Mark Ewing used to wear a red Cornell lacrosse cap and when he would help in computer labs people would look for a the man in the red hat. The company was called Red Hat after Mark but their logo has been a person in a fedora for a long time.
Fedora is a community continuation of Red Hat Linux, which was discontinued in favor of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Back when I was starting out Fedora wasn’t a thing, you downloaded Red Hat Linux for free directly from the company or could buy it in a box.
There are school-aged people on Lemmy? I assumed the vast majority are older millennials (with a touch of gray), who are also Linux users, not straight, and have some level of obsession with Star Trek and — God knows why — beans.
Commie grey millennial here. I’m a drug and alcohol counselor in a prison. I teach a group on opioid overdose prevention to the inmates, but no clue what they teach in school.
A while ago (soon after the Reddit exodus, but I can’t recall specifically when) it seemed like every other post on Lemmy was just shitposting bean memes. I still see beans referenced periodically. But if your experience on Lemmy was strictly highly curated you may have not experienced the beans.
Me either 😞 I’m 41 and I still remember most of 17 very clearly because it was a very good year for me. But man, the years will just start whizzing by you the older you get. Sometimes it feels like 17 was just 5 or at most 10 years ago.
My advice is if you don’t want to feel like you’re getting older (and it happens to all of us) is stay active and avoid monotony. Doing the same monotonous thing day after day (ie most jobs) means you don’t make as many “waypoint” memories - when you get old like me it’s the big events that move away from the monotony that you tend to remember, and if you don’t have many of those big events it feels like no time has passed at all since you have very little memory of that period. We don’t remember the daily commute to work, the endless meetings, etc., but we tend to remember things like travelling or the first time with a new lover or emotionally-strong events like a death or marriage. In short: make lots of memories!
Oh man. I was miserable in my teens and much of my twenties. The majority of the time that I think back is to unfairly judge myself on data or maturity that I didn’t have and cringe (which is a habit that I’m working on breaving). Overall sound advice, from my experience though.
Mid-30s millenial here. Being an adult, instead of a 20-something young adult is overall pretty great. Having experinence and maturity makes a lot of shit easier, especially dropping uninportant bullshit. Definitely the best decade of my life thus far.
The downside: unaddressed physical, emotional, and psychological “battle damage” is cumulative (I only started treatment for ADHD at 30). So, if you have any untreated issues or trauma, it’s best to take them on earlier so that you don’t have to play catch-up.
That said, enjoy your life and keep in mind that, short of severe injury or imprisonment, you are not going to irreparably damage your future (repair is possible in some of those cases anyway). I didn’t start my career (completely unrelated to my degree) until I was about 26. My wife, who is a year younger than me, earned her union card in her trade last year, after dealing with nearly 30 years of untreated physical and psychological issues. Despite this, we’re both happier on average than any other point in our lives.
As with every software/product: they have different features.
ZFS is not really hip. It’s pretty old. But also pretty solid. Unfortunately it’s licensed in a way that is maybe incompatible with the GPL, so no one wants to take the risk of trying to get it into Linux. So in the Linux world it is always a third-party-addon. In the BSD or Solaris world though …
btrfs has similar goals as ZFS (more to that soon) but has been developed right inside the kernel all along, so it typically works out of the box. It has a bit of a complicated history with it’s stability/reliability from which it still suffers (the history, not the stability). Many/most people run it with zero problems, some will still cite problems they had in the past, some apparently also still have problems.
bcachefs is also looming around the corner and might tackle problems differently, bringing us all the nice features with less bugs (optimism, yay). But it’s an even younger FS than btrfs, so only time will tell.
ext4 is an iteration on ext3 on ext2. So it’s pretty fucking stable and heavily battle tested.
Now why even care? ZFS, btrfs and bcachefs are filesystems following the COW philisophy (copy on write), meaning you might lose a bit performance but win on reliability. It also allows easily enabling snapshots, which all three bring you out of the box. So you can basically say “mark the current state of the filesystem with tag/label/whatever ‘x’” and every subsequent changes (since they are copies) will not touch the old snapshots, allowing you to easily roll back a whole partition. (Of course that takes up space, but only incrementally.)
