efficient, I think they're somewhere between 10-20% efficient. I think the way to go would be a solar collector, like the Archimedes death ray, but much much bigger.
That is already a thing and it's called concentrated solar power. Basically aim a shit load of mirrors at a target to heat it, run some working fluid through the target and use that to make steam to turn a turbine. There are a few power plants that use it but in general it has been more finicky and disruptive to the local environment than traditional PV panels would be.
There are designs for a giant glass cone put in the middle of the desert. Air under the cone gets warmed and it rises up through a couple turbines on its way out of the device.
The fantastic thing about renewables is how much they lend themselves to a less centralised model. Solar collector? Sure, why not‽ Rooftop solar on people's houses? You bet! Geothermal? If local conditions are favourable to it, absolutely!
Instead of a small number of massive power plants that only governments or really large corporations can operate individuals can generate the power for themselves, or companies can offset their costs by generating a little power, or cities can operate a smaller plant to power what operations in their city aren't handled by other means. It's not a one-size-fits-all approach.
This contrasts with nuclear. SMRs could theoretically do the same thing, but haven't yet proven viable. And traditional plants just put out way too much power. They're one-size-fits-all by definition, and only have the ability to operate alongside other modes with the other modes filling in a small amount around the edges.
I would remind you that Aukus is a mess of the Coalition's making - after they made a mess of the original submarine replacement project under Abbott and Turnbull, insisting on Diesel.
But for Labor to withdraw from Aukus would cause a shitstorm of unseen proportions.
No, you're right. It's not an option for everyone. Which is why I mentioned that there are many other solutions which are similar and over production which is simpler and cheaper
What? You don't have Google? Options I know of (other than batteries and pumped hydro) :
Compressed Air Energy Storage, Thermal Energy Storage,, Fly wheels, Hydrogen, Supercapacitors,
Gravitational Storage
Nobody wants energy stored for months. Whatever storage is used needs to get through temporary decreases in efficiency. In places that use solar, that means from one afternoon to the next morning. In places that use wind, it means until the wind picks up. We're talking storage on the order of tens of hours at the most.
The fact that you descend into complete science fiction should give you pause for thought. I doubt it will, but please think about how fantastical your proposed solutions are - "a massive lake of molten salt under every city" (I actually like that one!)...
Given you're making up things I never said I can only imagine what you're respinding to? Where did a massive lake of molten salt under every city come from?
Sorry this is a late reply. I can see that mentioning molten salt was a bit left-field, However, it is one of the more realistic ways to store the huge amounts of power needed to fuel an economy for a couple of weeks (which you need in northern europe/US if you want to use solar/wind). Here's a link about it:
I am pro nuclear, but if we are going to descend into this renewable hell, then we need to actually think about how you store terawatt-hours of power. I really think that this kind of storage might be the nearest we have to a solution. we'll only need it once we try to turn off the gas turbines, of course. It is fascinating that so many smart people don't see that the whole jigsaw is missing vital pieces.
Oil & Gas companies didn't want Solar, Wind, and Storage to proliferate, yet they did because of cost savings.
I think we could start to see that for these alternative-ion batteries if lithium supply ever becomes an issue. There will always be a niche that has the opportunity to grow in the economy. Just takes the right circumstances and preparation
Price driven consumption has been done by industrial users for decades. And countries like UK has been storing energy in storage heaters at home for decades as well. EVs can do wonders here.
Fuck I wish the politicians would give this to us straight like that.
Why is Albo's party spreading memes about three eyed fish instead of saying "yeah Dutton's nuclear plan is safe, but it maximises fossil fuel use in the short term and we'd prefer to focus on renewables"
You don't download shell scripts from github for windows. You download batch scripts and exes from random file hosting sites, and they don't even fix your problem.
Talking here about regular x64 OS install not ARM though, have not played with that myself.
Not really, it is usually PowerShell scripts from trusted blogs or in case of local account creation, you run a batch file that is built in installer (oobe\bypassnro) that adds a single registry value. Not sure I would call this hacking. Then again I don't think Linux 10 years again had problems with account creation as well.
Would be nicer if you could create local account out of the box? Sure. Do some prefer MS account? Also true.
