> And the US could easily just keep destroying every asset in Iran
Could — and even more so: could easily — in an "if ifs and buts..." sense or materially? Wouldn't they run (weren't they running) out of resources? And having reached the point in which progressing with the destruction of assets requires killing the people encircling those buildings, standing on those bridges, wouldn't a new leadership be committed to revenge nevertheless?
I meant TRANSPARENT filesystem level dedupe. They are doing it at the application level. filesystem level dedupe makes it impossible to store the same file more than once and doesn't consume hardlinks for the references. It is really awesome.
ZFS is great! However, it's too complicated for most Linux server use cases (especially with just one block device attached); it's not the default (root filesystem); and it's not supported for at least one major enterprise Linux distro family.
File system dedupe is expensive because it requires another hash calculation that cannot be shared with application-level hashing, is a relatively rare OS-fs feature, doesn't play nice with backups (because files will be duplicated), and doesn't scale across boxes.
A simpler solution is application-level dedupe that doesn't require fs-specific features. Simple scales and wins. And plays nice with backups.
Hash = sha256 of file, and abs filename = {{aa}}/{{bb}}/{{cc}}/{{d}} where
That costs even more, unreuseable time and effort. It's simpler to dedupe at the application level rather than shift the burden onto N things. I guess you don't understand or appreciate simplicity.
Never mind rethinking Copilot entrypoints; are users still forced to have a Microsoft account "for their own safety"? If so, the company isn't making much of an effort to deceive.
Finally I found you! Thank you for making Hacki - it's perfect. The most recent updates enhance the quality quite a bit. Do you have a patreon where I can donate?
Time, I would say. First, there's the sense that the poison will produce its effects, revealing itself in hindsight; of course, we'd rather catch it before it does, but that isn't always possible, and the best we can do is to limit the damage and apply an antidote as soon as possible. Second, time brings experience, which allows us to do that, recognize symptoms, early one and, with enough of it, enable us to do the closest thing to identifying it before it causes problems, by identifying patterns, comparing a potential skill with other skills which had turned out to be poisoned — hype can be a good indicator. I wish I could give you a set of rules by means of which you could know for sure beforehand, but I really do believe that this is a domain for heuristics, and subjective ones at that — insofar as a skill can be professionally valuable, yet dreadful at a personal level.
OpenBSD, a rather more complex project, seems to be doing fine without a code of conduct — in the sense bakugo employed "code of conduct," not in the generalized sensed you conflated it with in your non sequitur.
I find it just the opposite. I can think of few communities nearly as patient or welcoming to anyone who's earnest and willing to put in the work to learn; true, there's no coddling or hand-holding, and, indeed, it tends to be very direct in calling out foolishness or laziness, and can reach epic proportions when it comes to dishonesty or entitlement, but nothing which can't be processed by emotional maturity, nor the gratuitous pedanticism-fueled browbeating often seen in some I-use-foo-btw open-source communities despite their shiny CoCs.
> I find it just the opposite. I can think of few communities nearly as patient or welcoming to anyone who's earnest and willing to put in the work to learn; true, there's no coddling or hand-holding, and, indeed, it tends to be very direct in calling out foolishness or laziness,
That’s nearly the exact opposite of welcoming newbies.
To be perfectly honest, that’s fine: OpenBSD demands a steep learning curve and that you know what you’re doing.
What is? No coddling? Little tolerance toward laziness? Zero toward entitlement? That's closer to the opposite of being patronizing, I would say.
They point to documentation in response to the kind of request I've seen closed with RTFMs elsewhere. They'll expect one to read it, and try one's hand at whatever one is trying to accomplish — and they'll feel slighted by a refusal, given how much work they put into it.
And yet, they go to great, unexpected (given the fame) lengths to help someone actually making the effort; they don't try to put anyone down in order to feel bigger than they are, but they don't sugar coat things to appear more likable either.
In short, no, knowing what one is doing isn't a prerequisite; it's more about not foisting onto others the responsibility for the effort required to move from where one is to where one wants to be — whether in knowledge, maturity or tools.