They also bring native support for different RAID levels making additional layers like mdadm unnecessary. In case of ZFS and bcachefs, you also have native encryption, making LUKS obsolete.
For typical desktop use: ext4 is totally fine. Snapshots are extremely convenient if something breaks and you can basically revert the changes back in a single command. They don’t replace a backup strategy, so in the end you should have some data security measures in place anyway.
It likely has an edge. But I think on SSDs the advantage is negligible. Also games have the most performance critical stuff in-memory anyway so the only thing you could optimize is read performance when changing scenes.
But again … practically you can likely ignore the difference for desktop usage (also gaming). The workloads where it matters are typically on servers with high throughput where latencies accumulate quickly.
I remember reading somewhere that btrfs has good performance for gaming because of deduplication. I’m using btrfs, haven’t benchmarked it or anything, but it seems to work fine.
Having tried NTFS, ext4 and btrfs, the difference is not noticeable (though NTFS is buggy on Linux)
Btrfs I believe has compression built in so is good for large libraries but realistically ext4 is the easiest and simplest way to do so I just use that nowadays
Perhaps I’m guilty of good luck, but is the trade off of performance for reliability worth it? How often is reliability a problem?
As a different use case altogether, suppose I was setting up a NAS over a couple drives. Does choosing something with COW have anything to do with redundancy?
Maybe my question is, are there applications where zfs/btrfs is more or less appropriate than ext4 or even FAT?
are there applications where zfs/btrfs is more or less appropriate than ext4 or even FAT?
Neither of them likes to deal with very low amounts of free space, so don’t use it on places where that is often a scarcity. ZFS gets really slow when free space is almost none, and nowadays I don’t know about BTRFS but a few years ago filling the partition caused data corruption there.
For fileservers ZFS (and by extension btrfs) have a clear advantage. The main thing is, that you can relatively easily extend and section off storage pools. For ext4 you would need LVM to somewhat achieve something similar, but it’s still not as mighty as what ZFS (and btrfs) offer out of the box.
ZFS also has a lot of caching strategies specifically optimized for storage boxes. Means: it will eat your RAM, but become pretty fast. That’s not a trade-off you want on a desktop (or a multi purpose server), since you typically also need RAM for applications running. But on a NAS, that is completely fine. AFAIK TrueNAS defaults to ZFS. Synology uses btrfs by default. Proxmox runs on ZFS.
ZFS cache will mark itself as such, so if the kernel needs more RAM for applications it can just dump some of the ZFS cache and use whatever it needs.
I see lots of threads on homelab where new users are like “HELP MY ZFS IS USING 100% MEMORY” and we have to talk them off that ledge: unused RAM is wasted RAM, ZFS is making sure you’re running fast AF.
In theory. But how it is implemented in current systems, reserved memory can not be used by other processes and those other processes can not just ask the hog to give some space. Eventually, the hog gets OOM-killed or the system freezes.
ZFS is not really hip. It’s pretty old. But also pretty solid. Unfortunately it’s licensed in a way that is maybe incompatible with the GPL, so no one wants to take the risk of trying to get it into Linux. So in the Linux world it is always a third-party-addon. In the BSD or Solaris world though …
Also ZFS has tendency to have HIGH (really HIGH) hardware/CPU/memory requirements.
It was originally designed for massive storage servers (“zettabyte” file system) rather than personal laptops and desktops. It was before the current convergence trend too, so allocating all of the system resources to the file system was considered very beneficial if it could improve performance.
I haven’t meant it as the criticism of ZFS. It is just so, and perhaps there were good reasons for it. Now (especially with the convergence trend) it hurts.
In case of ZFS and bcachefs, you also have native encryption, making LUKS obsolete.
I don’t think that it makes LUKS obsolete. LUKS encrypts the entire partition, but ZFS (and BTRFS too as I know) only encrypt the data and some of the metadata, the rest is kept as it is.
Data that is not encrypted can be modified from the outside (the checksums have to be updated of course), which can mean from a virus on a dual booted OS to an intruder/thief/whatever.
If you have read recently about the logofail attack, the same could happen with modifying the technical data of a filesystem, but it may be bad enough if they just swap the names of 2 of your snapshots if they just want to cause trouble.
