The post’s main points are 1. not knowing why people use lightweight linux distros, 2. imagining that the only reason is performance, and then 3. dismissing that argument based on the author’s own laptop. It sounds like the author didn’t read about the distros, talk to the users, or otherwise extend the slightest bit of charity that thousands of people who have organized dozens of projects over the last 20 years to build and use these distros maybe have their own experiences and do things for reasons, even if he can’t guess at them and wouldn’t be motivated by them. It’s frustrating because when I realize I’m ignorant of a group that’s made totally different decisions about a familiar topic, I see an opportunity to get a deeper appreciation by incorporating a new perspective. It’s not just that this article fails an ideological turing test, it’s that it seems oblivious to the possibility of learning from others.

(And: what does the author think the word “laborious” means? Nothing in the article touches on anything like toil, industriousness, or painstaking care.)

And anima makes it very easy to avoid OpenStruct/Struct.

Using OpenStruct can also kill your performance due to effects it has on the global method cache.

Thanks for sharing your precious experience with OpenStruct :-)

Anyway, the goal of my articles is just to describe a notion as deeply as possible. I prefer to keep a neutral point-of-view because each notion that I describe can be useful in many cases.

Implementing the notion in real use cases is just a matter of sensitivity for each developer.

That’s why I’m glad that you share your opinion and your experience with the OpenStruct class here.

The way I see it is that Unicode emoji tried to be gender-inclusive by adding a “female” modifier (emoji + zero-width joiner + ♀️).

This reinforces a false binary, and the way it’s implemented in mainstream emoji design reinforces gender stereotypes. Women have long hair, makeup, and pink clothes; men have short hair and blue clothes; that sort of thing.

Gender isn’t something that can be seen, and so I don’t think adding more and more gender options makes sense. In my opinion, it would be much better to offer stylistic choice, such as “long hair” or “makeup”, as options unrelated to gender, since that’s what they are.

I don’t agree that having fewer gender options makes it less inclusive. It isn’t saying that every emoji represents a non-binary or agender person or anything. It simply does not specify a gender, and so they aren’t excluding anyone on basis of gender.

Edit: it’s like how the basic facial expression emoji were never gendered to begin with, and so there is no need to add more gender options to them.

Additionally, I find it odd that they’ve chosen to reduce the set of available choices when it comes to gender, but they’ve greatly expanded the choices when it comes to race. I think they should decide whether they want to provide options for things like race, gender, sexuality or not provide options.

Upvote for the discussion. “Company Makes Business Decision” is rarely on-topic for Lobsters and often goes off the Rails; I’ve upvoted because I appreciate that we’re not rehashing well-worn licensing arguments here, though this announcement was poorly written.

This is the second time Lobsters has censored my articles by merging them into tangentally related discussions.

Upvoting doesn’t necessarily have to be approval of the content of the post. (though it usually should be)

Done. Thank you very much for the suggestion.

Maybe there should be some sort of standardized directory?…

So, I work on two projects at work. One is a agent, part of a distributed system, that runs in several servers and provides access to some hardware connected to said servers. We maintain some of those servers, others are run by users. The other project is a library, used by the first project.

The agent system is release once every sprint, and our sprints take 2 weeks. In the Tuesday of the second week, we ‘close’ the release: nothing merged after this will get in the release, unless it’s a bugfix. Then for the next 3 days, we run manual tests on the whole system (of which the agent is a part). If errors are found, we merge the fixes. We use a sort of trunk based development, so, if we find a bug, we’ll create a release branch and cherry-pick it there. Once we ran all tests, we manually generate a zip package (which involves creating a fresh clone, copying a bunch of files around, and zipping the resulting folder) and a) manually deploy it to the servers we maintain, and b) upload it to an internal confluence page.

It’s very manual and very error-prone. We’re finally automating some parts of it, but it’s not done yet. The system is written in python, so we could be a simple pip package, but for permission reasons (not everyone is allowed to run it), we’re not there yet.

The library is kinda worse. First, it has a binary dependency, that lives in separated repositories, so we have to make sure we keep the versions synced. It’s also a python project, but also not packaged as a pip package. The way it’s release is: We compile the binary dependency, copy it over to the development repo. We than commit and merge the release in the development branch. Then, we copy the changes, MANUALLY, to a “release” repository, commit it in there, and merge it. The users get the updates from the release repository, and we work in the development repository. I tried to sync the repositories history, to simplify this freaking mess, but there are manually applied changes in the release repository that make it impossible (or nearly) to just squash and push the changes from the development repo to the release repo.

