That’s because it’s pure bullshit. And this repo will be deleted or abandoned in a month.

The planet is in the Goldilocks zone of this solar system and it allowed life to propagate and evolve.

This is sadly the most likely scenario, and so many people will follow instead of thinking for themselves.

There is a clear and stark difference between the two current candidates and one of them is a convicted felon. This both-sides-ism is what will get that felon elected.

Nothing is perfect, the idea is to work toward a “more perfect union.” People seem to ignore that just so they can try to make a point while letting things burn down around them.

Because they’re willing to chop off their nose to spite their face, as the saying goes. Only in doing so they’re going to screw over the rest of us and apparently they don’t care.

Harris is the only sane choice.

No, I specifically stated that the technology has moved past that, especially in the fiber business. That is not ignoring it, I’m stating he’s flat wrong. This isn’t coaxial shared bandwidth like the late 1990s/early-mid 2000s. That time has passed. The problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding that the technology no longer requires such data cap/bandwidth tradeoffs (in the wireless business, this may still be necessary due to the congestive nature of wireless signals and how towers handoff/pickup/etc, but it is not necessary in the wired business any more). And if an ISP can’t properly support 1Gbps, they shouldn’t offer it. Anecdotally, for my use case (I don’t saturate my 1Gbps synchronous fiber 100% of the time, but there are times I’m downloading on Steam, many many GBs) my ISP handles it perfectly fine – and not once has a data cap been introduced.

Outside of the wireless space, data caps are a money grab – pure and simple. And playing psychological games with consumers, as you have alluded to, in order to get them to not use the bandwidth they pay for is also quite unethical, in my opinion.

I ignored nothing. You misunderstand technology. Data caps are not necessary – they are an artificial price hike. Either you see that, or you don’t, and you clearly don’t. Also, a large portion of the United States has a choice of ONE broadband provider, so your point of “I can pick a provider” is complete nonsense. Just because something doesn’t affect you, doesn’t mean it’s not an issue.

Good bye.

I’m confused where you believe consumers are given choice here.

Data caps are usually scaled up with faster bandwidth, not the other way around as you attempt to define. And that’s simple marketing that attempts to excuse the use of data caps.

Also, data caps are artificial and are literally a money grab under the erroneous guise that data is manufactured and thus has intrinsic value. A congressman literally compared it to manufacturing Oreos — which is complete nonsense.

Also, if what you say is true, then why does AT&T impose no data caps on their fiber network? Clearly this is a marketing issue, not a technical one. And perhaps in the past with the way coaxial internet was engineered, an argument could be made for data caps. The industry has grown up since then, technically speaking, and there is no cause for data caps except to continue to line the pockets of ISPs.

I agree with you that working toward consumers having a choice of ISP is where most efforts should lie, but the FCC can walk and chew gum at the same time and remove anti-consumer practices such as data caps, all the while pushing for more competition at the last mile. They’re not mutually exclusive concepts.

Again, good luck :)

Pretty subjective that what you’re advocating is “right” and not just simple opinion. It also is easily construed as semantics with little benefit to argue. But I admire your convictions. Good luck.

Interview wasn’t bad. I especially like Torvalds’s take on meetings and interruption of flow.

Going to be pretty lonely on that hill.

Anyone who still uses Twitter either condones what Musk has done and is doing, or is completely oblivious.

I long for the day it dies the death it deserves and Musk is left holding the bag having to pay all the debt. If only he’d be forced to do that, but like all rich assholes, he’ll get out of it somehow.

I have been using Linux off and on for 25 years (using the server pretty consistently, but always hedged with the desktop for various reasons). Since Proton and GE-Proton allow every game I want to play to work in Linux, back when Recall was first announced, I decided to finally stop hedging and went all in on the Linux desktop.

And I’m not going back. Everything is working for me and Microsoft can screw off if they think I’m going to allow such blatant spyware in my house. Their telemetry was always suspect, but this is now overt despite any assurances they attempt to make.

Edit>> And their “oh you can uninstall Recall” isn’t trustworthy when they will easily reinstall it with a Windows update (they have done this in the past with other software — notably Edge and Teams).

It’s strange to me that if the guy has such a problem with how open source software works (such as his code being used (ideally with license being followed), bugs, pull requests, etc), why did he not just keep it closed source?

Seems to me he either didn’t understand how open source works, or he got in way over his head.

You’re right, though, best to ignore.

One of the few giants upon whose shoulders we all stand.

When I can set that up for my AppleTV to block ads on YouTube, I’ll be happy to use it.

Exactly. Acting like this is an “ah-ha, see?!!” moment when this is exactly what open source is designed for. That’s like saying global warming is a hoax because “oh look it’s snowing”.

If Russia wants to start WWIII, that’s a good way to do it.

The damage is done, though. And the fact that Intel wouldn’t do anything about damaged CPUs (edit: without requiring the customer to call over and over and over about the RMA) or recall affected CPUs is quite telling. So I’m jumping ship to AMD for my next build.