Btw COW isn’t necessarily (and isn’t at least for ZFS) a performance trade-off. Data isn’t really copied, new data is simply written elsewhere on the disk (and the old data is not marked as free space).
Ultimately it actually means “the data behaves as though it was copied,” which can be achieved in many ways. There are many ways to do that without actually copying.
So let me give an example, and you tell me if I understand. If you change 1MB in the middle of a 1GB file, the filesystem is smart enough to only allocate a new 1MB chunk and update its tables to say “the first 0.5GB lives in the same old place, then 1MB is over here at this new location, and the remaining 0.5GB is still at the old location”?
If that’s how it works, would this over time result in a single file being spread out in different physical blocks all over the place? I assume sequential reads of a file stored contiguously would usually have better performance than random reads of a file stored all over the place, right? Maybe not for modern SSDs…but also fragmentation could become a problem, because now you have a bunch of random 1MB chunks that are free.
I know ZFS encourages regular “scrubs” that I thought just checked for data integrity, but maybe it also takes the opportunity to defrag and re-serialize? I also don’t know if the other filesystems have a similar operation.
Not OP, but yes, that’s pretty much how it works. (ZFS scrubs do not defrgment data however).
Fragmentation isn’t really a problem for several reasons.
Some (most?) COW filesystems have mechanisms to mitigate fragmentation. ZFS, for instance, uses a special allocation strategy to minimize fragmentation and can reallocate data during certain operations like resilvering or rebalancing.
ZFS doesn’t even have a traditional defrag command. Because of its design and the way it handles file storage, a typical defrag process is not applicable or even necessary in the same way it is with other traditional filesystems
Btrfs too handles chunk allocation effeciently and generally doesn’t require defragmentation, and although it does have a defrag command, it’s almost never used by anyone, unless you have a special reason to (eg: maybe you have a program that is reading raw sectors of a file, and needs the data to be contiguous).
Fragmentation is only really an issue for spinning disks, however, that is no longer a concern for most spinning disk users because:
Most home users who still have spinning disks use it for archival/long term storage/media that rarely changes (eg: photos, movies, other infrequently accessed data), so fragmentation rarely occurs here and even if it does, it’s not a concern.
Power users typically have a DAS or NAS setup where spinning disks are in a RAID config with striping, so the spread of data across multiple sectors actually has an advantage for averaging out read times (so no file is completely stuck in the slow regions of a disk), but also, any performance loss is also generally negated because a single file can typically be read from two or more drives simultaneously, depending on the redundancy config.
Enterprise users also almost always use a RAID (or similar) setup, so the same as above applies. They also use filesystems like ZFS which employs heavy caching mechanisms, typically backed by SSDs/NVMes, so again, fragmentation isn’t really an issue.
Cool, good to know. I’d be interested to learn how they mitigate fragmentation, though. It’s not clear to me how COW could mitigate the copy cost without fragmentation, but I’m certain people smarter than me have been thinking about the problem for my whole life. I know spinning disks have their own set of limitations, but even SSDs perform better on sequential reads over random reads, so it seems like the preference would still be to not split a file up too much.
whenever someone’s putting pressure on you to make a difficult important life altering decision, with the stipulation that the decision must be made immediately, RUN AWAY.
“Your spouse is horribly losing blood and we need your consent to remove her hemorrhaging kidney. What do you say? Ok! It’s been two minutes thinking about it, man… IT IS NOW OR NEVER!”
Her books already had some questionable shit in them but witnessing that shockingly venomous transphobia really recontextualizes everything. I used to re read the Harry Potter saga every few years, but never again now, this whole, very nostalgic for me franchise is forever ruined now.
I looked up all her tweets, and I don’t see much to disagree with.
If you go to Thailand, trans men are called ladyboys and if you ask them if they are women, they say, no, I’m a ladyboy. There’s nothing wrong with having the opinion that trans women will not be real women. She’s not saying she hates trans people, just that they will never be the same as biological women.
What is a human? What is knowledge? What is virtue? What is justice?
We have known for 2500 years that some words are very difficult to define in such a way that every single edge case is handled, it is complete, and short. The most famous example, 2500 years ago, was an academy defined human as a featherless biped. The next day someone released a plucked chicken.
For those words that are very difficult to define we develop criteria and gradually alter the criteria as time goes on, mostly based on the idea of ordinary language.
