platypus_plumba

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

"Your tree?" — Racoon, probably

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 month ago (2 children)

So you probably have to go and fix it now. Good luck.

It's a joke..... Before I'm sentenced to death by downvotes.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Learning how Systemd manages the network was a total mindfuck. There are so many alternatives, all of them being used differently by different tools, partially supported. networkd, Network Manager... There were other tools, they shared similar files but had them in different /etc or /usr folders. There were unexpected interactions between the tools... Oh man, it was so bad. I was very disappointed.

I was really into learning how things really worked in Linux and this was a slap to my face because my mindset was "Linux is so straightforward". No, it is not, it is actually a mess like most systems. I know this isn't a "Linux" issue, I'm just ranting about this specific ecosystem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

It means jews a sassy

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

And yet, the worst design choice was how this meme template was used.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I honestly don't get why everyone is agreeing with Windows on this one. I just love how explicit Linux is.

file.txt is fucking file.txt. Don't do any type extra magic. Do exactly as I'm saying. If I say "open file.txt", it is "open file.txt", not "open File.txt".

The feature isn't being able to create filenames with the same name, nobody does that. The feature is how explicit it is.

It would be so confusing to read some code trying to access FILE.TXT and then find the filesystem has file.txt

 

First of all, I have more in common with atheists than religious people, so my intention isn't to come here and attack, I just want to hear your opinions. Maybe I'm wrong, I'd like to hear from you if I am. I'm just expressing here my perception of the movement and not actually what I consider to be facts.

My issue with atheism is that I think it establishes the lack of a God or gods as the truth. I do agree that the concept of a God is hard to believe logically, specially with all the incoherent arguments that religions have had in the past. But saying that there's no god with certainty is something I'm just not comfortable with. Science has taught us that being wrong is part of the process of progress. We're constantly learning things we didn't know about, confirming theories that seemed insane in their time. I feel like being open to the possibilities is a healthier mindset, as we barely understand reality.

In general, atheism feels too close minded, too attached to the current facts, which will probably be obsolete in a few centuries. I do agree with logical and rational thinking, but part of that is accepting how little we really know about reality, how what we considered truth in the past was wrong or more complex than we expected

I usually don't believe there is a god when the argument comes from religious people, because they have no evidence, but they could be right by chance.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

It made a horse sound in my mind when I saw its legs

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The moment you finally install arch and your realize you still feel empty inside.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The same people who didn't understand that Google uses a SEO algorithm to promote sites regardless of the accuracy of their content, so they would trust the first page.

If people don't understand the tools they are using and don't double check the information from single sources, I think it's kinda on them. I have a dietician friend, and I usually get back to him after doing my "Google research" for my diets... so much misinformation, even without an AI overview. Search engines are just best effort sources of information. Anyone using Google for anything of actual importance is using the wrong tool, it isn't a scholar or research search engine.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

It really depends on the type of information that you are looking for. Anyone who understands how LLMs work, will understand when they'll get a good overview.

I usually see the results as quick summaries from an untrusted source. Even if they aren't exact, they can help me get perspective. Then I know what information to verify if something relevant was pointed out in the summary.

Today I searched something like "Are owls endangered?". I knew I was about to get a great overview because it's a simple question. After getting the summary, I just went into some pages and confirmed what the summary said. The summary helped me know what to look for even if I didn't trust it.

It has improved my search experience... But I do understand that people would prefer if it was 100% accurate because it is a search engine. If you refuse to tolerate innacurate results or you feel your search experience is worse, you can just disable it. Nobody is forcing you to keep it.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's an expression. In this context Elon is the broken clock and saying desktops should run Linux is one of the rare times he's been right about something.

 

It's a good tip, but shitty.

This just happened to me in the guest bathroom of someone I barely knew. The bathroom was meters away from the meeting.

Never. Again.

view more: next ›