Hilarious when people want to resort to “I WASN’T WRITING FORMALLY” in these situations. Just take the L and acknowledge it was a flub. Much less cringe that way.
Lol it's not grammar, you've used an entirely different word that just sounds kinda similar. You're essentially saying the actual words used don't matter in these two sentences because they sound similar:
Consider this: when you speak the listeners know what you mean based on the rest of the sentence. When you write you give the reader the intended word through spelling. People who read will see your words and assume you really meant "then" instead of "than", and the sentence will make little sense.
The words "I" and "eye" sound similar, but if you write "eye" I will read a sentence first thinking you are trying to say something about an eye, then when it breaks down, go back and find the issue.
End that my friend is less then eye-deal for comprehension.
It's not grammar it's an entitlement different word. It would be like refusing to call a dog a dog because you think it sounds better to call it a cat.
Edit - you know what, I'm leaving that auto correct in. Entitlement looks better here to me than entirely.
We write our language (swiss-german) like this 😂 everything is allowed and there are strangely very little misunderstandings. Only bad thing about is, that swiping keyboard rarely work with it.
And us german-germans think you are very weird and you might as well call your spoken language something other than german, cause no one can understand it anyways. Also why are you so afraid of this: ß?
I do with English would switch to phonetic spelling, including the eventi of the speaker, but we're never going to switch. At least the standardized spelling does have a very minor advantage in terms of disambiguation with homophones. But then we had to go and mess up read/read and lead/lead.
Read/ret lead/let -> easy 😜 but how to write "do" I mean it is not a normal spoken "o" and not exactly a "u" like it is a "u" but without (yo)u
Write phonetic is more easy in German, I think, or maybe only because it is my birth language 🤔
They reject u even though you spoken truest worders good are.
Nobody who spoke English that read your sentence misunderstood what you said based and than vs then and that English doesn't have to be pretty to get the job done
I had to read your comment at least twice before I could parse it.
So basically what you're both saying is that you are so incredibly selfish, you don't care if someone needs to read your comments multiple times in order to not misunderstand you, as long as it's easier for you and you don't have to bother learning to be understood
But it is fluid and changing. Do you know anyone who would know what Þæs oferéode, ðisses swá mæg or some other sentence from old english means, or someone who thinks that jail is spelt gaol?
The MIT license guarantees that businesses will use it because it's free and they don't have to think about releasing code or hiding their copyright infringement. The developers I've seen using that license, or at least those who put some thought into it, did do because they want companies to use it and therefore boost their credibility through use and bug reports, etc. They knowingly did free work for a bunch of companies as a way to build their CV, basically. Like your very own self-imposed unpaid internship.
The GPL license is also good for developers, as they know they can work on a substantial project and have some protections against others creating closed derived works off of it. It's just a bit more difficult to get enterprise buy-in, which is not a bad thing for many projects.
Not all of us write code simply for monetary gain and some of us have philosophical differences on what you can and should own as far as the public commons goes. And not all of us view closed derivatives as a ontologically bad.
Software licenses don't change ownership. That requires transfer of copyright, like with contributor agreements.
Though I am aware that a small set of people seek less copyleft licenses because they think they're better. They are usually wrong in their thinking, but they do exist.
I'm not sure what you are referring to about ontologically bad. Has someone said this?
I'm not sure what you are referring to about ontologically bad. Has someone said this?
I'm going by the vibe of the comments of people here who are generally anti-MIT. That the very nature of allowing someone to use your code in a closed-source project without attribution is bad. Phrasing it as "hiding their copyright infringement", for example, implies that it is copyright infringement per se regardless of the license or the spirit in which it was released.
Oh no I mean that there are companies that just don't care about licensing and plod ahead hoping it's never an issue. Like having devs build a "prototype" that they know uses AGPL code and saying, "we will swap this out later" and then 6 months later the "prototype" is in production.
Personally, I make a lot of my personal projects' code closed because I specifically don't want it to be useable by others. Not for jerky reasons, but strategic ones. IMO common licenses don't achieve what a lot of people hope they do.
And not all of us view closed derivatives as a ontologically bad.
Please explain how allowing a third-party to limit computer users' ability to control and modify their own property is anything other than ontologically bad?
