8·
6 hours agoHuh. I was 100% convinced this article was going to be about a ruling in a South Korean court or something like that. Seeing an American court hold a billionaire accountable for once was a bigger surprise than it ought to be.
- 5 Posts
- 246 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 13th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
2·10 hours agoThis comment calculated just under 1.5 Pb (yes, petabytes)!
INB4 the concentration camps get a Monsanto marketing tie-in.
8·21 hours agoOf course not; they need to replace all that population they’re feeding to the meat grinder.
Did you call them out on it?
Millennials include people 10 years older than you. We were definitely being sold a future of sunshine and rainbows until at least late high school, if not our 20s.
4·2 days agoThey didn’t make the first one! They got it from Apple, who themselves got it from KDE.
Ah, that’s different then!
Hmm…
From https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:manual:contrib:hyperbolabsd_faq:
HyperbolaBSD is under a progressive migration by replacing all non GPL-compatible code. It will be replaced with new compatible code under Simplified BSD License. We do this in order to incorporate GPL code from other projects such as ReactOS, as well new code from scratch.
It’s not clear to me that relicensing the existing code to GPL is what they’re planning on doing; it sounds more like they’re going to mix in GPL code but not change the existing files to GPL en masse after they finish harmonizing them to two-clause BSD.
Frankly, IMO that’s too bad: I’d love to see them make the whole shebang GPLv3-or-later
Related question: is all Linux kernel code required to be licensed GPLv2-only, or are individual contributions allowed to be GPLv2-or-later? I’d be nice to see if that project (and stuff like HURD and ReactOS) could benefit from at least some Linux contributions, even if they can’t copy it wholesale.
manual windows and door handles have worked since cars were invented
Technically untrue: the first cars didn’t have doors at all.
Yeah, I know, but I would’ve expected a distro that describes itself as “GNU/Linux-libre” would fall on the other side of it!
In what situations are objects ambiguously countable?
How did he not get kicked out for that? If not for sexual harassment, at least for failing to get IRB approval!
Speaking of old, dead distros, my first Linux – sort of – was TurboLinux 6.0. I say “sort of” because I never successfully got it to install and run. : (
53·3 days agoA meme Linux is the “most obscure” you can think of?
Sounds more like a BSD kind of idea, to be honest. The GNU idea is to let specifically end-users have control over their own computer, not some third-party.
Wait… they’re militant enough about Free Software to refuse to package anything even slightly non-Free, but their “final goal” is to switch the kernel to BSD (i.e. away from copyleft)? WTF?
5·3 days agoOne is asking about skin color, the other is asking about cultural heritage. For example, a person from South America with only European ancestry would be [white, Hispanic], and a Japanese-Brazilian would be [Asian, Hispanic].
The real issue is that they’re irrelevant questions that survey-givers have no legitimate reason to want to know.
I have no problem with things like Mozilla Common Voice. I have a big problem with integrating machine-learning stuff into Firefox by default.
I remember back when
PhoenixFirebirdFirefox first came out, the whole fucking point of it was to be a fast, bare-bones browser, and that people could pick and choose what extra features they wanted by installing extensions. IMO that’s the way it still ought to be.
I think it’s worth noting that this is an environmental benefit, not only an economic one. In other words, it’s not that people defeating the emissions control devices are making their trucks purely worse for the environment for their own selfish benefit; it’s that they’re making a trade off between increased ‘regular’ (for lack of a better term) pollutant emissions like NOx/SOx/particulates, and decreased greenhouse gas emissions (CO2).
I’m not saying they’re altruistic – obviously they do it to save money (at least until they get caught and fined) – but I am saying that we can’t just assume it’s bad without first doing the math and making a value judgement about what sorts of emissions we care about.
Geeking out about an edge case where not having the fancy emissions controls is better: using biodiesel
There are also more complicated considerations, such as how getting rid of these emissions controls and retuning the engine may also allow it to run on higher percentages of biodiesel. The trade-offs associated with that are not only the fact that the fuel becomes carbon-neutral (net CO2 emissions go to zero, at least for the percentage of the fuel that is bio- instead of dino-), but also that biodiesel naturally has zero sulfur in it (which means zero SOx) and burns cleaner (fewer particulates) and hotter (more NOx) than dino-diesel. On top of that, more NOx could be a bad thing or a good thing, depending on whether you’re driving in a NOx-limited or VOC-limited regime.
In other words, using 100% biodiesel in an urban environment (VOC-limited) is IMO enough to actually justify preferring not to have the fancy emissions controls for legit environmentalist reasons: the better efficiency in general (as the parent comment mentioned), zero net greenhouse gas emissions, zero SOx, irrelevant NOx, and all at the cost of only moderate particulates (more than would be emitted from a vehicle with a DPF, but less than would be emitted if the same car were burning dino-diesel).
Of course, none of those benefits occur unless you actually seek out B100 (or at least, significantly higher percentages than the B5 that normal diesel can be blended up to), and that’s a motivation much more associated with the hippie types that drive VW TDIs and old Mercs, not truckers.