In other news today...
-
-
@dcon said in In other news today...:
-
@pie_flavor WONTFIX ASDESIGNED
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
@pie_flavor WONTFIX ASDESIGNED
Actually, it was marked a duplicate of an earlier issue.
Though that got closed as well, so Linux is too different I guess.
-
-
@PJH Sounds like they've emulated the behaviour of human BMW drivers perfectly!
-
Update log v1.1 - avoid erroneously activating turn signals when approaching a turn
-
@hungrier I often see BMW's use their turn signals. (Usually, it's the wrong turn signal for the direction they're turning, though. )
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
I wonder if they'll come back with a civil lawsuit.
They'd probably win, to be honest. The standard of proof is much lower.
-
@mott555 said in In other news today...:
Usually, it's the wrong turn signal for the direction they're turning, though.
I've been seeing that more recently (past few months) than ever before. Is this some polar vortex thing?
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
Is this some polar vortex thing?
It's a tactic to escape someone tailing you
-
-
@pie_flavor lol @ a pepe:
I dual boot just because of calculator.exe Plz port.
-
@JBert said in In other news today...:
@PJH said in In other news today...:
Hey, that's unfair! That's not a real pedestrian!
Yeah, you can't expect the IR camera to pick that up.
-
@JBert said in In other news today...:
@PJH said in In other news today...:
Hey, that's unfair! That's not a real pedestrian!
Ceci n'est pas une pedestrian.
-
@Captain said in In other news today...:
@pie_flavor lol @ a pepe:
I dual boot just because of calculator.exe Plz port.
TDWTF had a programming contest where there were many fine submissions of calculators. Perhaps one of these would act as a good replacement.
-
-
@brie said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
I wonder if they'll come back with a civil lawsuit.
They'd probably win, to be honest. The standard of proof is much lower.
Maybe. Almost certainly against the driver (whose role the prosecutor said police should investigate). Not nearly as certainly as against the company.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
There are several y topics this could go in, but I'll just leave it here:
The headline is misleading; apparently they haven't actually made it. There's a 2.5 year wait to take delivery.
What’s y about that? There’s rich af oil sheikhs that need to be parted from their money in exchange for massively overpriced epeen. No wait, that’s more like car-peen.
Anyway, smart business.
-
@topspin Not only that, but I'm guessing it was made to order, so of course it sold right away. To the guy that they custom built it for.
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Why would anyone bother with Java 9? It seems like it was superseded practically immediately. So why go through with that just to do it again immediately with 11? And the licensing shitshow with 11 is undoubtedly keeping people on 8.
Oh, sure, some improvements to the garbage collection. Whoopee. If I were a lazy C# developer who had already gotten used to using
var
maybe I'd be more interested in new features like that but really I couldn't care less. The stuff I have now doesn't really get in my way (sure, improved collections sounds promising...maybe?) but not worth the PITA.We're not here playing with ourselves doing some open source bullshit for fun and so more interested in new shiny than getting work done. Why bother with the upgrade hassle when there's no compelling reason?
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
We're not here playing with ourselves doing some open source bullshit for fun and so more interested in new shiny than getting work done. Why bother with the upgrade hassle when there's no compelling reason?
Slightly ironic remark considering that the open source zealots (RMS etc.) warned people about Java until Sun gave in on the license. Those warnings seemed completely far fetched but could well be summarized as “what if they pull an Oracle?”
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
We're not here playing with ourselves doing some open source bullshit for fun and so more interested in new shiny than getting work done. Why bother with the upgrade hassle when there's no compelling reason?
Slightly ironic remark considering that the open source zealots (RMS etc.) warned people about Java until Sun gave in on the license. Those warnings seemed completely far fetched but could well be summarized as “what if they pull an Oracle?”
RMS IS NOT FOR OPEN SOURCE! FREE SOFTWARE ONLY!!!11
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
RMS IS NOT FOR OPEN SOURCE! FREE SOFTWARE ONLY!!!11
Actually, RMS is
-
@boomzilla Conincidentally I just wanted to continue my Flutter development on my laptop due to a small trip.
So I cloned the project from Github and opened it on AndroidStudio. Whereup it promptly complained that I had neglected to accept the license agreement for the Android SDK.
