“do it again, I wasn’t looking”

  • 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: September 25th, 2023

help-circle


  • If I were to fully elaborate, I’d be typing for hours, so I’ll sum up:

    • pip - default behavior is to install to system-wide site packages. In a venv, it will try to upgrade/uninstall system packages without notice/consent unless you specify --require-virtualenv. Multiple things can fuck up your ENV to make the python binaries point to system-wide, while your terminal will still show you as in a venv. Also why TF would package metadata files need to be executable? Bad practice, -1/10
    • nix - they acknowledged years ago that they should probably have some kind of package signing and perhaps an SBOM or similar mechanism, but then did nothing to implement it and just said “oh well, guess we’re vulnerable to supply chain attacks, best not to think about it”
    • brew - installing packages parallel to your system packages manager, without containers. My chief complaint here is that brew is a secondary package manager that people might treat as a “set and forget” for some packages, rarely updating them. So what happens when a standard library used by a brew package is vuln? A naive Linux user might update their system packages but totally forget to update brew. And when updating brew, you can easily hit max_open_file_descriptors because kitchen sink

    From there, it’s all extremely nit-picky and paranoid-fueled-- basically, none of the package managers I mentioned are conducive, in my eyes at least, to a secure and intuitive compute environment.

    Unfortunately, there’s not much I can do about it except bang pots and pans and throw maintainers under buses when the issue that has been present for years rears it’s ugly head. Because they are the only ones who can change this, and pressure is the only thing that might motivate them to.








  • Yes but consider that not everyone is fortunate enough to grow up in diverse environments with exposure to other cultures. If everyone you’ve ever met from 0-18 is a redneck, how ya think they’ll react to x accent. That’s unfortunately your floor for expectable initial reactions from mutually non-impressed peoples. I’m not psychologist, figure you aren’t either, but there is some principle that elaborates on this, keywords probably akin to cultural exposure in child development, environmental conditioning, and ventures out into other related principles. But idfk what I’m talking about, take this as the ramblings of a madman or whatever.



  • Ok but you’re second paragraph raises a new issue, or moreso an angle to what I was originally being pessimistic of: is that really adequate linguistic knowledge to impart on the future generation?

    I wasn’t taught they for animate, it for inanimate, or at least not that I recall. Maybe for a young child it could serve as a good rule of thumb to be reshaped in school. But besides that, I feel like it would cause more confusion for a non-native English speaker trying to learn the language if you shared that knowledge with them and then they in turn sublimate it into their personal linguist theory for some indeterminate amount of time. Then it could cause language barriers and potentially lead native English speakers to think less of them for their lack of grasp on what we call our stupid language where the rules are made up and the points don’t matter.

    Then again, I can’t immediately conjure any examples of where this linguistic confusion may occur in this hypothetical English learner’s day-to-day life. But I personally wouldn’t be comfortable dispensing to a learner some less-than-entirely accurate disambiguation about our language, especially if I had reason to believe they could end up blindly parroting it.

    This kinda worries me because I don’t want to imagine immigrants and future generations alike being conditioned to ignore nuances in dialogue due to ambiguity introduced by some quixotic lesson they received under the notion it was “good enough”.

    Also, I hope you don’t mistake me for trying to argue, I simply enjoy the banter as that concern I shared is a very intriguing thought to me, and I appreciate your willingness to “debate”/discuss it. Otherwise: so true, the Internet was of course originally made so assholes could argue semantics, among optionally more productive things.


  • But “it” is for inanimate objects

    Not quite. “It” is a general reference pronoun with a function akin to “the”. It can be used to refer to anything that is a thing, even if said thing is animate and/or living.

    When referring indiscriminately to a specimen of fauna, “it” is a linguistically appropriate identifier whereas “they” would only really be entirely appropriate when referring to an individual or subset of individuals, regardless of species or animacy.

    Since this fish has no distinguishable identity apart from the cultural impact it may spawn, I reckon it’s more appropriate to use “it” but “they” could also work.

    I am not a linguist. But if you are, feel free to correct me. If you feel like pretending to be a linguist, go talk to an LLM cause IDC.


  • … ya know, this theory feels like it may actually hold water. In an ancient society, it seems very feasible that a starving vagrant would employ stories about an omnipotent being that rewards acts of kindness with eternal heavenly glory.

    Is religion possibly the result of a diogenes persuading unemphatic peers into acting selflessly as a means of improving their quality of life?



  • Wtf does this have to do with her gender? Are you claiming she does not top the charts in celebrity carbon emissions, but is being used as the scapegoat instead of a man?

    The Conservatives aren’t attacking her because of her gender, it’s because of their her influence. Misogyny has nothing to do with it, they’d do the exact same with any celebrity of any identity/orientation because they’re influence conflicts with their agenda, not because of their gender.

    This smells a lot like ground-laying for radical feminist arguments, I can’t find any other reason you would be here making a mountain out of an imaginary anthill. Moreover, I can’t understand why anyone upvoting this would care to see a non-humorous PSA in a “hello fellow teens” vaporware frame on a surrealist/(whatever it’s called) shitposting community unless it is meant to be satire.

    edit: gendered a pronoun to make it concise who the subject was


  • I created a GitLab account long before they implemented this, but never used it. Went to post an issue related to self-hosted GitLab on their issue tracker, and it told me my account was banned. I wrote an email to support and they essentially said “an automated system identified your account as a bot and banned you during an account clean up some years ago to cut back on malicious users”. I informed them that this was not at all reasonable, as I’ve never even posted anything on any GitLab account, and that I would be advising my organization to never pay for any GitLab product or service unless legal writes up the contract terms, because I have no faith in them as a vendor.

    Seriously, fuck GitLab. And if anyone from that org wants to discuss this with me, they can pipe their email to /dev/null