Leslie Nielsen is an absolute legend as well.

Does netbird run on wg on on ovpn as well? Maybe that’s an option…

Yeah I was gonna say, 64b or whatever would be completely useless for me. There’s a reason for that size.

But I guess this at least means they are still looking at that range.

Is a 35b-a3b planned for 3.8?

What a dreadful idea. Could’ve only been proposed by the cock in chief.

Yeah I was initially thinking the call centres don’t wanna deal with expensive windows licenses and prefer to just use Linux, or maybe all those scam call centres need operational security and therefore Linux, or maybe there is some cultural thing where people naturally gravitate to open source? Or maybe there was some censorship implemented into Windows systems for India and everyone is just bailing by switching to Linux or something but honestly none of those theories have a lot of weight behind it so my guess is as good as the next guy.

No clue, I’m still puzzled by that and open to theories.

I’ve recently looked at some statistics to get a sense of Linux overall market share, and it does seem to be hovering around 7% currently, which is a heck of a lot for Linux but of course still less than every 10th PC. And then there’s some more wrinkles to that.

For example one wrinkle I didn’t know about is this is skewed by a few countries, namely India has a gigantic 30% of Linux market share iirc. So you might know about the Linux growth if you live in India, but not as much in the US or Europe.

Not only this, I am increasingly under the impression the abrupt change of direction under trump has a paralyzing effect on all branches of government. And it’s good when they use this time to isolate his policies from most of the country. But it’s bad when our legal branch stops doing lots of normal law things.

Truly as far as I know there is no case law for this to date.

I thought about this for a while but I have no clue what the current direction is.

Essentially stealing data and putting them in datasets is illegal. AI models might be illegal, if the court considers them legally functionally the same. But if they don’t, they could meet any number of new legal definitions and that gets us back to “idk”. What is funny is because you would technically do the same copyright infringement that the AI companies do (if it gets ruled that way), these companies are essentially arguing for you, and so you could ride on the coat tails of corpo lawyers.

But yeah, it’s complicated.

Ah that makes sense. I disagree but at least I get it now.

Mint is corpo-ish? That’s new to me.

Can someone explain for my dumbass who this is and what this means?

Hell yeah that’s my system. Feels so nostalgic, it’s like pictures on the wall.

I mean it kinda looks like that’s by design currently. It’s an indexer for your corners of the web, not a search aggregator to find new ones.

I don’t exactly remember but I think it’s because last time they did it, and scientific consensus is that made the recession last way longer.

Wish I had a source for that…

Well, there’s a big difference between consistency and probability.

In that case you might wanna be careful to point out the very experimental ground this stands on.

Let me be honest: 10 billion years until the sun burns out is a lot. The world seems to change fast these last centuries and it’s basically impossible to predict how it’s gonna look in 2050. Therefore I believe crafting a solution that on its face seems to be rather impractical, solving something that will only become a problem in the very distant future, using very long theoretical causational links to predict the trend, and assuming the net gain could be worth it is not helpful. It’s so far removed from normal science, it reminds me of conspiracy theories like the idea that you can somehow use the Giza pyramids as a power source.

You need to think about frame of reference first: you cannot speculate on what we might have and be able to do in the future. You are assuming a bunch of things, and science doesn’t assume, in science you start with the assumption that all of your claims bullshit, and then disprove it. For your theories this will take centuries anyway because there is so many assumptions and some of them will take many papers in order to understand if and how they work.

Some examples:

• Start with the expanding force of the universe: is there one? How big? On which scale does it overcome modern power sources? Confirm multiple different ways that this scale is realistic.
• do the physics work on that scale? Is the expanding force big enough to pull it apart and keep it from folding out? How would gravity from surrounding cosmic bodies affect it? How well does it withstand big and small impacts from different bodies?
• how do you actually translate expansion to energy? What’s the loss to thermal energy? What are typical conversion rates for this? How exactly do you do the conversion? Why would you be able to do some functioning conversion?
• how does it transport the energy back to the point of origin? What kind of cables work with minimal loss over these distances?
• what’s the impact on our electric grid, the impact on gravitational forces, etc.? Would this destabilize our solar system?

You are hovering over your assumptions and this is exactly where quack theories live. That’s why people are extremely suspicious. Everyone can make up a theory on how generating electricity might be possible in the future using technologies we haven’t even invented yet. Sure, we might, but before anyone wants to actually think of that you need to put in the leg work to prove this technology is not only practical but at least one some scale it exists. And you have to do this for all of the things you are assuming.

• the harness
• binding materials
• protective materials
• conductive materials
• resources needed in production
• resources needed in deployment

Let me also stress that no one is annoyed that you think of solutions for problems. People are annoyed because you are the 100th guy dreaming up an incredibly outlandish solution to a problem that doesn’t really affect us in any way currently, and then you are winging the parts that scientists spend most of their time on. Lots of math, lots of different ways to confirm the math, field studies, disproving, collaboration, etc., there’s so much more to it.

Trust, if there’s interesting aspects to it, and you find people outside of your circles that find your theories somewhat plausible, you should try to get a peer-review. And then you probably have to do a bunch of follow up research, but that’s how scientific consensus moves: slowly and in tiny chunks.

I assume it has to do with it kind of directly competing with steamos and eating into the user share?

Ngl I don’t get the downvotes.

I have no opinion on pro or contra rust in the Linux Kernel. I have no dog in the fight and I do not understand it well enough.

Or did I get something wrong? The email chains are there. The core developers did argue. Linus did chime in. That one dev stopped working on it. what am I missing?

I’m so confused.