A simplesdk-manager --licenses
later I found myself with a complaint that there was no Java executable to be found.Oh, right, there was something...
So I schlepped myself over to the Oracle website, downloaded the SKD and...
... the
sdk-manager
exploded rather spectacularly. Yeah, seems as if version 11 isn't exactly compatible and a downgrade to v8 solved it immediately.Oracle, by the way, kind of always admitted to that because the download link to version 8 is located right below the links to v11...
-
@Rhywden the market share for OpenJDK is going to skyrocket in the next couple of years.
-
@boomzilla I haven't paid any attention to Java for like the last 15 years. Is anything interesting happening?
-
@Captain They've added lambdas, type inference, and a module system. All three of which are implemented in the dumbest possible way.
-
@pie_flavor said in In other news today...:
@Captain They've added lambdas, type inference, and a module system. All three of which are implemented in the dumbest possible way.
I like all three of those things. Except when they're dumb.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
the market share for OpenJDK is going to skyrocket in the next couple of years.
That's already what's installed on my machine
-
@Captain Lambdas get used to implement interfaces with a single unimplemented method like Runnable instead of introducing function types like Kotlin or function type types like C#. Type inference plays horribly with generics, both in head-on interaction and in causing compile errors where there weren't any before. The module system breaks reflection, breaks explicit classloading, has no concept of versions, and still requires explicit classpath declaration instead of auto-loading neighboring jars.
-
@PJH said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
The article seemed to be taking a change in the ratio of elephants with tusks and just jumping to the conclusion "LOOK AT THIS EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION!!!111ll!L11L!!1!" when all that has happened is a bit of natural selection.
What?
Clearly, natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.
At least I think that's what's trying to be said...
Not quite, no. I was calling out the sloppy terminology that was being thrown around by the article. Evolution is more than just natural selection, and natural selection alone is not evolution in the Darwinian sense.
The claim that have-tusks is a mutation that came from lack-tusks (or vice versa) is assumed by evolutionists based on their beliefs about historical biology.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Now, you might say that natural selection is evolution, but then you're conflating terms and making it more difficult to be scientifically accurate and precise. Strictly speaking, "evolution" in the Darwinian sense includes both natural selection and progressive mutations. If there's no progressive mutations, then it's not Darwinian evolution.
What is there to select from if there are no mutations?
That "both variants already exists in the gene pool" is a result of some prior mutations. Then natural selection will either strongly favor one, thereby eliminating the other, or won't so both co-exist. If there's no mutations (ever), there is no natural selection.There's also the option that both already exist in the gene pool because they were created to be there, so neither mutated from the other.
-
@Captain said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla I haven't paid any attention to Java for like the last 15 years. Is anything interesting happening?
Bi-weekly paychecks happen around here.
-
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
Strictly speaking, "evolution" in the Darwinian sense includes both natural selection and progressive mutations. If there's no progressive mutations, then it's not Darwinian evolution.
Did Darwin make it clear that:
-
If it's just natural selection without progressive mutations, it's not evolution;
-
If it's just progressive mutations without natural selection, is it evolution? (I assume the answer to this question is no.)
It seems to me that he would not have specifically excluded the first case, but a reference could convince me otherwise.
Here's a reference that describes the natural selection + mutation aspects of evolution:
"Natural selection" alone doesn't mean "evolution" because it simply means removing the less-viable options from the set. It doesn't say how additional options can be added.
"Mutation" alone doesn't mean "evolution" because most mutations are detrimental to the livelihood of the mutant. It doesn't say how "better" mutations can be preserved.
(On a side note, the article even uses the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution.")And because someone might try to me about , I was using the term "Darwinian" evolution simply to differentiate it from the other meanings of evolve, as of cars or of CPUs or of understanding ideas.
Not only was it the word Darwinian (which is far from pedantry to point out that you used it, and that it was key to the discussion) which the diagram leaves out, but it also leaves out the word "evolution". So 0 for 2. Anyone can throw a Wikipedia page at someone claiming that it supports their point, when in reality it merely obscures the essence of the discussion. (You're not the only one who does that.) Are there any sentences which you can quote which clearly and unambiguously support your point?
Ok, I had forgotten that the article used the term "Darwinian," and I guess pretty much everyone uses that to mean the modern concept, so my clarification on that point was probably superfluous.