If I release something free of restrictions to the world as a gift, that is my prerogative. And a third party's actions don't affect my ability to do whatever I want with the original code, nor the users of their product's ability to do what they want with my code. And the idea of "property" here is pretty abstract. What is it you own when you purchase software? Certainly not everything. Probably not nothing. But there is a wide swath in between in which reasonable people can disagree.
If you are an intellectual property abolitionist, I doubt there is much I can say to change your mind.
Because I don't know why it is closed source. Is it a personal project? A private project? A sensitive project? I don't see a moral imperative for any of those to be free and open to all users.
Depending on how you contribute to your OSS code, commits you make on company time are considered property of the company. You could, unknowingly, be forcing your code to be closed source if your company ever decides to make a claim for it.
I prefer to keep things bifurcated. I never reuse my own library and if I do, I rewrite it whole cloth.
“Company time” doesn’t mean much to me, as a remote salaried worker with relatively flexible schedules. Not touching anything but work code from my company machine should be enough, as far as I could understand. Not a lawyer, though.
If you're the copyright holder, nothing stops you from releasing your work under more than once license. It is not necessary to use permissive licensing; you are perfectly free to release your stuff to the general public with a copyleft license while also granting your company a separate license even with proprietary terms if you want.
You're not seeing the whole picture: I'm paid by the government to do research, and in doing that research my group develops several libraries that can benefit not only other research groups, but also industry. We license these libraries under MIT, because otherwise industry would be far more hesitant to integrate our libraries with their proprietary production code.
I'm also an idealist of sorts. The way I see it, I'm developing publicly funded code that can be used by anyone, no strings attached, to boost productivity and make the world a better place. The fact that this gives us publicity and incentivises the industry to collaborate with us is just a plus. Calling it a self-imposed unpaid internship, when I'm literally hired full time to develop this and just happen to have the freedom to be able to give it out for free, is missing the mark.
Also, we develop these libraries primarily for our own in-house use, and see the adoption of the libraries by others as a great way to uncover flaws and improve robustness. Others creating closed-source derivatives does not harm us or anyone else in any way as far as I can see.
If the government is the US (federal), I think you are technically supposed to release your code in the public domain by default. Some people work around this but it's the default.
But anyways, the example you've given is basically that you're paid with government funds to do work to assist industry. This is fairly similar to the people that do the work for free for industry, only this time it's basically taxpayersl money subsidizing industry. I've seen this many times. There is a whole science/engineering/standards + contractor complex that is basically one big grift, though the individual people writing the code are usually just doing their best.
I'm also an idealist of sorts. The way I see it, I'm developing publicly funded code that can be used by anyone, no strings attached, to boost productivity and make the world a better place. The fact that this gives us publicity and incentivises the industry to collaborate with us is just a plus.
Perhaps it makes the world a better place, perhaps it doesn't. This part of the industry focuses a lot on identifying a "social good" that they are improving, but the actual impact can be quite different. One person's climate project is another's strategic military site selector. One person's great new standard for transportation is another's path to monopoly power and the draining of public funds that could have gone to infrastructure. This is the typical way it works. I'm sure there can be exceptions, though.
Anyways, I would recommend taking a skeptical eye to any position that sells you on its positive social impact. That is often a red flag for some kind of NGO industrial complex gig.
Calling it a self-imposed unpaid internship, when I'm literally hired full time to develop this and just happen to have the freedom to be able to give it out for free, is missing the mark.
Well you're paid so of course it wouldn't be that.
Also, we develop these libraries primarily for our own in-house use, and see the adoption of the libraries by others as a great way to uncover flaws and improve robustness. Others creating closed-source derivatives does not harm us or anyone else in any way as far as I can see.
Sometimes the industries will open bug reports for their free lunches, yes. A common story in community projects is that they realize they're doing a lot of support work for companies that aren't paying them. When they start to get burned out, they put out calls for funding so they can dedicate more time to the project. Sometimes this kind of works but usually the story goes the other way. They don't get enough money and continue to burn out. You are paid so it's a bit different, but it's not those companies paying you, eh?
You aren't harmed by closed source derivatives because that seems to be the point of your work. Providing government subsidy to private companies that enclose the derivative product and make money for their executives and shareholders off of it.