I recently wrote a small makefile to automate some of this terrible process, and my plan is to bring all this crap together in a single repo, split the library into two parts, and package both of them as proper pip-installable packages, but we’re a fairly long way from that, yet.

Tell me that ain’t painful.

Your comment doesn’t answer the OP’s questions and doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion. Please write something useful instead. I’m disappointed that several people thought this one-word comment should be upvoted.

Please don’t post snarky, unsubstantial comments like this. They’re the candy of forums: delightful for a sweet moment and ruinous in quantity.

I don’t want to sound arrogant but just stating ‘Painful.’ doesn’t seem to be helpful imho… Care to explain why it’s painful en what actions you have taken/you will take to make it less painful?

what does the lobste.rs community have to lose by opening itself to some political discussion?

see

this is an intelligent, considerate and engaged community

Tag usage

First, a note on tags: every tag we add is an explicit endorsement that that sort of content is acceptable and encouraged on the site–the omission of a tag is a hint that maybe that content would be better served elsewhere.

If we were to include a politics tag, we’d in effect be saying “Okay, the distribution of topics appropriate for Lobsters now includes politics. This is valid to bring up in all conversations, because at worst it’s merely mislabeled and mistagged.” So, we’re then stuck with more politics in everyday use in the site.

Availability elsewhere

Simply put, politics are better covered elsewhere:

• Daily Kos
• Breitbart
• Jacobin
• Reason
• Hacker News
• 4chan /news/ and 4chan /pol/
• NPR news
• Infowars
• Christian Science Monitor

It’s not like our fellow crustaceans can’t find something to slate their thirst for politics elsewhere–not only that, but they have dozens if not hundreds of sites to choose from to match their political requirements.

By contrast, Lobsters itself is a rare gem (if I may say so myself) in that it is relatively pure technical discussion, a refuge from a world of blathering bullshit and ponderous pandering.

Politics is the boardkiller

I’ve explored elsewhere how political submissions can be used to farm karma at the expense of discussion. The key things to note about political articles:

• They rarely have any technical content, as the point of politics is not education but subjugation
• They tend to cover topics that everybody has opinions about but few have expertise in
• They usually talk about things over which none of the discussion participants actually have any control, so you get a lot of yelling back and forth without any action
• There is a gigantic industry devoted to crafting the most divisive articles possible

We probably share this board with a few tankies. We probably share this board with a few Nazis. We have folks here that don’t recognize a standard arrangement of genders or possibly even human identities. We have folks that are from the US, from the UK, from the rest of the world. We even have a few Windows users.

And we all get along (mostly) because we aren’t constantly pitted against each other in pointless tribal ideological posturing and signaling. We all get to respect each other as practitioners of technology instead of representatives of some other out-group.

Why would we want to risk sacrificing that?

EDIT:

I’ll point out that 4chan has created at least 2 containment boards for politics (the equivalent of your proposed tag), and not only has that failed it’s only fostered some of the most corrosive drivel on the internet.

Perhaps this is a reasonable place to open a discussion about why lobste.rs doesn’t have a politics tag.

It’s not. We have the meta tag and chat for meta discussions.

Perhaps this is a reasonable place to open a discussion about why lobste.rs doesn’t have a politics tag.

We don’t have a politics tag, in part and sufficiently, because the topic is too broad for a contributor to have a meaningful understanding of the topics and discussion that would fall under it. For folk that can make meaningful, informed, truthful, and constructive contributions in an on-topic matter, there is the law tag.

We’re a community of practitioners. The practice of politics is law. Practitioners of law, whether legislators, lawyers, judges, or any of the various roles in courts and the extant legal system are welcome here. Along with the technical discussions these practitioners engage in.

However the reason I think it’s important to bring political discourse into this space is because you…

This is called entryism: “…an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organisation in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program.”

Here you providing a totalizing reason (“All Your Relationships”) as to why a new tag should be added. Tags are deflationary, not inflationary. They identify areas where a subset of our readers and contributors can expect detailed, operational, consistent, and where possible even scientific discourse. And that further they can measure their own understanding of the topic because it has clear and defined boundaries.