As for my Wikipedia link, did you read it? I, for one, and unlike certain other denizens here, make sure my links actually relate to the discussion at hand. The summary contains exactly the two things I used to define "evolution" (emphasis mine):
The modern synthesis was the early 20th-century synthesis reconciling Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and Gregor Mendel's ideas on heredity in a joint mathematical framework. [...] The synthesis was defined differently by its founders, [...] though they all included natural selection, working on heritable variation supplied by mutation.
Or are you maintaining that the word "synthesis" in the diagram is an exact synonym (for the purposes of the discussion) to "evolution"?
Based on the common usage of the term "(biological) evolution", I would say that "modern synthesis" is a synonym for the purposes of this discussion, yes.
-
-
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
The very existence of vegetarians/vegans causes some omnivores to question their own excessive pride in a way that they've never had to question.
I think most omnivores, at worst, laugh quietly at vegans. Especially at vegans who eat terrible imitation meat and dairy foods.
When I see them laughing, for that reason, I think, these folks (the laughers) aren't exactly playing with a full deck. They laugh to avoid using that thing on top of their shoulders.
That works the other way, too, and is one of the reasons that they laugh.
Vegans, however, seem to be offended by the mere existence of omnivores.
But there at least is a sound reason for this. Imagine, for a second, that they are right, that it is wrong to kill animals. (Not all think this, but some do.) Are there not wrong actions that others commit that offend you when irrationally defended? If not, then at least you are consistent.
The difference is less of a moral one and more of a difference in beliefs about facts. The morality of both omnivores and herbivores says that it is wrong to kill a person. The difference in belief is that omnivores do not believe that animals are persons, but herbivores believe that animals, if not persons, are at least very close to being persons, and so should be treated as nearly like persons as they can be.
You want to eat soybeans while I enjoy my thick, juicy, medium-rare steak? Go right ahead; I won't stop you. But don't try to take my steak away from me; I don't want to get human blood all over my beef.
And you have illustrated the essence of your mentality. The killing of non-human animals and human ones differs only in degree, not in kind.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
As for my Wikipedia link, did you read it? I, for one, and unlike certain other denizens here, make sure my links actually relate to the discussion at hand.
I read enough to confirm that you use it in exactly the same as others who throw Wikipedia articles at me in response to my clear and specific points and questions. I read enough to see that it had nothing to do with the points at hand. People are trained in school to get credit for rambling in papers- but often the best responses are short and precise. Specific one or two sentence quotes from a Wikipedia article is fine. A whole article is almost always an obscuring tactic (or a genuine failure to understand the points), and it certainly appeared to be in this case.
The summary contains exactly the two things I used to define "evolution" (emphasis mine):
The modern synthesis was the early 20th-century synthesis reconciling Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and Gregor Mendel's ideas on heredity in a joint mathematical framework. [...] The synthesis was defined differently by its founders, [...] though they all included natural selection, working on heritable variation supplied by mutation.
Or are you maintaining that the word "synthesis" in the diagram is an exact synonym (for the purposes of the discussion) to "evolution"?
Based on the common usage of the term "(biological) evolution", I would say that "modern synthesis" is a synonym for the purposes of this discussion, yes.
Thank you for the straight answer. But since the discussion was about definitions of words, nothing else, using a loose synonym is an entirely different discussion.
-
@pie_flavor said in In other news today...:
I didn't really expect to find something on which I agree 100% with Justice RBG.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@pie_flavor Is it possible to get anywhere without somersaulting through it at full speed?
Just holding got me here:
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
The difference is less of a moral one and more of a difference in beliefs about facts.Disagree entirely.
The morality of both omnivores and herbivores says that it is wrong to kill a person.
"Person" is a vague word which is usually used to indicate humans. Any one with any morality (which does not include everyone) agrees that murder, the intentional killing of an innocent human, is wrong.
The difference in belief is that omnivores do not believe that animals are persons,
but herbivores believe that animals, if not persons,This reeks of a straw-man. If by "person" you mean human animals, then I'm not sure why you would have even insinuated that regarding non-human animals as human animals is something anyone would do.