Just because one group that has a passing resemblance to another group says something doesn't mean that it applies to every group with a passing resemblance. Especially when the group is from a completely different culture.
Yes, but Thailand is not the entire world, nor was it even the target audience of those tweets.
In the west, when you transition to another gender, it is because you want to identify as that gender. Thus when you say shit like 'trans women aren't real women' you're denying the identity of thousands of women worldwide.
I think that’s the point. That culture matters and there’s not a one-size-fits-all interpretation or response that satisfies all of them.
People in the west want to believe their culture is the best and all others should follow, but that simply isn’t how the world works. That won’t stop them from getting mad over it, though.
We are talking about a western author broadcasting on a western platform in a western language, often directly in response to other westerners or western ideas of transsexuality. Makes it pretty clear who the target audience and culture is.
This may come as a shock to you, but a lot of westerners don’t believe in transexuality either.
Hey, we’re talking about one right now!
This is what I mean by thinking your culture is the best and all others should follow. Do you think Rowling would be justified if she tweeted in Thai? Lol. If not, then she isn’t unjustified for engaging with westerners.
Try to understand your way of life is not the only, or even the best, way of life.
It's never been about proving trans and cis folks of the same gender are "identical", no one is arguing that, obviously there are some physical, biological differences. Differences that trans folks are painfully aware of, and that take a lot of time and effort to mitigate for many them to feel like themselves.
It's just about being accepted as, being seen, and talked to as the gender of your choosing.
People like Rowling who argue against the existence or the rights of trans folks overwhelmingly do so out of ignorance, fear, or simply malice. It's not a philosophical question, it's not up for debate whether trans people "exist", if you don't believe in them then you're just objectively, provably, scientifically wrong.
And if you agree they exist and still want to make their lives miserable, then you're just an asshole.
It’s never been about proving trans and cis folks of the same gender are “identical”, no one is arguing that
Speak for yourself, I see people arguing it all the time.
if you don’t believe in them then you’re just objectively, provably, scientifically wrong.
Yeah, just like if you don’t believe homosexuality is a mental disorder in 1952 then you are “scientifically wrong.” Soft sciences aren’t ‘objective’ like hard sciences, which is why they are currently having a reproducibility crisis.
Do you believe in otherkin? I’m sure they would react identically as you towards people who don’t see them the way they want to be seen.
Bringing up otherkin is plain what-about-ism, so it proves nothing. So much for some second-class Republicans who tried to push the narrative that schools now add special sandboxes instead of toilets to accomodate them. Reproducibility crisis that is an utter joke, especially when you defend the science-denialist position. All major medical organizations recognize the existence and validity of the trans experience. The one's who don't are the ones who are usually the science deniers on a range of topics. Scratching homosexuality (like after Kinsey studies) and trans identity from mental disorders was not a politically motivated decision, but reflected development of scientific thought about sex and gender, for instance 1600 biologists condemned Trumps idea that he could define biological sex on the basis of chromosomes and external genitalia at birth, Scientific American has published that biological sex is a spectrum, and that trans girls belong to high school women sports because there is no scientific basis for exclusion. It also deemed theories like "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" as pseudoscience. So are you reading actual medical organizations or Dawkins Institute shit, because some of them are militant anti-trans agitators, not advocates of science. It is clear from what you write that you read all the wrong things and formed an ill opinion. 4) And most important, cis and trans might not be identical but neither are people within trans and cis categories. Trans people aren't identical to their birth gender either. And in the end of the day it doesn't even matter, respecting a trans personality has nothing to do with their biological sex, binary or not, fluid or not. It is an ideological stance (fascism) to not respect people who are not cis and/or straight. Even if it is a hairy, 200-lib pre-HRT bulky trans woman it is still a woman in the eyes of the law, like it or not. Source: Scientific American Trans girls belong to female Sports https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/ Scientific American visualizing sex as a spectrum https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ 1600 biologists condemns Trump anti-transgender proposal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46067559 American Psychological Organization advocates for trans youth https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/07/advocating-transgender-nonbinary-youths World Helath professional Association advocates for transgender adults and youth https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc And as of the last point, if you are out to misgender trans people on the basis of your dogmatic chromosomal determinism and half-baked scientism, here is what happened in the past: “if part of the belief necessarily will result in the violation of the dignity of others, that is a component of the belief, rather than something separate, and will be relevant to determining whether the belief is a protected philosophical belief,” which is from https://criticallegalthinking.com/2021/06/29/not-a-nazi-but-forstater-v-cgd-europe/ .