You are almost on point here, but seem to be missing the primary point of my work. I work as a researcher at a university, doing more-or-less fundamental research on topics that are relevant to industry.
As I wrote: We develop our libraries for in-house use, and release the to the public because we know that they are valuable to the industry. If what I do is to be considered "industry subsidies", then all of higher education is industry subsidies. (You could make the argument that spending taxpayer money to educate skilled workers is effectively subsidising industry).
We respond to issues that are related either to bugs that we need to fix for our own use, or features that we ourselves want. We don't spend time implementing features others want unless they give us funding for some project that we need to implement it for.
In short: I don't work for industry, I work in research and education, and the libraries my group develops happen to be of interest to the industry. Most of my co-workers do not publish their code anywhere, because they aren't interested in spending the time required to turn hacky academic code into a usable library. I do, because I've noticed how much time it saves me and my team in the long run to have production-quality libraries that we can build on.
You are almost on point here, but seem to be missing the primary point of my work. I work as a researcher at a university, doing more-or-less fundamental research on topics that are relevant to industry.
This is something I'm very familiar with.
As I wrote: We develop our libraries for in-house use, and release the to the public because we know that they are valuable to the industry. If what I do is to be considered "industry subsidies", then all of higher education is industry subsidies. (You could make the argument that spending taxpayer money to educate skilled workers is effectively subsidising industry).
This is largely the case, yes. Research universities do the basic research that industry then turns into a product and makes piles of cash from. And you are also correct that subsidizing STEM education is a subsidy for industry. It very specifically is meant to do that. It displaces industry job training and/or the companies paying to send their workers to get a degree. It also has the benefit of increasing overall supply in theur labor market, which helps drive down wages. Companies prefer having a big pool of potential workers they barely have to train.
We respond to issues that are related either to bugs that we need to fix for our own use, or features that we ourselves want. We don't spend time implementing features others want unless they give us funding for some project that we need to implement it for.
That's good!
In short: I don't work for industry, I work in research and education, and the libraries my group develops happen to be of interest to the industry. Most of my co-workers do not publish their code anywhere, because they aren't interested in spending the time required to turn hacky academic code into a usable library. I do, because I've noticed how much time it saves me and my team in the long run to have production-quality libraries that we can build on.
I think your approach is better. I also prefer to write better-quality code, which for me entails thinking more carefully about its structure and interfaces and using best practices like testing and CI.
The MIT license guarantees freedom for developers proprietary software conglomerates to use FOSS code in their proprietary products. The GPL guarantees freedom for end users the entire FOSS community, both for users and developers.
Planned obsolescence is one of the major engines that keep our current system of oligarchic hypercapitalism alive. Won't anybody think of the poor oligarchs?!?
Credit rating also depends on credit to debt ratio. You want to keep it below 35%, so you would need a credit line of $100T or more to have a great rating.
Articles and posts like this really just exist for conservatives to shout that we need to stop federal spending and cut out "unimportant" things like Dept of Education, as described in Project 2025.
The problem is that debt is good. It enables us to pay for infrastructure projects and services. It doesn't work like a household budget...not on the scale of international economies...because money "in the bank" is money that's not in circulation.
When money is not in circulation, it's not being used to pay for goods and services....it's just...sitting there being hoarded.
You all complain about Musk hoarding a few hundred billions. Imagine if the debt were in the opposite direction and the government had $34T sitting in the bank doing nothing.
And anyone can buy Treasury debt. In fact, last year it was an AMAZING return on investment for anyone that bought into it and holds into the debt for a few years. One of the safest places anybody could put money to earn a return (behind a HYSA at FDIC insured banks).
Fully agreed, the whole "Debt bad! Deficit evil!" trope is just neoliberal propaganda against public expenditure, which translates into a weakening of the welfare state
When money is not in circulation, it’s not being used to pay for goods and services…it’s just…sitting there being hoarded.
This is why I think the velocity of money should be a key economic indicator. Money moving around and doing work is what makes an economy better for everyone. When it starts to pool in the economy it slows down and benefits only a few.
This is another thing I learned from "Making Money"
I'm not a financial expert, so someone who is please step in and correct anything that I say is wrong. I need to learn too.
