In the same vein, my recollection is reading that the X windowing system is called X because it's the letter after "W", which was the original choice (because it's what the word "window" starts with), but it was already taken, so they went with X.
It looks like X was deliberately chosen to denote succession of W, not clashing with it:
"The name X derives from the lineage of the system. At Stanford University, Paul Asente and Brian Reid had begun work on the W window system [3] as an alternative to VGTS [13, 221 for the V system [5]. [...] We acquired a UNIX-based version of W for the VSlOO (with synchronous communication over TCP[24] produced by Asente and Chris Kent at Digital’s Western Research Laboratory. [...] It was also clear that, although synchronous communication was perhaps acceptable in the V system (owing to very fast networking primitives), it was completely inadequate in most other operating environments. X is our “reaction” to W."
I suspect there are also just a lot more interactions between humans and cows each year. Then again, we're responsible for a lot more cow fatalities as well, so if anything those cows are just fighting back.
I was attacked by a mad (as in angry) cow just for walking by on a hike, maybe 20 feet away but not otherwise interacting with her. I hid behind a tree until she went after another cow. Now I give them more space.
My lot backs up to a cow ranch, and I once heard one making the most amazing, and intimidating noises. It was the cow voice you're used to, but "singing" through multiple octives like her soul was being tortured in hell. There are messed up cows just like people.
I've been around cattle intermittently since I was a child, and 20 feet is too close if you don't have to be there and don't have a relationship with them.
A cow can absolutely kill you, and easily outrun you. Not likely, but can. Same as a hog, or for that matter a moving car. None of these are inherently friendly, as a group.
Can confirm. A neighbour had a cow that would batter down fences to get out and chase people, and headbutt cars. Didn't matter how we fenced the field off, she'd break out.
Turns out a deep freeze is plenty stockproof. No-one's got time for that nonsense, and every last bit was delicious right down to the last drop of oxtail soup.
There are memory safety issues that literally only apply to memory on the stack, like returning dangling pointers to local variables. Not touching the heap doesn't magically avoid all of the potential issues in C.
This was especially confusing to me when I clicked on the "try" button and was dropped into a page with an empty text box. Most playgrounds I've seen before at least have a "hello world" there. There's a run button, but it's not particularly useful with an empty file!
Isn't the whole issue with net neutrality that ISPs would be incentivized to prioritize their own traffic (or that of companies they collaborate with)? How does making it harder for them to identify traffic for my app/service/whatever stop them from doing that? As long as they can identify the traffic they do want to prioritize (by companies who haven't done the process you describe), it's not obvious to me why they wouldn't have trouble deprioritizing my stuff based on them at least knowing that it's not their own, effect if they don't know whose it is? "Random noise" isn't likely to look like it's their special favorite traffic.
If everyone including the priority traffic did this, then I guess it would have an effect on net neutrality, then I could see that it would make a difference, but I don't see how that could be construed as "whether they like it or not" given that they could just as easily not implement this if they didn't "like it".
That's not to say this isn't worth doing for the privacy and security benefits, but I'm struggling to see how this would have any real-world influence on net neutrality.
> How does making it harder for them to identify traffic for my app/service/whatever stop them from doing that?
You can masquerade your protocol as HTTPS with SNI of that company, for example. Filtering by IP is very inconvenient (they change all the time), so the telecom would probably look at SNI.
I still think I'm missing something. My understanding of how telecoms would abuse identifying traffic to violate net neutrality would be that they need to identify the traffic they want to prioritize, not deprioritize. Is your understanding different, or does this somehow give the ability to make your traffic indistinguishable to traffic that they favor (and therefore would either control directly or would be able to provide instructions to the controller to be able to make identifiable in some way)? What you're describing to me sounds like you're saying my traffic isn't possible to distinguish from other random traffic, but my argument is that they're never going to be prioritizing random traffic; they'll be prioritizing traffic that they can identify, which will likely not act in the way you describe precisely because it would make it impossible to prioritize. My traffic being anonymous doesn't somehow stop them from throwing it in to the lower priority lanes with everyone else because they don't recognize it; if anything, it seems like it's likely to guarantee it as well, because anything not recognizably a VIP doesn't get to go in the VIP lane.
If the free market requires both that companies both ignore that they exist in a world with consequences and that they manage to perfectly predict future demand, that sounds more like an issue with the idea that the free market will solve everything than an issue with the market not being free enough. Otherwise, if you're not happy with the way a company acts, and you don't seem to trust that another company will come and rest their lunch for their perceived poor decisions, your only remaining remedy is to pressure them by non-economic methods to increase production, at which point you don't really believe in the free market either.
RAM being super expensive right now is a hot topic, and I imagine people are curious about why, so anything that purports to explain that is somewhat likely to at least get a cursory look from people. Without taking a stance on either whether this is happening here, if enough people look at something and happen to think it makes sense, a lack of evidence might not be enough to prevent the narrative from taking over; otherwise, we'd never have issues with people believing false things in the first place, and that happens all the time.
From the list of changes, I noticed the following:
> Revert "icuuc: Add initial dll."
> Revert "icu: Add stub dll."
In the recent 10.20 release, a number of applications I had previously been using without issue stopped working due to the change they had made to those dlls, and it took a bit of digging for for me to eventually find the solution that I needed to add new overrides for them (disabling one entirely and using the native or built-in version of the other). It's a bit mystifying to me why a breaking regression can slip into a minor release but fixing it not happen until a major release. I understand that this isn't semantic versioning, and I imagine that this is probably a case of them just happening to already have planned a major release next rather than a minor one, but it would be kind of nice if stuff like this could get fixed without having to be blocked on all of the other numerous (and much larger) changes when they're already aware of the problem and have identified the fix.
Sure! I've been using "WINEDLLOVERRIDES=icu,icuuc=d". I think I found it on some Wine bug report after like half an hour of trying things from other bug reports/github issues before eventually discovering this one that worked.
I hadn't heard about this before, so in case anyone else is also curious and wants to save some googling, it sounds like was a few months ago when they sponsored Hyprland[1]. I hadn't heard about controversy with Hyprland before, only being vaguely aware of it, but the forum thread I linked to further links to this blog post[2] with more details.
I have more of an Issue with the Omarchy sponsorship. While i disagree with Hyprland's maintainer at least Hyprland is actually engineering something great and making it free software. Omarchy is basically just a script.
Not a fan of either but I feel obligated to point out they don't appear to be sponsoring Omarchy, they just posted about it on their social media account(s). Hyprland they actually did do a small sponsorship for.
Omarchy is the passion project of a really wealthy person and is backed by his profitable business. What does ‘sponsoring Omarchy’ mean? Like.. where does that money go?
I think it amounts to providing free premium CDN service, the stuff you'd usually have to pay for. They didn't say anything about cash money changing hands.
That’s really reasonable then (I guess apart from any disagreements with the authors views). Omarchy isn’t just a post installation script, they have the entire thing bundled as an ISO. So I can see why an in-kind sponsorship of a CDN makes sense. Although it’s still unclear to me how Omarchy specifically fits into ‘the future of the open web’ vs Ladybird
reply