Omnivores have beliefs, even religious ones, that provide cover for their harmful actions and false views. I, on the other hand, investigate and consider carefully, and discard erroneous notions on the matter and arrive at logical and reasonable conclusions. Vegetarians do not require "beliefs". Omnivores do (even if they reject morality altogether, which requires the erroneous belief that only their happiness and suffering are important).
are at least very close to being persons, and so should be treated as nearly like persons as they can be.
Again, "person" is a very vague and intentionally ambiguous word in this context. Non-human animals are not human animals. But all animals, whether human, bovine, porcine, etc., share the ability to perceive, to experience pleasure and pain, and value their own lives and seek to maximize their happiness and minimize their suffering. But there is certainly a difference in magnitude, which I mentioned earlier.
-
@DogsB said in In other news today...:
I reject this reality and will believe in my own!
I note the date on the article is just in time for April Fool's Day...
-
@Karla said in In other news today...:
@DogsB said in In other news today...:
@Karla said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Karla said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Karla said in In other news today...:
@DogsB said in In other news today...:
I reject this reality and will believe in my own!
Wouldn't many foods have cockroach contamination?
Yes. The article states as much,
Then wouldn't people who say they are allergic to chocolate also say they are allergic to all those all foods? So like everything?
Usually depends on the amount of contamination - with chocolate, the problem begins at the source. Other foods may only experience cross-contamination.
That just seems improbable that chocolate has that much more than every other food. I'm sure there are other foods that get it from source too. If not, what's different about chocolate?
You want cockroach on the list of potential allergens?
Like @brie said it probably should be. I'm just trying to figure out what makes chocolate special (in this regard).
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
It can't be worse than regular IPA.
I, for one, do not want beer in my Lucky Charms!
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
@Benjamin-Hall They've been mandatory on trucks for ages. My suspicion is that they've never gone there for cars mainly because speeding tickets are so lucrative. With the war on CO₂ emissions not going as easily as many would hope, mandating them for cars is an obvious move.
British "truck" = American "semi", "big-rig", or "18-wheeler"; not a pickup
Also, buses and other large vehicles have speed regulators on them.I read somewhere that military tanks fresh out of the factory also have (had?) speed regulators on their diesel engines, but they were the first things that their crews would remove.
-
@izzion said in In other news today...:
I guess that explains why my brothers went into programming and I'm just a lowly systems admin... I can't work without music
I wonder what style(s) of music they used for their tests. I would expect Baroque to have different results than screamo.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
I didn't really expect to find something on which I agree 100% with Justice RBG.
Once in a while, even the people who are most consistently wrong see some common sense.
-
@djls45 said in In other news today...:
@izzion said in In other news today...:
I guess that explains why my brothers went into programming and I'm just a lowly systems admin... I can't work without music
I wonder what style(s) of music they used for their tests. I would expect Baroque to have different results than screamo.
When a group of us were reviewing a million or so lines of code for Y2K-compliance, we locked ourselves in the lab and I brought in a boombox and selection of CDs.
Best moment was looking across the table to see that three of us were rocking back and forth to the music as we drove the keyboards, imitating a trio of white Ray Charleses.
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
What kind of totalitarian regime would suspend your driving license for a bit of speeding?
It depends. Doing a little bit over on a highway usually isn't too big a deal, whereas doing 100 on roads where the limit is 30… will probably earn you all sorts of trouble (possibly including being chased by a helicopter).
Could you even get up to the speed limit on the highway?
↓↓↓@dkf said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@TimeBandit Yeah, the liberty to speed is such an important one!
You never had an emergency and needed to bring someone to the hospital ASAP and couldn't wait for the
Wouldn't matter, you'd still be stuck queueing for hours regardless.
I swear you have seen our traffic!
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
And now, back to the news!
How? That's a violation of eBay's policies. From https://www.ebay.com/help/policies/prohibited-restricted-items/zoo-animals-wildlife-products-policy?id=4327:
Can I buy a pet on eBay?
No. Although you can buy some animal and wildlife products on eBay, pets and other live animals are not allowed to be listed for sale on our site.Listed and bought before eBay's monitors caught it and removed the listing?
-
@pie_flavor said in In other news today...:
@Captain They've added lambdas, type inference, and a module system. All three of which are implemented in the dumbest possible way.
If I were to ask how they fucked up type inference, is the answer going to be "remember how they implemented generics?"