namark @namark@qoto.org
Joined Jan 2020
Well I would say your comment had a strong implication that the only difference is that it "annoys the GNUs"(by itself, for no reason), but I'm glad you clarified.
Examples of where incompatibility with GPL is beneficial? And I mean not for your personal gain, or to "annoy the GNUs", but for the freedom of the entire community. And I mean software freedom, not freedom to do whatever they want in general, or any other kind of philosophical interpretation of the word.
I see what you mean now. It is hostile towards your sense of ownership of the project, not your freedom, or the freedom of the users.
I guess It's a choice you have to make regarding what is more important, your personal gain(control over the project in the long term), or freedom of the community en large. I would say that the former is a (perhaps subconscious) step towards copyright and away from copyleft, if taken in isolation and not in the "strategic retreat" kind of context. Next logical step in same direction would be to go proprietary.
So it was better for some purpose which makes it better for all purposes? Seems to me It's basically LGPL, except incompatible with GPL, which means it can't be made stronger if necessary, which is an unnecessary restriction. You still can't say it's same as GPL, or that the difference is just annoying to some people, cause of their nonsensical sense of competition(or whatever else the implication was), if you understand the point of GPL.
GPL is a weapon of war against software copyright. CDDL seems closer to LGPL which is just a strategic retreat. Perpetual retreat, no matter how strategic, will never win. The only thing annoying about it is people who completely miss the point and think that is an equivalent, and that the viral nature of GPL is some sort of an accidental/pointless oversight.
It's like choosing a nerf gun over a real one, cause it's much safer, lighter and more ergonomic. Makes sense in certain contexts, but doesn't mean they are equivalent, or even "same but different".
@stuts Fedibird is a fork of mastodon that has a feature like that called domain subscription. With that you can add any domain that is a mastodon instance to any list, and all toots from that domain will go to that list. You can view the local timeline in a separate column through the context menu on a specific toot. Qoto also incorporates these changes.
All of this is still subject to the usual limitations of activity pub protocol - you will not see users/toots from other instances that nobody from your instance ever interacted with (it is basically just a filter for federated timeline). In order to see the full local timeline you need to request it from the instance directly (it may reject, but most don't). Unfortunately not many clients allow you to make such requests. I only know of 2 that do, subway tooter and fedilab, both android only.
smartphony
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe but what if it has a clicky keyboard? (and the best mastodon client, which is a tragedy I know)
I thought long and hard, and came to the conclusion that I can't argue with such a strange feeling.
And I can't see where you are coming from either, unless what you actually felt was a hint of shame projecting yourself onto the joke, seeing how well it fits, and needed to discredit it somehow.
@georgia@dickkickextremist.xyz @canidaeportent
It was an obvious exaggeration. You speak with a strong implication that parents are some sort of tyrants that one needs to free themselves from, and that it is race, not failing to mention that you were farther along the race at the same age (in fact starting with that).
You were however rather polite and indirect in those assertions, so the satire is perhaps more fitting to some of the past "offenders", and directed primarily at georgia as a supportive comment.
@georgia@dickkickextremist.xyz @shampoobottle
Every time @georgia@dickkickextremist.xyz talks about mom:
someone with family issues: how old?
georgia: any number
swfi: OMG! grow a pair you old hag! I moved out (totally not kicked out) when i was 3 months old, and never talked to any of those losers ever again!
Not sure what you mean by abstract R&D. The difference between R&D and something like production, is that it is in no way directly correlated with profits. You can spend years on R&D with no tangible results, or make a breakthrough within a month. What's happening now (as far as software development goes) is that people are betting on a breakthrough to market and exploit it to the maximum (they also often do that with fads, cause it doesn't really matter when it comes to marketing and exploitation).
Just because you can't think of another way, doesn't mean it's impossible. Software sells hardware, it makes services/systems, that are otherwise impossible, possible, and even more crazy things like currency. That's ample of reasons for various corporations, governments, individuals or communities to invest in R&D, and none of it requires compromises in quality or exploitation of end users. It is so possible that is is happening even in the current climate, where misinformation is normalized to such a degree people apparently can't see past it even when it is pointed out.