Politics is off-topic here because it lacks parsimony. In order to create space for technical topics we do not discriminate on the basis of people, groups, or fields of endeavor. Folk are here to talk about and work on their own and their field’s issues in sufficient technical detail to coordinate with their peers. Ideology, politics, propaganda, framing, and other fictionalisms are an impediment to dealing with the technical and material nature of our work and world.

The chattering class has plenty of places on the Internet to proselytize. This isn’t one of them.

“Perhaps this is a reasonable place to open a discussion about why lobste.rs doesn’t have a politics tag.”

We did. The were a large number of people in support of or against politics or tags. No clear winner. Further, most that support it want to be able to talk about it on any article to push their political views. Of them, some want many views to be discussed as part of the political process and others want all opponents censored and/or ejected. For different reasons, both need political comments available on every thread. There’s some others but that’s the major groups based on what they said or did.

Im in the group that’s for banning most politics or limiting it to politically-focused threads tagged as such. Like I said, the prior discussions got nowhere for my side. So, I discourage even talking about it to avoid polluting more threads. We can just do a yearly meta or something to assess if the community’s preferences have changed. That’s assuming @pushcx would go with the popular vote to begin with. His own convictions might lead him to do something different.

Who knows except to say we’re better off not talking about banning politics or a new tag more than once a year since it’s wasted bandwidth that also often causes headaches for our moderators when fights break out.

[Comment removed by author]

The linked spec, contract, and RFP answer these questions in detail.

There’s a linked called “cached” under each submission that takes you to an Archive.is copy. Both the original and cached links are working for me. Try cached if original keeps 404ing.

Could you paste a curl -i of the behavior you’re seeing? Link seems fine here, that’s puzzling.

Thanks for reminder. Yeah, Ill try to write up a search PR sometime today. I should have time.

We used to just tag it with ask and nothing more, but as it’s a meta tag now it fails validation without another tag as well. I picked culture from the list originally because it felt the “best” fit for this thread, but that also irks me how quickly it vanishes. I’m sure it makes a difference to how many people comment on the thread (although if you’re around here for any length of time you’ll know it appears on a Monday, so can go look for it.)

I wonder if there is a better “second” tag for these threads that wouldn’t have the negative cost attached, without mis-appropriating the tag.

/cc @kzisme

IIRC, older Java mocking libraries could only mock an interface. Nowadays, I think they generate a class at runtime if need be.

Huh, that’s a really strange limitation and I don’t understand it. I’ve reviewed the settings pages and I can’t see anything like that. When I click “Start a conversation” or “Post a job” I’m prompted for a title and body, and the body text takes several hundred words of lorem ipsum without complaint. If you reload and still can’t post more than one line, please message your posting to me (here or on LinkedIn) and I’ll add it.

That’s exactly my strategy as well (one light, one dense and one technical), I find it means I’m always in the mood to read something (otherwise I’ll resort to shallow articles and silly tutorials online).

I’ve also found the full Discourses more “diluted” than the Enchiridion and didn’t finish it. I definitely suggest you pick up the latter, if you haven’t already.

Didn’t work, got hit by last night’s renewed attack. I re-enabled +r for a while longer. They’re attacking with compromised routers/IOT devices and folks are developing countermeasures, but the spammers are dedicated enough that it’s a bit of an arms race. I don’t know much of the details, it’s being handled well by Freenode staff and the only reason we’re seeing it at all is that we and they try to err in favor of being open to newbies instead of hard on spambots.

One more vote for pass, i’ve been a happy user for years now. Was missing a proper browser extension for it so I built one: Browserpass. It’s no longer maintained by me due to lack of time, but the community is doing a far better job at maintaining it than I possibly could so that’s all good!

Pass looks pretty neat, but the reason I stick with KeePass(XC) is that Pass leaks metadata in the filenames - so your encryption doesn’t protect you from anyone reading the name of every site you have an account with, which is an often overlooked drawback IMO.

The QR code feature of pass is neat for when you need to login on a phone.

Seems like the android version’s maintainer is giving up. (Nice, 80k lines of code in just one dep…)

The temptation to nih it is growing stronger but I don’t have enough time :(