HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

schmuelio

no profile record

comments

schmuelio
·قبل سنتين·discuss
> I think arguing that "driving" requires the same amount of effort as "not driving" is a more specious claim

It's really not, the human brain is _really_ good at abstracting.

In pretty much exactly the same way you don't have to pay attention to balancing to walk, your brain learns to do the same thing for cycling and driving. It abstracts the mechanics of the car (e.g. turning the wheel to turn left/right) and sort of extends its view of your "body" to the car.

This isn't an instantaneous process of course, it takes time to build up that abstraction, but it absolutely exists. If your brain wasn't good at doing those types of abstractions then walking/running/typing/speaking/breathing/etc. would take a phenomenal amount of attention and practice.
schmuelio
·قبل 3 سنوات·discuss
Yeah that use case really sounds like they're on the cusp of just making a DSL from a config language.

If you need it to be _that_ complex then just write your configs as code...
schmuelio
·قبل 3 سنوات·discuss
I can't speculate on the extremely long term, but my fairphone 3 is still getting OS updates pretty regularly. Fairphone 3 was released 3 years ago and I think the last OS update I got was ~3 weeks ago, so they're at least doing 3 years, time will tell for 5+ though.
schmuelio
·قبل 3 سنوات·discuss
Oh boy that slope sure seems slippery doesn't it?

You know that reasoning can be applied to literally any removal right? There's _tons_ of stuff that it would be pretty reasonable to remove (and I'm sure you'd agree that things like CP shouldn't be on there etc.). There's also plenty of stuff that they would likely _have_ to remove if the state told them to (I don't have direct evidence of this happening, so take it as a hypothetical), while this isn't necessarily a _good_ thing, it's also not a slippery slope.

I'd also like to highlight the thing where you implied that Russian state propaganda is just an opinion or a theory (and therefore just as valid as any other innocuous opinion or theory), which is at best intellectually dishonest.
schmuelio
·قبل 3 سنوات·discuss
I think it would be more apt to call it plenty of "evidence"...
schmuelio
·قبل 3 سنوات·discuss
I don't know if there's been new stuff about it recently, but there's a good chance this is just sourced from a single reddit post that says they decompiled the app and found "loads of dodgy security problems just trust me"

I haven't found a source for this that doesn't trace back to this one reddit post.
schmuelio
·قبل 3 سنوات·discuss
Like basically every browser-based app, so electron apps as well as most android apps.

From my understanding iPhone apps work slightly differently but I sincerely doubt that it's not common place in that space as well.

I'm not saying that it's definitely completely fine, but it _is_ really common in that space.
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
> In countries where inflation has gone haywire (worse than Bitcoin)

Other comment has addressed the rest, I just want to point out that Bitcoin (and most other cryptocurrencies) are not _inflating_, they're _deflating_.

If the buying power of a currency goes up over time then it is deflating.

While this makes it (arguably) good for speculation, it actively punishes using it as a currency since what you buy today will be cheaper tomorrow. This - in turn - punishes the poor that would have to use crypto for necessities (food, shelter, water, etc.) since they will always have to buy necessities when they are expensive (today) rather than when they are cheap (tomorrow).

Just felt compelled to add this since a lot of crypto discourse talks about how the traditional market is seeing record inflation or whatever, and crypto doesn't suffer from as much inflation. While this is _technically_ true, the reality is that a deflationary currency is significantly worse for the people using it than an inflationary one. Especially when it comes to things like concentration of wealth in the hands of a few rich people.
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
> unlike, e.g., “signing git commits with a yubikey”, which nobody cares enough about to attack

I'm not so sure about this one, there's plenty of damage you could do if you were a malicious actor who could send trusted commits to a git repo. Especially if said repo were for some important software (like Linux, wget, glibc, etc. I know they're not necessarily on public repos but we're assuming at least somewhat targeted attacks here).
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
It's not a public commons if it's owned by a private individual or company...

Yes it's popular and yes there's a lot of people on it and using it, but that doesn't make it a public commons, its ownership does.
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
You are broadly right about the last one not being a legal mandate.

It was basically a case of the EU saying "you need to choose one charging port that you all use, we _will_ create a mandate if you don't".

Importantly, the EU has already gone through a shift in charging standards, so they already understand how this stuff advances and have prepared for it in their own legislation (the EU tends to make laws with details on how those laws will be changed in the future etc. since they are at core still a large trade bloc). You can find a Q&A they gave here:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_...

Where the following section applies:

> Will the proposal be an obstacle to innovation?

The Commission's proposal aims at providing consumers with an open and interoperable solution and, at the same time, enabling technological innovation. The proposal encourages innovation for wired and wireless technology charging.

Any technological developments in wired charging can be reflected in a timely adjustment of technical requirements/ specific standards under the Radio Equipment Directive. This would ensure that the technology used is not outdated.

At the same time, the implementation of any new standards in further revisions of Radio Equipment Directive would need to be developed in a harmonised manner, respecting the objectives of full interoperability. Industry is therefore expected to continue the work already undertaken on the standardised interface, led by the USB-IF organisation, in view of developing new interoperable, open and non-controversial solutions.

