dpark

23 ms·

601.
by dpark 7mo ago
This is a tired and unhelpful refrain. Only rich people fill their cars with gasoline without wincing at the price. Only rich people get to own 7 houses. Only rich people get to fill their pools in the middle of a drought. There are a lot o
602.
by dpark 7mo ago
I guess I’m not clear what the point would be. I suppose you could build a phone that uses more of the gnu ecosystem than Android does, but you’re not going to run desktop apps on your phone because none of them are made for the phone. It w
603.
by dpark 7mo ago
It seems like an Android fork that supports the stores you want would be a lot simpler. I’m sure Google would deny Google Play Services to any popular fork that didn’t follow their rules. But they would do the same to any Linux desktop or w
604.
by dpark 7mo ago
Right, but you’re presumably not going to run Linux the desktop OS on your phone. You’re going to run a mobile OS and the Linux kernel.
605.
by dpark 7mo ago
> As a separate point, it seems quite feasible to run Android apps in VM on Linux based phone and make the experience fairly seamless. But why? The premise of Waydroid seems to be to bring Android apps you want to your Linux desktop. But
606.
by dpark 7mo ago
It makes no sense that Google would intentionally degrade their search quality now (and even years ago) for some hypothetical future where they have replaced it with AI. It is extremely farfetched because it would provide no present or
607.
by dpark 7mo ago
> We saw it begin years ago with Google etc gradually reducing the quality of search results. Then ChatGPT etc arrive shortly thereafter, and people are led to conclude "it works so much better than traditional search." Hard to
608.
by dpark 7mo ago
Your thesis would seem to be that Google is playing some 4D chess, but also kind of sucks at it. I mean, that could be the case, I guess.
609.
by dpark 7mo ago
Occam‘s razor says prefer the simpler explanation. It is possible that Google as an organization had enough foresight to see that search would eventually be eaten by AI chat bots and so intentionally degraded the experience of search to enc
610.
by dpark 7mo ago
> it's not hard to believe they foresaw potential resistance to selling the concept of AI to users and took measures to funnel them into the behavior Google desired I find that very hard to believe because it implies a level of fore
611.
by dpark 7mo ago
Compared to a hypothetical world without computers with Linux preinstalled, presumably. “Plenty” doesn’t really seem like a relative term here, but a statement that there are enough options on the market if someone wants to buy a machine wi
612.
by dpark 7mo ago
I’m not sure there’s a general trend of federal officers using state/local officers sacrificially, but no doubt these cases are hammered into officers’ minds over and over.
613.
by dpark 7mo ago
I agree. It’s actually systemic error. Tens of thousands of no-knock raids every year in the us is crazy stuff. In the early 80s the number was ~1500/year. More than an order of magnitude increase in no knock raids while violent crime
614.
by dpark 7mo ago
That’s total officers shot, not specifically for raids. A NYT investigation indicated there were “at least 13” officer deaths tied to forced entry raids from 2010-2016, so around 2/year. It’s unclear how many other fatalities happen in
615.
by dpark 7mo ago
> So it’s funny They didn’t say it’s funny. If you have something meaningful to say, then say it. Don’t twist someone else’s words instead. > human error Choosing to train police to act with an “warrior mindset” instead of training f
616.
by dpark 7mo ago
> Police do regularly get shot at when raiding. I wonder what the ratio of police deaths during no knock raids vs peacefully served search warrants. I certainly believe that bursting through someone’s door with guns drawn is a high risk
617.
by dpark 7mo ago
“Warrior mindset”. When you’re trained to assume that everyone you interact with is a lethal threat, you tend to react as such.
618.
by dpark 7mo ago
Kind of? Almost tautologically, if you have multiple repos, it’s less likely that everyone will stuck at once. But it’s entirely possible that the total “stuck time” per engineer is no lower across a year. In my experience the only repos th
619.
by dpark 7mo ago
Problems don’t go away with fractured repos. They just change shape. Many repos maybe get you more reliable CI, but you pay for it with increased cost of integrating dependencies and increased complexity with debugging breaks in productio
620.
by dpark 7mo ago
It really depends on the music and the background noise? Talking (more likely yelling) in the middle of a rock concert? Probably not an issue. I’m wearing earplugs anyway. Holding a conversation in the middle of a quiet passage during an o
621.
by dpark 7mo ago
This is the typical reply of the inconsiderate. “If my behavior is so problematic, then you should stay home.” The problem isn’t with “human presence”. It’s with the select few who can’t or won’t control their own behavior out of respect fo
622.
by dpark 7mo ago
> as the current preferred name "Dept of War" is now for a different posture with regard to America's adversaries. The “Dept of War” naming is not aimed at our adversaries. It’s aimed internally. It’s chest beating from ma
623.
by dpark 7mo ago
If I described someone as always smiling, would you suppose this is an assertion that they literally never make a non-smiling facial expression? If I said "The phone calls I receive are always SPAM", would this mean I've lit
624.
by dpark 7mo ago
> You're describing manipulating people, not communicating with them. You interpreted the parent comment in a shallow and uncharitable fashion. You missed the deeper insight the statement has. > The point of communication betwee
625.
by dpark 7mo ago
Right. Nohello isn't about not saying hello . It's about not sending a message with nothing but a greeting and leaving the recipient waiting to find out what you want. It's about being efficient and respectful of the re
626.
by dpark 7mo ago
> Factually incorrect. Factually you ascribed false motives to me because you're offended at the idea that I proposed. You are upset because I said that this is topic is generally broached by people who wish they could be blunt and
627.
by dpark 7mo ago
Crocker's rules are permission for others to be blunt, not an obligation. The fact that a person claims to operate under Crocker's rules doesn't mean anyone else is obliged to care. (Something the article's author appe
628.
by dpark 7mo ago
Crocker's rules are about not burying honesty beneath politeness. Someone can maybe squint real hard and see the word "Hey", in "Hey, the site is down" as politeness obstructing communication. But at that point, I
629.
by dpark 7mo ago
> Don't malicious ascribe false motives to others because you're offended at the idea that they're proposing. Literally doing what you accuse me of in the same sentence . > That's not even what Crocker's Rule
630.
by dpark 7mo ago
> The Slack message that starts with "Hey! Hope you had a great weekend :)"before asking a technical question This has absolutely no relevance to Crocker’s rules. This is just normal human pleasantries.

More ›