namark @namark@qoto.org
Joined Jan 2020
if i win world war 3 and get to rewrite history: euclid published the elemnts under agpl3+
@academicalnerd regarding benefits
1. All you need for peer review is peers really. I don't think that professors from MIT review random junk papers off the internet all day, to find the hidden gems and publish them for us. Whatever they are reviewing they would have been reviewing anyway, wheather there was money in it or not, since it's the work of their peers.
2. Digital signatures are a thing, what else is there to verify? Literally what do they do other than "this guy is a phd from a prestigious uni, publash!"?
3-4. my 10 year old laptop could probably do this??? not impressive at any rate...
The question is why is sci-hub illegal and why are the paywalls even a viable business model for these companies that do nothing but marketing? The answer is copyright. The solution is copyleft, which is copyright turned upside down and inside out. Maybe a license that would infect through citations (CC-BY-SA might be that, but I'm not sure). Basically "Here is my paper for free, but if you cite it in your paper you must make that free as well". If nobody is citing your paper, well then it wasn't worth the money in the first place, and if they are, then you are getting a lot of free papers yourself in return. At the same time you are taking a strong stance against the ""rule" of publishers". It'll take while to catch on, but hopefully before the local law enforcement gains technical capacity to punish you for using sci-hub.
@tejr If anything that should encourage you, no? Sounds like a rather bright truth to me amid claims that FOSS has been tried and failed on all accounts, thus proven to have no viable business model. I don't see how you go from "nobody really tried it" to "it's impossible I give up".
@minoru @teek_eh@aus.social
@lucifargundam are you a 1bit computer or something? If you have the parts from which you can assemble a gun you say "no, but I have the parts", otherwise you are as good as a liar. You may not speak at all, then you'll never be a liar, technically. Be mute, do crimes!
@minoru @tejr @teek_eh@aus.social to serve people directly and fairly without exploiting them is the whole point, if you give up on that, might as well abandon it all. Next time you tell your friends to get something that runs free software, if not a smart tv get a mini pc and screw it to a monitor, then maybe quit your job to open a local business selling exactly that to people along with strong warranty and installation/tuning/maintenance service, then after giving it your best and going bankrupt you would maybe have the right to admit defeat. You wouldn't really do any of that of cource, you don't have the skills, you are trained by the monopolists to serve the monopolists who exploit people in markets they invented, you acquired all your experience and knowledge working in this industry with all of its pathologies. Even the isolated bubbles of FOSS are only beautiful in comparison to the monstrosity of the status quo, the barely existent quality standard of which they inevitably measure up to. What is left for you is to preach, so keep preaching until you come across the right ears, or until you are brave/desperate enough to make the leap from a respected expert in your field to a lowly merchant handicapped by conscience.
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe @benis From what I understand it's just one of the ways to cover the organizational costs. The "standards body" as they call it organizes these real life meetings were people come present their work and an appointed or elected committee votes on what gets into standard and what doesn't. The actual cost of development is usually on the experts who are interested in setting the standards, basically you convincing your boss to pay for your time writing a proposal document, presenting it to the committee and pushing it for standardization during those meetings. I imagine the bigger it all get the more complicated it is to organize, while some smaller things might not even go past the first meeting, so it's hard to gauge the overall costs and how much the paywalls matter. It's just another way for them to make money and if it works it works, if it doesn't they raise the membership fees I guess.
It knows how to step forwards and sometime even backwards, It can dig something out from right in front of It or sometimes even behind It, while otherwise completely unaware of the surroundings, be it mines, pitfalls or ledges. How can you ever possible dream of such a beast performing a sidestep?
@kornel As far as I know C is a programming language. If you want to redefine it to mean all those things you listed to suit your narrative I can't argue. By that metric I can say that every library ever written in C is part of C as a langauge.
Also one of those things is not at all like the others. libc is part of the language standard and must be implemented by a complying compiler and therefore is not subject to standard in the same way. It is free to rely on architecture specifics, because that's the whole point. And these occasional hardware specific things is the only subset. What you tried to call subset covers the majority of use cases of the language.
@kornel @pdt either of the compilers intentionally breaking the standard in any relevant way would be a big no-no (only MSVC can do that, cause MSVC does not care about it's reputation as a compiler).
Bugs exist in all software, but that's just that, it's all best effort. If you file such a bug, you will be supported, and it will stay up for years if need be, even if you are the only one affected, nobody will call it a feature.
