nsajko

55 ms·

571.
by nsajko 6y ago
> Now I'll only figure out if there is a setting to keep it enabled by default - to inverse the scroll button behavior. If you're using xinit (or startx) to fire up you Xorg, you can run the xinput commands in your xinitrc: ht
572.
by nsajko 6y ago
What you are asking for seems to be described here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Libinput#Scroll_with_mo... https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Logitech_Marble_Mouse Alternatively, buy an
573.
by nsajko 6y ago
Pretty sure LuaTeX or ConTeXt LMTX (an experimental LuaTeX fork) is a better choice for programmability. LuaTeX is the most recent TeX engine, and it is very programmable using Lua (as in no TeX code required). I know, Lua sucks very much
574.
by nsajko 6y ago
This is a dupe, sort of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25952168
575.
by nsajko 6y ago
I guess this is the underlying tech: https://www.leman-micro.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/LMD-W... So the pressure is just measured with a MEMS (microelectromechanical) device, the temperature with a d
576.
by nsajko 6y ago
Seems like the current URL is wrong, this works for me instead: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2021/01/has-scien... The source for this article is a paper published in Nature.[0] Unlike the NG art
577.
The Many Functions of Functor(pinealservo.com)
2 points by nsajko 6y ago|0 comments
578.
by nsajko 6y ago
Some more criticism of the experiment: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram... Regardless of the scientific value of the experiment, the original documentary might be interesting, beca
579.
by nsajko 6y ago
If a system is configured as you describe, that just means that it then effectively has an additional root/admin account, except under a possibly unpredictable name. So security through obscurity, really (if the privileged user name is
580.
by nsajko 6y ago
I think the design of the relevant code is worse than the lack of relevant test coverage. The problem solved insecurely by the code instead seems like an obvious target for lexical and syntactic analysis (and this has been so since the sixt
581.
by nsajko 6y ago
Firstly, the constant nagging (of the kind appearing here, and often on other HN threads) against C and family are obnoxious. Any language will have both downsides and upsides and picking this one "flaw" in C and then pretending l
582.
Hundreds of animal footprints found on Florence's medieval cathedral roof(euronews.com)
3 points by nsajko 6y ago|0 comments
583.
by nsajko 6y ago
I haven't checked the page on Falun Gong for some time, but there was a concerted and largely successful effort to depict Falun Gong as in its own propaganda on many related Wikipedia pages. Some related info: https://en.wik
584.
by nsajko 6y ago
Now I see that I indeed was snarky and I'm not happy about it. I should have simply said that all three points are completely unsubstantiated.
585.
by nsajko 6y ago
One interesting thing with interesting implications regarding the (Wikimedia Foundation and its) Wikipedias is that getting to know them/it and how it functions is very involved. This is what I'm getting at: I tried to present som
586.
by nsajko 6y ago
You're missing some crucial facts: * Politics (and similar stuff) can creep into any topic * It takes a lot of effort to verify a Wikipedia article and assess neutral point of view and other stuff. My point is that you won't know
587.
by nsajko 6y ago
In Wikipedia parlance, this is called "due weight" and "neutral point of view".
588.
by nsajko 6y ago
I didn't say all evidence should be admissible, on the contrary, I was even quite explicit about this, I said: "excluding otherwise valid evidence obtained illegally".
589.
by nsajko 6y ago
An issue is that most well-meaning contributors very soon learn to keep off controversial pages, because it's simply not enjoyable to constantly fight over the content. The fact is: resolving disputes takes much time and usually the pa
590.
by nsajko 6y ago
Every Wikipedia page has its history accessible through "View history".
591.
by nsajko 6y ago
Here, I'll fix that for you: * Wikipedia works in theory, but not in practice (as soon as you scratch the surface). - The problem is that there are many good pages, but that just lulls one out of the necessary skepticism. * Try the Wik
592.
by nsajko 6y ago
Doesn't even have to be political. Moneyed interests and fanboys and cultists use Wikipedia for PR and similar all the time. See Falun Gong, for example. There are also groups of Wikipedia "editors" who coordinate off-wiki to
593.
by nsajko 6y ago
> Add to that a surprisingly under-the-radar company culture which has avoided any major blow ups despite its community wielding so much leverage over the world's education and having to make a lot of difficult calls on a daily basi
594.
by nsajko 6y ago
I don't like Wikimedia nor the Wikipedias, but I don't get your point and I think you're incorrect (unless you're talking about Wikipedia's early days). The way Wikipedia should work is by sourcing verifiable facts
595.
by nsajko 6y ago
That was the ROC government's position at one point (I think it isn't anymore since 1991), but the situation with the popular opinions is considerably more complicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_
596.
by nsajko 6y ago
I don't think Bagacrap was discussing Hong Kong at all, but anyway your argument doesn't make much sense, because if someone is "protesting in support of self determination", then they almost surely are really asking for
597.
by nsajko 6y ago
This is a nitpick irrelevant to your point, but still: "the world's oldest democracy" is a meaningless title because who it belongs to depends on the definition of "democracy". I'm sure there's at least ha
598.
by nsajko 6y ago
> the great social media purge towards GOP personals This seems like a weird way to put it if only Trump and stuff like Parler was removed off the big social media platforms.
599.
by nsajko 6y ago
> Accepting Illegally obtained evidence is accepting legally planted evidence. Whether evidence is illegally obtained is independent from whether it is planted. Or am I missing something? Similarly with your second point.
600.
by nsajko 6y ago
Indeed, it means "to deceive". Judging by the user's other comments, they are trying to express vague and incoherent but confident distrust of "the system".

More ›