TLDR: no, commercial practises that are common with software today are not natural law, or at least no more than snake oil is.
@humanetech@mastodon.social
That is false. Most programmers are paid for R&D, they are not paid for marketing, or sales, or some perverted notion of production, or exploiting customers or anything else specific to an average closed source commercial project. They can be paid just as well and just as much to do the same on foss projects, it is the rest of the industry that need to shift to a more customer centric model, and that will happen eventually as more and more people become aware of the issues, and as the issues themselves become more severe.
As of crowdfunding today, you can only do it if you become well known/popular enough. Obviously there is no formula for that, and most people won't "qualify". Doesn't hurt to try though, as much as you can afford, keeping in mind that you are looking for people to fund you and your R&D, not providing a service or selling a product (I mean you could in addition, but that's not what programing specifically is).
@humanetech@mastodon.social
@waallly_ I present to you ancient wisdom passed from generation to generation of android wizards
https://www.hanshq.net/command-line-android.html
and a makefile setup that works for me, but probably wouldn't work for you without some tweaks
https://notabug.org/namark/sdl_android_test
and btw NDK is a bit broken, last I checked
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32565759/ndk-build-installs-libraries-even-if-no-change-can-this-be-changed/52265683#52265683
@georgia@dickkickextremist.xyz
I just thonked hurd, can't really say I knew it, or identified it as something known, but what you say sounds close enough.
@thor@mstdn.social
@georgia@dickkickextremist.xyz
I have no clue .-.
@thor@mstdn.social
@thor@mstdn.social Life is a semi-meaningless concept. You can live forever, as long as you are ready to die.
Good is a semi-meaningless concept. Everything is good, as long as some things are bad.
The meaning is not in the absolute it is in the contrast, which we perpetually maintain, not for the greater good or higher purpose, but for our own sanity.
Sanity is a semi-meaningless concept. You can always be sane, as long as you're ok with being insane. However this(underpinning the analogous statements) remains subjective, since everyone(or thing) can not be insane in exactly the same way, they can only be sane in exactly the same way, making sanity a necessary precondition for (or the definition, or an equivalent of) objective reality.
You want more freedom/life/good/sanity not for yourself, but for everyone, and you want it not to reach an absolute, but because that is the only way for you (or anything) to exist.
There you go...
@nikivi
They are simply more efficient at what they do, which, if you are satisfied with what they do, means less hassle for you(no boot time, no cooling, no performance issues etc.). And you can still use the software to do the other things that you might need occasionally.
Software offers flexibility and portability at the cost of efficiency/reliability. Could have been less of an issue if we had better computer/software infrastructure, lifting the burden of setup and maintenance from the shoulders of an average user, but we don't.
re: snark
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
Yes, that is indeed the part I did not explore, any sort of alternatives for that reasoning. Even in the simplest (obvious) cases, something like babylonian method, I haven't gone far enough to devise any sort of theory for those quantities. My only hope at this point is that I might find something like that in Wildberger's lectures...
And yes, I was arguing about some minor sub point of yours about upper limit of abstraction height, pretty much out of context, to... cheer up people(all 0 of them reading) who like high abstractions?
re: snark
This is absolutely irrelevant. The whole point of good abstractions is relieving "cognitive stress". Knowledge trumps intelligence when it comes to acquiring a skill in average case. I'm sure at some point despite having roughly the same inherent intelligence, most people could not multiply large numbers. Today they can and it is not because they evolved bigger brains or something. Sure some people can do it faster, but nobody really cares about that, including mathematicians.
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe
re: snark
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe Or any real world application, where there is an algorithm for everything as well.
The limited understanding of numerical methods that I was able to achieve despite of my complete lack of understanding of most of calculus, has left an impression on me that modern calculus is not a prerequisite for real world applications of mathematics, it's just one perspective, that is often defended religiously and not pragmatically. I did not pursue that though, I just ended up a snarky programmer, so it remains just a hunch.
My ultimate point I guess is that mathematics in pursuit of "truth" often does not care(not because it's dumb, but because it's smart, no bashing) about how accessible or useful the abstraction is, or how well it fits the application as long as it works, while programming is starting to explore that area more, and has more objective reasons/motivations to do so.