There might be many reason to not upgrade the compiler, but it intentionally breaking standards is not one of them. It's usually either "I rely on specific compiler optimization, because performance = correctness in my context" or "I didn't follow the standard myself, so am paranoid now".
And yes you are not allowed to form a pointer outside of allocated range, no not just dereference, yes form, compilers do care, it's all your fault, repent!
In order to not care about efficiency, the abstractions must be efficient. Otherwise the care is still taken, except in the most backwards ways.
@pope_meat hmmm, why did you sort the input?
Array indices correspond to meaningful positions, not elements. Array of N elements has N+1 meaningful positions. Array[i] is not the ith element of an array, it's the element ahead of the position that is i units ahead of the first meaningful position (or behind the position that is i units behind the last meaningful position). This is why we start at 0, just like on a number line. Nobody counts from 0.
@wizzwizz4 assigning meaning to words is our best bet. Assigning meaning to arbitrary inconsequential actions within a virtual natural habitat someone dreamt up while high on snake oil is probably the worst possible bet. Bonanza and peekaboo would be more apt names for whatever follow and boost are IMO.
re: economics
@newt It is our culture to choose leaders and idols, on all scales, for the purposes of maintaining illusions of control and also to use them as scapegoats when the illusion inevitably collapses under reality. The wealthy are not wealthy due to their objective qualities, but due to our collective habits. Their quality is merely to be lucky enough to be chosen, blind enough to lead and stupid enough to become scapegoats.
@amiloradovsky@functional.cafe @gemlog
@average_random_joe You don't see the difference between who MLK is arguing for and random rioters in Netherlands? No difference between a marginalized minority and a random violent groups? So according to you any small group of people has a right to a violent coup unless their specific demands are exactly met? Your only argument was that this group is all the governed, everyone, the people, not some random group that felt like it's time to take power in their hands. And even that is a weak argument full of holes.
@average_random_joe I'm not going to look up random out of context quotes and try to argue for you. You present the context of the words if you even know it, but I assume it's a habit for you just pluck out whatever confirms you views and ignore everything else from any context.
Just from the name alone I can assume that he was likely talking about a certain minority group that is also marginalized. While your entire argument hinges on the governed, as in everyone governed, not minority that due to their numbers and various stigma has trouble being heard. And he's also very likely didn't advocate for the riots being right and necessary, he was probably proposing ways to avoid riots in whatever he was talking about, by giving a boost of "voice" to the minority. While you are here going "people are rioting, very good, the only problem I'm seeing is that they aren't rioting hard enough, should have just got some AKs, broke into the parlament during some hearings and gunned down everyone they saw", and then quoting him as being on your side, while the poor guy has probably has daily arguments with halfwits who can't spend a second of think before saying something like the the specific minority being subhuman because of rioting, and speaks in that context, trying to justify the humanity of the groups he represents, even through their mistakes.
@average_random_joe I didn't mean poor in the sense of economic status, I mean poor as in they are unheard and misunderstood and unfairly treated because of that. And that was just one word in giant point you completely ignoring now.
We established it is a power struggle, in the same way it was between you and your bully. The violence is power struggle. It's not communication. Everything that was communicated was communicated already beforehand. The punches and the kneeing did not communicate anything further, you just fought and whoever was stronger won. That's it. And that's what you clearly meant. Rioters are just fighting the government and whoever is stronger will win. The rest is just BS you are pushing to try to sound smart and right.
Obviously a government has an advantage, but as you said if you would have lost that fight, you would just train more and try again. And I'm sure eventually you would use any measure to come out on top. That is what you are preaching here. I'm not assigning motivation I'm interpreting your words, the way I see them.
@average_random_joe another quote isn't a context, context is when is said that about what he said that, and what else he said. But that would be entirely pointless here, as is any quote.
@average_random_joe by that metric anything is communication, you are just stretching. I see a rock, oh it means the rock is communicating to me that it is there. That's nonsense and has nothing to do with people communicating and understanding each other. Yeah you point a gun at me, that tells me something, but you didn't tell me anything.
Sure quote your idol without context. I don't really care. I only care about meaning.
@dankmaximus
@average_random_joe You were trying to create the impression that the riot is the voice of the poor people who are not heard. We now established that that's not at all what you meant. What you meant that it is a power struggle between the rioters (whoever they are) and the government, and that whoever wins gets there way. What either of them want is already clearly they both heard each other very clearly, and they are now fighting. Yes very human very understandable, but not the tear jerking BS you were trying to push initially.
