😂👍🤣

IMHO the entire voting thing is useless. If you don’t like a post, don’t read it. If the post is aggressive and very harmful (racist, fascist), inform the admin to remove it. If the post is interesting, read it and mark as done. So, why voting? In Reddit and even here on Lemmy, I saw critical comments - which I myself sometimes do not like, but did not downvote - that were heavily downvoted by others (though it was just a critical view). What does this mean? That a user has to play according to the rules of the masses? That he/she cannot express his/her different views? If you don’t like or think a comment is weirded, ask why. Engage the person in a discussion (which may be promoted by the lack of a voting system). Perhaps you can convince him/her, or perhaps the other user can show you a different perspective, which may turn out to be a bit extreme, but not that wrong either. Right?

Ask if you can join.

It has less to do with people than with jurisdiction. The US administration can demand to do this or that on US soil and the maintainer, owner, programmer has little chance to do otherwise if he/she does not want to end in the prison. Hence, my opinion to choose distro with as least as possible influence by the US.

No. SUSE has ties in the US. There are many in the list which are not totally off the US, because either several servers or maintainers or their main distro (Arch, Ubuntu, Slackware, Gentoo, RedHat) is located in the US or has strong ties in the US. The few in the list which may stand out a bit are VoidLinux (community based and mainly in Europe), Crux (community, mainly Europe, but this distro is a tough one), and Alpine (small group mostly in Europe). With Kali I am not sure. If you won’t stay outside the US, have safety, but sacrifice new hardware, look also at OpenBSD.

AFAIK depends OpenSUSE on the company SUSE, which - though based in Germany - has partners and hence ties in the US.

Understand the meaning of question marks, you do not? Much to learn, little Padawan, you still have.

All in your head, it is. The answer to your question, by you, lies.

AFAIR the R2 is (almost) equal to rho in the Pearson correlation. I just see two variables, a linear fit from - possibly - an OLS. The small R2 is likely due to the outlier (though a single outlier by this mass of points raises my eyebrows as the MSE (or take the RSME) won’t be affected as such by a single point when there are 15’000 points centered closely around an estimate, but CCV would tell) and R2 says nothing about the p-value, which is determined by the amount of information in a system/about variables, and hence likely way below 0.05.

This relationship aka in this case correlation says pretty much nothing about real world, because IQ is (possibly) not only determined by IQ, but way many other factors. The picture is utterly simplified. It is similar to the relationship between the number of babies and the number of storks.

Your conclusion is based on deduction which in many occasions - like this one - leads to false conclusions. Try again.

Absolutely right. Sorry.

So, because women have a much lower content of Testosterone, we can conclude that there are much more stupid than men or what does this silly correlation wants to tell us???

This, to me, seems like the standardization vs optimization argument. So much of the tech world could be optimized like crazy, but the more complex it gets, the hard it is to communicate with others and keep things consistent. This complexity actually hinders production overall. Standardization, even if it’s not the most optimized, allows us to create vastly more complex and reliable systems because we can ensure we are all on the same page. Even if that standardization isn’t the best way to do it.

Standardization is the reason why systems collapse or are more prone to attacks. Just think about a monoculture vs an organic mixed culture. Also, the impact on standardized systems is much bigger, because it affects the entire system. But on the other hand, yes, it requires more time and people. When reading comments from Rust people, I have always the impression that in the best case everything is replaced with Rust code. If this is indeed their intention, I disagree.

I mean, if you want to talk about absolute control over your code, why don’t you write in assembly? Are all programming languages not virtually assembly with training wheels?

Perhaps difficulty to learn, apply, and make changes? Also no interest, trigger and coolness among people? Assembly are considered the old nerds aka the hated boomers, while Rust people are sometimes the hipsters, the new generation. I do not like this attitude of exclusion. BTW, if you want to try out an OS written in assembly look at Kolibri OS.

Writing in code that is not memory safe is going to mean you are substantially more likely to have mistakes that lead both to user annoyance and straight up security vulnerabilities.

Depends on your skills.

Having applications written in a memory safe languages, especially when worked on by large swaths of people, is absolutely the best route.

I am sorry but I am unable to mix “safe language”, “large swaths of people”, and “best route” somehow in my brain. I just see “tilt, tilt, tilt”, because it does not make sense to me as there are no connections between all three points.

It provides a secure standard way to write memory safe code. This will reduce security vulnerabilities, decrease program crashes, and allow for more efficient developers.

The secure I put in question mark (aka time will show) and are you serious about efficient developers? In case you mean producing a larger program faster, yes, I agree. Memory safer? Very likely (although you can write safe programs in C as well). But more efficient in terms of more competent? I would not say this.

Changing a bike tire is something for a single person, maybe two at most. Writing code is often a team effort. And the more people that are involved, the more likely mistakes are going to happen.

Does not change my intention: either you know the in and outs, or you are a slave of others - in the case of Rust, the slave of the compiler.

People absolutely can still learn the complexities, and still choose to use Rust because honestly, it’s the smart thing to do.

Haven’t said anything against, but the smart thing to do is up to the personal choice, not because there is a loud community of followers.

And it doesn’t need to be rust. Any memory safe language would accomplish the same goal.

This is the point I would underline. It is not only Rust, but there are many languages out there worth regards and time, even for low level and systems.

But that is the reason for templates, no?

Please signature the email with “Sincerely, <your name> and <name of the AI you used to write this email>”. Otherwise people get very suspicious when they meet you in persona and you come along differently than in your email.

Don’t tell that you need so much time to write an email 😳

You can set up your own MySQL instance with an encrypted database where you keep all passwords and joined information. Using any programming language you can either set up an app with a GUI yourself where you query your passwords or use queries directly in MySQL. I understand when you ask now for what all that hassle, but at least you have a bit more control of your data and there is not a potential company behind or a code fragment which may inform the company about any actions. BTW, you may learn some coding, so it can be fun too.

Ah, right! This is among the reasons why Russia has the lowest share of seats held by women in politics (won’t go into business) in Europe (Statista).

I found the article, or better opinion. My bed that it wasn’t a Finn, but an America, Alan Ward. The metaphor is taken from him, while he explains in his article much better than me. Please, see his opinion on page 48-49 in the linked PDF of the current Full Circle issue #215 below:

Full Circle #215

I find his metaphor very apt.

@Flipper, if you just learn from one master, you cannot become a master in the field. As I said above: relying heavily on the compiler, even when this may be the best „teacher“, does not make you - I do not speak about you personally, but you in general, so all programmers - a good programmer. This is my major critic about Rust, while I do also understand its advantages.