In this context, what I expanded above as foisting onto others the responsibility for the effort required by what we want to accomplish.
> Why do you believe pointing to the manual is newbie friendly?
To the documentation, which may or may not be a manpage; as it's usually done in response to a request for the information contained therein, I do find it reasonable.
> OpenBSD serves an important niche, but to brand it as newbie-friendly does OpenBSD a disservice.
We're discussing OpenBSD's community, not the system itself.
> Or perhaps you mean newbie tolerant?
I meant what I wrote, that I find the community to be the opposite of "notoriously terrible and unwelcoming to newbies," by which I do not imply newbie-friendliness in a kindergarten sense.
> We're discussing OpenBSD's community, not the system itself.
The community makes the system and decides what’s tolerable. That is to say, the community decides the type of users it expects to serve.
When your own example of laziness is to provide a script and someone fails to run a script; you’re comparing to a time when RTFM was the Linux norm.
But those days where RTFM to newbies were tolerable are long gone.
So OpenBSD was the friendlier community then; it’s a niche and insular community today.
So while I agree it’s not a terrible community, I also wouldn’t say it’s inviting.
> I meant what I wrote, that I find the community to be the opposite of "notoriously terrible and unwelcoming to newbies," by which I do not imply newbie-friendliness in a kindergarten sense.
I mean, it’s not inviting to newbies either; which is the plain reading and understanding of “opposite” of what the OP stated.
Instead it’s “tolerant”, a term which for some reason you don’t seem to like.
I’d ask if you’re Theo, mainly due to the strange back and forth we’re having over semantics and a concern over the OpenBSD community reputation.
> The community makes the system and decides what’s tolerable. That is to say, the community decides the type of users it expects to serve.
Sure, but the community isn't the system; it may inform the direction the system will take, but there isn't a 1:1 equivalence between their respective qualities at any point and across different levels. I made a statement about the OpenBSD community, you implied I was doing a disservice in making such statement about OpenBSD, so I pointed out the distinction.
> When your own example of laziness is to provide a script
We seem to be having different conversations. How did you get "provide a script and someone fails run a script" from "foisting onto others the responsibility for the effort required by what we want to accomplish"?
> So while I agree it’s not a terrible community, I also wouldn’t say it’s inviting.
So... We're mostly on the same page? I opposed someone's claim that it was "notoriously terrible and unwelcoming to newbies." I disagree on both counts. I didn't claim it to be inviting, however, which I find distinct from welcoming: I perceive the former as indicative of an active effort or the desire to attract new members or of is being perceive as attractive from the outside.
> I mean, it’s not inviting to newbies either; which is the plain reading and understanding of “opposite” of what the OP stated.
It's a community that can help a newbie grow in different ways; to increase in knowledge and refine the craft; to be demanding on oneself and to take criticism; so, I find it the opposite of "notoriously terrible."
It accepts anyone interested in learning and willing to make the effort to learn. The community cares about OpenBSD; someone likewise interested in OpenBSD won't be turned always due to politics. So, yes, I find it welcoming.
Is it for everyone? What is? The barbecue club may be the most welcoming place on earth without its being the best fit for a vegetarian.
> Instead it’s “tolerant”, a term which for some reason you don’t seem to like.
I don't see how my preferring my own choice of words over a proposed alternative is indicate of my having something against the latter.
You may want to consider how often, and specially how seriously, you engage with different viewpoints if your first reaction to what looks like is to suppose a mistake and the second is to assume a personal limitation.
> I’d ask if you’re Theo mainly due to the strange back and forth we’re having over semantics and a concern over the OpenBSD community reputation.
Someone commented. I disagreed. You disagreed — on semantics. I expanded. You pushed. And so on. I'm not seeing any of this as some battle for a community's reputation. It's just a discussion.
Not quite. To be sure, that's the reason some go the extra mile, make odd sacrifices; but that comes on top of "the special relationship" in the US. It goes beyond [0] the usual "geopolitics."
reply