It's because the government's debt is also a surplus. Government debt isn't like personal debt because the government debt is mostly through selling bonds that the government issues. Most of that debt is owned by American citizens, in one way or another, who buy those bonds. Most of that $34 trillion is money the government owes it's people, or at least the Americans who hold those bonds.
It's not really money you owe but it's money that is owed to you. Well actually the billionaire class who can actually afford to buy these bonds but hey, that's Capitalism baby.
It is wild that people will say that using apt to install things is too hard, but then suggest a registry edit to remove Bing from seach. Windows just isn't as casual user friendly as it pretends to.
Honestly, with Flatpak and immutable base systems this is a place Linux is really excelling now too. Being able to show a novice user a shared package manager with a search and a bunch of common apps and them actually install/remove them in a safe manner with a high likelihood they'll work out of the box (since they come with all their deps in sync independent from distro) is kinda huge.
Don't really need sandboxed software for that. Ubuntu comes with their own software store and even if you only select deb, you just klick on install and you're done
It's a pretty mixed bag honestly. Sure there are some apps that we get in a mammoth poorly made appimage we'd probably have to have run in wine before or some terrifying statically compiled program embedded in a run script and that's probably a win.
The trade-off is every developer being their own distro maintainer, 100s of gigs of duplicate dependencies, broken containers with missing libraries, leaky requirements on the underlying system, and everyone needs to be a security expert to understand all the options in flatseal to expose the right features.
Also, instead of one distro source, I've got at least 3 and I've in the last week had to install programs from multiple sources trying to get a functioning version. This feels like the norm rather than an exception.
Also this week had an app image broken by a requirement on a removed system library outside the app and a flatpak missing a key library forcing me to dig up an old .deb version. The later I lost like 6hrs on because clearly libusb was installed on the system but I didn't realize I'd installed the flatpak and in wasn't in the container. Such fun.
Fwiw, this is not an endorsement of Windows. I strongly believe if most people spent half the time they spent fighting Windows learning Linux they'd never go back.
GUIs, even the Registry Editor, are familiar territory for a lot of users. Give them a blank screen cli, and there is no hint of what to do next. There are good reasons why the vast majority clearly prefer GUIs.
I'd even add that now 99% of the distro have a gui over the package manager. Have an android or iPhone? You already have experience in installing stuff in an easier way than windows
Once there are some fundamental changes in the Android framework, these old apps will actually become incompatible. So Google wants to prepare their users for that scenario, and force devs to update their apps.
"Windows is easy. I just install it and it works. What's so great about Linux?"
"You can customize it however you want"
"Oh yeah that sounds amazing. Okay I installed Linux, how do I make a customized desktop and set of desktop animations to record YouTube videos of so I can show off my uniqueness through my ability to customize?!?!"
"Read this long ass article and try to understand what it says to do"
People seem to think that those who choose permissive licences don't know what they're doing. Software can be a gift to the world with no strings attached. A company "taking" your code is never taking it away from you, you still have all the code you wrote. Some people want this. MIT is not an incomplete GPL, it has its own reasons.
For example, OpenBSD has as a project goal: "We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to."
I don't get the whole MIT vs GPL rivalry. They both have their uses. If you want to use GPL, go for it. And if you want something like MIT that works too.
Thankfully both exist because I think we definitely need both.
People seem to think that those who choose permissive licences don't know what they're doing.
Most of them don't. Lots of people say they use MIT because they want "no restrictions", or call GPL terms "restrictive". That's an instant sign that they don't understand what they're talking about.
Indeed, I think it's just two philosophies that don't necessarily need to be at odds. Permissive licenses help speed the adoption of languages and libraries, which ultimately feeds into the slowly building momentum of the copyleft projects that use them.
It's fair, but different people have different ideas about what they want, and in the end it's the authors right to decide what is fair for their code. An unconditional gift is also fair.
My dad died the same day David Bowie died. It really sucks to have all of your friends post things like, "David Bowie was an inspiration to me and made me the person I am today. His star has fallen and I will be devastated forever. Also, sorry about your dad, dude."
After the following years, I've quietly taken the whole "this is when we diverged into the darkest timeline" schtick an iota more seriously. It's been a strange 8 years.
lemmy.world
Top