Ephera

Yeah, my parents don’t seem to understand that this is actually work. To them, I’m just sitting there, having a bit of a chat with them. I now work in the field and they have become somewhat more sympathetic after I told them that this is basically another workday for me, when they call me to come on a Saturday or Sunday. Like, yeah, I will get around to it, but I am often exhausted from work, which does make it a pretty big ask for me to continue working on the weekend.

touch eyes

At first, you look at them until they notice, then you look away. The first time, they’ll probably be irritated, because for all they know, you looked at them, because their hair looks silly or whatever. Then give it some time before you look again. In some sense, you can play it like you’ve just been caught looking at them, so you don’t want to be caught again right away.

Then you repeat that a couple times and try to gauge their reaction (without directly looking at them). If they catch onto you and make an ew face, then definitely abort mission. If they smile, that’s a good sign.

Then you can try to hold the stare a little longer before looking away and again, see if they smile. Eventually, you can try keeping the eye contact for a few seconds while they smile at you and then you smile back.

At that point, it’s definitely time to talk to them. They would not keep up the smile, if they had doubts about going on a date, although it’s obviously still not a guarantee. Sometimes, they only realize that they can’t follow through when it gets serious.

But this whole spiel does communicate that you’re shy about it. If that’s not how you feel, it’s better to talk to them right away.
In general, the more time you take before doing the talk, the more serious it is, because then it’s not just a spontaneous “you’re cute, wanna go out and see if we fit”, but rather a “I’ve been observing you for the past weeks and worked out that you are my dream partner please marry me right away”. So, yeah, don’t take too long before you talk to them.

I’m pretty sure, Grok is not a company representative…

I feel like she’d say anything, if it’s just positively connoted. If the young generation decided that books are great when they’re deep-fried, she’d hold up a bible that’s very clearly not deep-fried and tell you that it is.

“It just makes sense to have the Word of God in our school library,” she continued. “After all, it is the book of wisdom. It is the bestselling book of all time; it is historically accurate, scientifically sound, and most importantly, life-changing.”

Fuck me, that’s hilarious. It’s like she took a list of common criticisms of the Bible and then went, actually, it is exactly that which you guys say it’s not.

I was expecting a response like that. 🙃

You know the nuance, because you speak the language. Someone who speaks Italian might feel similarly about diminuendo and decrescendo. Personally (knowing no Italian), I always felt like diminuendo was more of an alright-slowly-become-quieter, whereas decrescendo was more of a you-need-to-be-become-less-loud-fairly-quickly. So, the decrescendo often undoes a crescendo and the diminuendo is more of a general trend over the next measures. But yeah, I am grasping at straws, since many composers will use them interchangeably (not least, because they may not speak Italian either).

It’s probably a regional thing that you’re more used to diminuendo. The also-subjective version, that I got taught here in Germany, is that the hairpin notation (< and >) correspond to crescendo and decrescendo, and that diminuendo is just an alternative way of saying decrescendo.
I’m guessing, they taught it to us that way, because just adding “de-” to negate is easy to remember. Maybe native Italians do use “diminuendo” more naturally. It certainly seems less unwieldy, because it doesn’t use the negation.

But yeah, ultimately it’s like how English has “silent” and “quiet”, which mean essentially the same thing, but both are in use. If we hadn’t already standardized on “piano”, you’d probably find both words in English compositions, with whichever one used that the composer liked more in that position.

I feel like you severely overestimate the reach of this channel. People who watch LTT are in a very specific bubble of YouTube + PC gaming + techy-but-not-too-techy.

But ultimately, even if every average person parroted exactly what LTT says, I don’t feel like we can do much about it, even if we know about it and discuss it. The guy is just going to find some way to shoot himself in the foot for entertainment. You can do hardly anything to solve that on a technological level.

I mean, there’s some decent design principles behind it. For one, it just takes up space only once rather than for each window individually.

But much more importantly, it makes use of an implication of Fitts’s Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts’s_law#Implications_for_UI_design
TL;DR: Because you can slam your mouse cursor against the top of the screen, you can’t miss the menu vertically. It’s like an infinitely tall button. This makes it fast for users to move their cursor there.

Having said that, this macOS design is from a time when the mouse and navigation menus were the primary user interaction method, which they’re not anymore. So, yeah, that’s why it was designed like that, but I doubt they’d expend this much effort to design it like that again.

A game I play has this as the quote for the Haste spell. 🙃

They’re decent at language tasks. So, if you provide them with all the information and configure them to not make up any of their own, then they can do things like rewriting it in a different style or different language relatively competently.

Apparently, you can open them in a bowl of water to make it a lot less messy.

Luanti is kind of the obvious example to point to, with it being a community-developed engine for Minecraft-like games. But yeah, what @Azzu@lemm.ee said very much makes the difference. As opposed to Minecraft, Luanti has modding support built-in.

Apparently, the name was just the obvious technical name, since they started this during a hackathon where they didn’t want to spend time on naming. And supposedly, they’re also still looking for name suggestions, but yeah, I do find it slightly weird to publicly announce the name, if they are still planning to change it…

Well, more precisely a frontend for libzypp. Zypper is itself a frontend for libzypp.

Yeah, the whole Flat Earth stuff is a relative modern re-occurrence.

We’ve had concrete evidence of a globe Earth and a pretty accurate measurement of the circumference since the 3rd century BC (Erastothenes). ¹
Heliocentrism was theorized by the Ancient Greeks, but we’ve only had concrete evidence/math since the 16th century (Copernicus). ²

Then in the 19th century, you had the writer Washington Irving who wrote a romanticized biography of Columbus and claimed that folks in the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat, which was just not true. ³

And then there was Samuel Rowbotham, another writer who just made up a whole load of bullshit and kind of brought the conspiracy theories underway. ⁴

¹: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
²: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
³: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth#Irving’s_biography_of_Columbus
⁴: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham

TL;DW: Most lights used to be hot glowy things, e.g. fire, light bulbs or the sun. Those start glowing red hot at relatively low temperatures and become white hot at high temperatures. That’s where the inverse scale comes from.

Tangentially related rant: We had a new contributor open up a pull request today and I gave their changes an initial look to make sure no malicious code is included.
I couldn’t see anything wrong with it. The PR was certainly a bit short, but the task they tackled was pretty much a matter of either it works or it doesn’t. And I figured, if they open a PR, they’ll have a working solution.

…well, I tell the CI/CD runner to get going and it immediately runs into a compile error. Not an exotic compile error, the person who submitted the PR had never even tried to compile it.

Then it dawned on me. They had included a link to a GitHub Copilot workspace, supposedly just for context.
In reality, they had asked the dumbass LLM to do the change described in the ticket and figured, it would produce a working PR right off the bat. No need to even check it, just let the maintainer do the validation.

In an attempt to give them constructive feedback, I tried to figure out, if this GitHub Copilot workspace thingamabob had a Compile-button that they just forgot to click, so I actually watched Microsoft’s ad video for it.
And sure enough, I saw right then and there, who really was at fault for this abomination of a PR.

The ad showed exactly that. Just chat a bit with the LLM and then directly create a PR. Which, yes, there is a theoretical chance of this possibly making sense, like when rewording the documentation. But for any actual code changes? Fuck no.

So, most sincerely: Fuck you, Microsoft.

They wrote you should run it in CMD. That’s like a WINE thing.