I am in the west and don’t think we have the best in every way culture. The more I travel the more I am aware of where we have plenty of room for improvement. I prefer living here, most people given the choice would as well, but that doesn’t mean best.
Oh I know all about that podcast trust me, it doesn't change my opinion about Rowling in the slightest, and it's far from being a good way to "understand this affair".
If you're genuinely curious, I highly recommend ContraPoint's video about that very podcast, as well as her other video about Rowling.
Her vehement and vocal hatred for trans people is pretty strange to me. She just won’t let it go, no matter the fact that her very vocal opinions on the topic are destroying her own legacy.
I get that people are entitled to their opinions. But most people keep their thoughts to themselves if they start getting a lot of backlash. But she just keeps picking at it and making things worse for herself. I don’t know if it’s some sort of resentment born out of deeply hurt feelings, or unbridled arrogance that as a very rich and successful person people need to accept her opinions. Or maybe both. But it’s not working and she’s doing more harm than good, including to herself.
Can I recommend reading/listening to Ursula K. Le Guin's Earth Sea books?
They're also coming of age books about a young wizard, which almost certainly heavily inspired Rowling (although AFAIK she never admitted it), but the author is far less problematic. Also arguably much better books, so they're more enjoyable to read for adults too.
Another great choice is The King Henry Tapes by Richard Raley. It’s a take on HP, but the magical kid from a dysfunctional family is a juvenile delinquent with a foul mouth. One of my favorite series.
And the cherry on top is this. You may notice a bit of misogyny built into a first couple books in the series, which is surprising given that Ursula is a woman. She not only noticed, admitted, and confronted that patriarchal slant, but corrected it by writing later stories in the same world that reversed that course. Those stories end up being much better than the foundational works in the series. I have become an instant fan of any author that can confront the flaws of their earlier writings and deliberately alter course to do better in their life and their writing.
Yeah, I actually read her last book in the series first, (it’s a distant sequel, very far removed from the rest of the series), and I can attest to the fact that she grew tremendously. I went back and read the first book, and was surprised at how different the last book was.
My wife is very superstitious and I have never believed in ghosts or anything like that. Aliens, ghosts, magic, religions, totally confident that they aren’t real. When she told me she heard a weird voice calling her name one night I was incredibly skeptical and told her she was definitely dreaming because we live nowhere near anybody and it was -30 that night.
Thirdly, if they were to visit Earth, do you really think that given the difficulty of traversing space, that you’d be able to identify signs of their arrival?
Just setup a fountain with a toxic chemical in it with a sign to not drink from it. Based on every party I have ever been on half of them will be dead in minutes.
I used to think (intelligent/hyper-advanced) extraterrestrial life was far-fetched, but despite being very skeptical by nature, I’ve recently changed my tune after deep diving into the subject of UAP.
My article is very throughly cited from valid sources. I’m not saying aliens are responsible for the UAP we’ve witnessed in our atmosphere, but I am inclined to admit it seems like a feasible explanation for the crafts that were confirmed by our government being witnessed all over the world, beginning in 1947.
I know from past experience that many users will not follow that link, so I figured I’d share some important highlights to demonstrate that I’m not a crazy conspiracy theorist.
In May 1948 the Office of Military Government for Bavaria, Germany, issued instructions for reporting sightings of “flying discs.” These instructions were issued as a result of requirements from higher headquarters in Germany and in the United States. They were the result of the flying saucer phenomena that began in 1947. [32]
It’s been confirmed since 2017 that the U.S. government had a secret program devoted to the surveillance and study of UAP, called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP). [1]
The existence of UAP as real objects in our atmosphere has been confirmed by the U.S. government. The Pentagon’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was mandated to produce a report on UAP, and stated in their report that:
“Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation.… UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security.
