This is the sort of superficial dismissal I was referring to.
"There are no safety issues because you can plead your case publically and incite a mob!" isn't exactly as trust-inspiring as you seem to believe.
pixelpop3
joined 2 years ago
No they allow admins to decide that. Users have no control. User activity is fully public and cannot be controlled for safety.
It would be similar hell in for example Matlab or C/C++ if install of external packages were made so easy.
Some systems that are designed more with the concept of maintenance challenges (Windows and others) make it possible to have different versions installed simultaneously.
The need for the whole venv thing fundamentally underscores the problem. How many versions of libc do you have installed simultaneously? (docker users pls don't respond)
Frankly, I don't think the privacy model of the fediverse is workable at all and it doesn't seem to be developed and maintained by people who understand or care about safety. The centralized systems are much safer for users because you only have to trust the admins of the centralized servers.
Fediverse's Achilles heel is trust and all the convo and discussion about it is extremely dismissive and superficial about the realities of how the centralized systems became they way they are--much safer against stalking and mobs. Fediverse mostly gets away with this by being small and fringe.
The fundamental flaw is laid bare every time a site defederates another about because of safety issues. It's a tacit concession that the federation model and implementation is not safe. If you have to defederate everyone to ensure user safety, then why bother with the fediverse in the first place? This is the core problem with the fediverse as it exists today.
Actually I think it may be your get_entry() code. The try traps all non-numbers and restarts the loop for new entry. So like typing "exit" or an empty string or anything that's not convertible to a number is being trapped by the raise and sent back for reentry. And anything that is a number can't hit the break. Just my guess.
Nothing really sticks out. It could also be something about how the automated checker provides input (maybe it expects to not press enter or something and it's stuck at input()... hard to say)
I personally would install ruff and run "ruff check yourfile.py" and then later "ruff check --select=ALL yourfile.py" and read about everything it complains about.
Google the error codes and find the description and discussion of each and why it is complaining, sometimes they're not a big deal, sometimes they are aha moments. Ruff has a page discussing each warning and error
There's also deskhop which is essentially a pure hardware solution similar to Synergy (helpful when you cannot install software on a machine or if they are on different networks). You can build your own or purchase parts/pre-built deskhops from elecrow.
This is the what really matters here IMHO:
"It's not just that the top hypothesis they provide was the right one," he said.
"It's that they provide another four, and all of them made sense.
"And for one of them, we never thought about it, and we're now working on that."
Plausible hypothesis generation is really helpful and if it hadn't even occured to them it either means it came from someone else's work that they had been unable to understand, distill or anticipate from their own knowledge of what others are doing in the field or that it is actually novel (in the way that all science is small progress building on the blocks of others).
Either way hypothesis generation saves a lot of time and gave their lab a new idea.
I have a general philosophy of reinstalling my systems from scratch every few months and honestly Ubuntu is among the easiest for that (Debian is close second, but corporate overlords freak the hell out)
How can supporting Wayland only be more complicated than supporting both Wayland and Xorg?
Xwayland isn't going anywhere and Xorg has been dead forever. Put it out of its misery already.