pixelpop3

joined 2 years ago
[–] pixelpop3@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago

In my experience Ubuntu LTS seems to do the best at checking whatever bullshit checkboxes the know-nothing corporate cybersecurity auditmonkeys care about.

[–] pixelpop3@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

For one thing it will run a lot of existing and proven Matlab code.

Another is that Octave and Matlab syntax is ambiguous about functions vs indexes (has pros and cons).

And don't get me wrong (I use jupyter and python a lot and really do like it) but numpy can get fundamentally weird in the way indexing maps to memory in ways that I don't remember happening back when I mostly used Octave.

And for the record Octave's version of the language is vastly superior to Matlab's. (Octave has chained indexing, broadcasting, etc. It could be that Matlab has finally copied those features but dunno. Every time I have to work in actual Matlab I want to rip my hair and teeth out due to lack of these basic trivial syntax features)

For me the major advantage of python is having access to other non-numerical things. It's so difficult to do anything not-numerics in Octave and Matlab or to use even basic data structures like lists and trees. Python is sort of a basic dynamic object language that with some functional programming idioms mixed in that makes some of the things that would otherwise make you scream for Lisp possible. That's worth the numpy annoyances. Otherwise I would probably be using julia.

[–] pixelpop3@programming.dev 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

How can supporting Wayland only be more complicated than supporting both Wayland and Xorg?

Xwayland isn't going anywhere and Xorg has been dead forever. Put it out of its misery already.

[–] pixelpop3@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago

This is the sort of superficial dismissal I was referring to.

"There are no safety issues because you can plead your case publically and incite a mob!" isn't exactly as trust-inspiring as you seem to believe.

[–] pixelpop3@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

No they allow admins to decide that. Users have no control. User activity is fully public and cannot be controlled for safety.

[–] pixelpop3@programming.dev -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

Frankly, I don't think the privacy model of the fediverse is workable at all and it doesn't seem to be developed and maintained by people who understand or care about safety. The centralized systems are much safer for users because you only have to trust the admins of the centralized servers.

Fediverse's Achilles heel is trust and all the convo and discussion about it is extremely dismissive and superficial about the realities of how the centralized systems became they way they are--much safer against stalking and mobs. Fediverse mostly gets away with this by being small and fringe.

The fundamental flaw is laid bare every time a site defederates another about because of safety issues. It's a tacit concession that the federation model and implementation is not safe. If you have to defederate everyone to ensure user safety, then why bother with the fediverse in the first place? This is the core problem with the fediverse as it exists today.

[–] pixelpop3@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There's also deskhop which is essentially a pure hardware solution similar to Synergy (helpful when you cannot install software on a machine or if they are on different networks). You can build your own or purchase parts/pre-built deskhops from elecrow.

https://github.com/hrvach/deskhop