Safety concerns primarily center on aviators contending with an increasingly cluttered air domain. UAP would also represent a national security challenge if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology. [11]”
Of the 510 total UAP reports studied by ODNI, 171 remained “uncharacterized and unattributed,” and “some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis.” [11] Not only has the US government confirmed that UAP exist, they have admitted that they pose a serious safety risk to our pilots; both commercial and military.
Furthermore, these crafts which appear to be exhibiting disruptive/breakthrough technology in comparison to our currently most advanced (publicly disclosed) conventional aircraft, were demonstrating these same feats over 65 years ago. I find it harder to believe we had such a significant breakthrough back in 1947, rather than tech originating from some non-human intelligence.
In my article, I have linked previously classified correspondence in which the Air Force and other government agencies all confirmed with each other that the crafts in our atmosphere, starting in 1947, were not the product of any secret U.S. programs. The recommendation was to attempt to recreate these crafts, which is where USAF Project 1794 comes into play.
It is important to note that the craft attempting to be designed here was not capable of achieving the feats of the “flying saucers” that were being witnessed all around the world at that time.
Project 1794 also offers proof of the U.S. government’s ability to maintain classified information. I have seen the idiotic talking point parroted around that “The U.S. government couldn’t keep something like UFOs from the public all those years.” Why not?? USAF Project 1794 unequivocally refutes that argument. It was kept secret until it was declassified and sent to the National Archives. [31]
TL;DR: Don’t be so quick to discount the possible existence of non-human intelligence…
Edit: I always wonder if the people blanket downvoting assume these are fake documents, or if it’s just blatant confirmation bias, avoidance, and denial? They are easily verifiable. If you’re here just jumping to conclusions that this is false because it’s easier to believe that, consider that you are failing to maintain intellectual integrity. That’s not skepticism; it’s bias and being too ignorant to even consider a possibility that is outside of your internalized beliefs. It’s a demonstration of closed-mindedness. You’re like the people from the movie Don’t Look Up.
If you’re so confident, read my blog post and challenge your preconceived beliefs.
Full disclaimer: I maybe read 10% of your comment.
Why is the government (all governments really) hiding it from us?
Why don’t the aliens want to be seen? And why do we still observe them sometimes? Given their far far superior tech it shouldn’t be hard for them to avoid being detected.
I realize I didn’t answer your question about why would governments conceal it.
It makes a lot of sense for our governments to conceal technology to have an edge against adversaries should a major conflict arise. The element of surprise is very powerful, and suddenly deploying technology that an adversary doesn’t know how to/doesn’t have an existing plan to counter is highly valuable.
Concealing technological developments also makes it more challenging for adversaries to replicate our tech.
The reason for the historical concealment from the public goes back to the Robertson Panel, who decided that while UFO/UAP represent no direct threat, they believed that public awareness could lead to ontological crises for the highly religious country at that time. They also believed that it served as a vulnerability that the Soviets could use to instill mass panic (think of the War of the Worlds radio broadcast panic).
So the Robertson Panel recommended concealing the information on UFO/UAP and initiating a ‘public information campaign’ to reeducate our population and to stigmatize the subject. They were very successful and this stigma still remains, as exemplified in the users who downvote factual information because they’d rather engage in confirmation bias and denial.
I’m not saying that UAP are definitively from aliens. There’s not enough evidence available to the public to support that claim. I’m saying I don’t believe that is as outlandish as it sounds at face value, once you consider the information confirmed by members/agencies of the U.S. government.
People are rejecting this topic as crazy due to the stigma, not due to lack of evidence supporting the existence of UAP. I don’t present evidence of aliens; I present evidence of crafts that represent breakthrough technology.
What I was trying to get at is that a non-human intelligence isn’t out of the question to explain the technology that is still ahead of our tech now in 2023, but has been confirmed to exist at least since 1947.
Even if that is human tech that was witnessed starting in 1947, it should be deeply concerning that a nation secretly possesses technology that superior to any publicly known modern day aircraft.
There’s a lot to my write-up on the topic. It’s overwhelming, but it’s factual information that is thoroughly cited from valid sources. I don’t talk about unfounded claims or abductions or anything like that.
Edit: This section might be more for you:
For the individuals that will not have the interest or patience to read this detailed information, I strongly recommend this National Geographic documentary: UFOs: Investigating the Unknown on Hulu. The first few episodes are available for free on Youtube.