In addition, larger technological developments are expected in the area of wireless charging, which is still a developing technology with a low level of market fragmentation. In order to allow innovation in this field, the proposal does not set specific technical requirements for wireless charging. Therefore, manufacturers remain free to include any wireless charging solution in their products alongside the wired charging via the USB-C port.

To summarize, they'll work with the USB-IF (made up of a whole bunch of companies, including Apple) when the USB-IF makes a new standard in order to ensure that new connection innovations will be propagated to new devices. What they won't allow is a company like Apple having an "innovation" then diverging from how everyone expects devices to charge.

Interestingly they've also said that there's a set of standardized fast-charging capabilities that need to be clearly labelled on products that require/support them. So if you buy a tablet it'll have a label on the box saying "can charge at up to 50w" or whatever, and a charger would say "can charge at up to 50w", so you know it'll charge at full speed. That's a little better than the previous "it supports fast charging" umbrella.
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
I mean the simple fact that every phone manufacturer bar Apple moved to Micro-B indicates that the mandate works, and the fact that they then migrated to USB-C indicates that it doesn't lock manufacturers in forever.

In addition, Apple is known for making loads of dongles, so it wouldn't be remotely weird for them to sell/ship a lightning -> USB-C dongle. So the argument about mandating e-waste doesn't really hold up either.

So you have:

- It works - It doesn't lock manufacturers in forever - It doesn't mandate e-waste

Any other reasons you want to give? So far those are the only three I've seen and none of them hold water.
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
> You might have dictated a situation where people now have to throw away a pile of perfectly usable cables/accessories and buy a bunch of new ones.

I mean, or Apple could do the one thing they've done absolutely tons of recently (so it wouldn't be a surprising or unheard of move from them) and sell a dongle for lightning -> USB-C?

Now you don't have to do any of what you just said would be a guarantee.
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
> The other way of viewing this is that by not switching (yet) they haven't created instant e-waste out of every cable and accessory manufactured in the past decade.

Well no time like the present since time is linear and unless they're going to stick with lightning _forever_ then they'll eventually have to create a bunch of e-waste.
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
> EU regulators are now forcing companies (and therefore you) to use whatever they think is best.

All those shady un-elected EU regulators...

Oh wait, which ones do you not elect again? Was it government officials or company managers?
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
> Micro-USB and Mini-USB were both far more robust.

Micro-USB and USB-C both have the same minimum durability ratings, you may just be buying non-compliant cables (or you're encountering selection bias or something):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_hardware#Durability
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
Happened a while ago, you have to go out of your way to find (new) android phones with Micro-B.
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
Your example doesn't show static typing (declaration/re-declaration is the same syntax as assignment in Python), but I think OP was thinking of Strong/Weak?

Python is Dynamically typed because:

    >>> a = "foo"
    >>> a / 3
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for /: 'str' and 'int'
This isn't a compile error.

Edit: Also for the re-declaration thing, you can see this using id(). Python seems do do some fancy value stuff behind the scenes but you can see the variable changing its identifier in the following example:

    >>> a = "foo"
    >>> id(a)
    140105790230896
    >>> a = "foo"
    >>> id(a)
    140105790230896
    >>> a = "bar"
    >>> id(a)
    140105790230512
    >>> a = 1
    >>> id(a)
    140105793782000
    >>> a = "foo"
    >>> id(a)
    140105790230512
As for strong/weak, I think it's a bit more fluid because I can't seem to find a set definition that everyone agrees on. Some people consider weak typing to be when the language implicitly casts or converts types for you, which Python does not do:

    >>> a = "1"
    >>> a / 3
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for /: 'str' and 'int'
    >>> type(a)
    <class 'str'>
Except sometimes it kind of does? The divide operator converts int into float "implicitly" even when both inputs are int. So type conversion is happening behind the scenes (I don't know if you would class this as "implicit" type conversion, maybe it depends on where it happens?):

    >>> a = 10
    >>> type(a)
    <class 'int'>
    >>> b = 1
    >>> type(b)
    <class 'int'>
    >>> type(a/b)
    <class 'float'>
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
It's basically people thinking that Russian disinformation is a political belief.

People are angry that a search engine (something dedicated to giving you relevant and true information based on what you searched for) is less likely to give you Russian state propaganda because the right wing have associated their political beliefs with that of pure free speech without realizing that such a thing just doesn't make sense in most modern settings.
schmuelio
·قبل 4 سنوات·discuss
I haven't used it, but the page lists "The latest Intel Wi-Fi 6E chipset" so I would run under the assumption that it works fine.

It's the chipset that you would need to ensure compatibility with, unfortunately I can't find anything concrete on the actual chipset used, Intel only has 3 wifi 6E chipsets and as far as I can tell (from here https://venzux.com/intel-ax411-vs-ax211-vs-ax210-wi-fi-6e-mo...) they should all be compatible with Linux.