That documentary is not like the History Channel’s big-haired nonsense…
This To That tells you what type of adhesive to use to glue different materials together. It’s handy for Halloween when suddenly you need to figure out how to attach vinyl to styrofoam or something (hot glue)
I agree it would be better if the site included brands from other countries too, but it can still be used as a starting point. I’m sure you could Google the item and figure out the equivalent where you’re from.
Back in the day X was a great protocol that reflected the needs of the time.
Applications asked it to draw some lines and text.
It sent input events to applications.
People also wanted to customize how their windows were laid out more flexibly. So the window manager appeared. This would move all of your windows around for you and provide some global shortcuts for things.
Then graphics got more complicated. All of a sudden the simple drawing primitives of X weren’t sufficient. Other than lines, text and rectangles applications wanted gradients, rounded corners and to display rich graphics. So now instead of using all of these fancy drawing APIs they were just uploading big bitmaps to the X server. At this point 1/3 of what the X server was previously doing became obsolete.
Next people wanted fancy effects and transparency (like drop shadows). So window managers started compositing the display. This is great but now they need more control than just moving windows around on the display in case they are warped, rendered somewhere slightly differently or on a different workspace. So now all input events go first from X to the window manager, then back to X, then to the application. Also output needs to be processed by the window manager, so it is sent from the client to X, then to the window manager, then the composited output is sent to X. So another 1/3 of what X was doing became obsolete.
So now what is the X server doing:
Outputting the composited image to the display.
Receiving input from input devices.
Shuffling messages and graphics between the window manager and applications.
It turns out that 1 and 2 have got vastly simpler over the years, and can now basically be solved by a few libraries. 3 is just overhead (especially if you are trying to use X over a network because input and output need to make multiple round-trips each).
So 1 and 2 turned into libraries and 3 was just removed. Basically this made the X server disappear. Now the window manager just directly read input and displayed output usually using some common libraries.
Now removing the X server is a breaking change, so it was a great time to rethink a lot of decisions. Some of the highlights are:
Accessing other applications information (output and input capture) requires explicit permission. This is a key piece to sandboxing applications.
Organize the system around frames to avoid tearing except for when desired (X doesn’t really have the concept of a frame).
Remove lots of basically unused APIs like fonts, drawing and many others.
So the future is great. Simpler, faster, more secure and more extensible. However getting there takes time.
This was also slowed down by some people trying to resist some features that X had (such as applications being able to position themselves). And with a few examples like that it can be impossible to make a nice port of an application to Wayland. However over time these features are being added and these days most applications have good Wayland support.
It’s just cable tv all over again. Pay for 8 services to get a handful of shows you want to watch with the other 90% not being touched , now with ads creeping back in too .
Not me ! But not everyone has a PC that can store tons of movies and shows so they don’t have much other choice . There’s one streaming service that I think is only in Canada called crave that charges an extra $10 to watch on anything other than your phone it’s just the worst .
While I’m all for piracy (obviously), there’s always a choice. Decades ago when cable was going through this, TV was at the center of culture and absolutely everyone watched it.
That’s just not true anymore. Even aside from piracy, they have to compete for people’s time and attention with videogames, social media, and all sorts of other internet-based entertainment. I suspect a lot of the executives making these decisions don’t realize this - they think it’s still 20 years ago when having some of your biggest shows on your channel guaranteed a big audience. If they squeeze too hard people will just spend their time with other sorts of entertainment.
I think that the publishing industry is a good comparison - look at where it is now. It still produces stuff but its cultural relevance is a pale shadow of what it once was and its margins are razor-thin because few people are going to pay a premium even for a bestseller. I think that that’s the long-term fate of TV and movies, especially as the generation that was weened on them dies off and a new generation that watched much less growing up comes of age.
at least you can choose to pay for one streamer at a time, binge, switch, repeat.
(for now, anyway.. until they all quit the full season drops and/or start putting their catalog on a rotation like the 'disney vault' was to home video).
Yeah, this is what is next. Another thing might be to split up one service into subcategories, like family, sci-fi, cinema or whatever and then charging for each individually. Obviously ending up more expensive if you get them all than what it is now.
kbin.spritesserver.nl
Top