turtledove
turtledove on Hacker News
Would you say that the install and maintenance load for both systems (Dropbox vs packages containers) is the same?
Like, I'm confident my tech illiterate parents could get drop box running. Ease of use and UX are features.
I'm not saying the self hosted stack is bad, and in fact it's probably better in many ways. But it doesn't have the same feature set if you consider usability a feature, imo.
Sorry, "would be super useful" be "would have helped me".
Maybe those have different meanings to you? They mean more or less the same to me?
Because they have context that I don't? Because they quickly scan down to other comments and see the people explaining the joke?
And not everyone else "got the joke". I'd assume many folks didn't get it, but didn't post.
Asking a non technical person to run and maintain docker containers is absurd.
I can install drop box in under ten minutes. I don't have to manage security patches for all the binaries in the stack. My data is available in network edge locations close to me or the people I share it with. I can turn dollars into more storage very easily. I don't have to configure user permissions and groups in more than one place.
Also, what you described is not "sftp + cvs + vps" ;D
Are those features of sftp? It cvs? Or the vps provider?
Or are you saying, "well, with a completely different stack I can get closer to feature parity"?
Which definitely won't happen with a cheap VPS provider. /s
People click the upvote button at a sufficient velocity.
What you've described is not at all an equivalent for Dropbox. There are many, many features that your stack doesn't support.
Yep. But if your user base is likely to include Americans, then you might want to consider filtering them out. (As it could be shocking to read.)
Note the word consider, by the way. I'm not demanding anything here, I'm saying the author should make a deliberate choice about their inclusion rather than including them just because they were auto generated.
TIL. That said, I'm sure if you polled most folks these days, beaver would mean animal or women's genitalia, and not leave it to beaver.
Given the relatively common crass meaning for beaver, beaver cleaver sure sounds like a sexual innuendo to me.
Found a slur in the dataset, not sure if these are programmatically generated (I assume so) but may want to consider filtering those out.
He was saying density is bad. I was suggesting the opposite - it affords access to many and varied services.
You know you can rent cars, right? Or share a car as a community?
And yes, it does mean some limits, but they aren't as severe as many people think.
I mean, sure. Some places have become urban centers recently and that's fair. But coast to coast, our biggest population centers were all established and built up before car centric planning.
I live in Seattle, for instance, which used to have a network of rails. They've all been torn out and we're just now putting them back.
You can easily live in Seattle city limits without owning a car, and our transit story is pretty bad. In a city that really funded transit it would be trivial.
Find a space you enjoy. I enjoy getting able to walk to the grocery store, bookshop, several cafes, many restaurants, hair salon, library, tattoo parlor, beer shop, movie theater, etc.
How many of those places can you visit without a car?
The US absolutely tore up cities to make them more car friendly. Redlining and slum clearing were used as justifications to knock down entire neighborhoods to put more roads in. Most old American cities started as port towns with streetcar suburbs, and then they tore the trains out.
We don't have medieval cities, but saying cities were designed around the car is patently false.
Yes, the fifties and sixties caused huge redesigns, but we can undo those.
These cities removed transit systems and housing to build roads and parking. It will take time, but doing the reverse is totally possible. Most cities were filled with streetcars and dense housing at one point.
I got called a communist on hacker news for suggesting this idea. It'll be interesting to see how the comments shake out.
Less cars and less parking is a good start, but we also need to build more transit and bike infrastructure.
Hmm... That's much harder. I can list plenty of things, only, they apply only to the wealthy.
60 years ago I'd have a huge list. But we sorta stopped caring and we've been costing on that historical success.
Look, if the answer is starving or selling drugs, I know what most folks are going to do.
There might not be other opportunities available. Until we've eliminated the threat of homelessness and starvation for everyone living here (which we absolutely could do), there will always be people who had no other choice.
Plenty of folks in the US do that, and not by choice.
Because the US has close to 20% of the world's prison population. Because we regularly experience power outages in major areas, killing hundreds or thousands of people, due to political corruption. Because our health care system only works if you are employed and relatively wealthy. We're comfortable treating our prisoners worse than livestock (and, in fact, it's still legal to require forced labor from prisoners). Because we have religious fundamentalists taking away the rights of minorities and women. Because our infrastructure is collapsing and we refuse to invest in maintaining it. Because we've invested next to nothing in mass transit, trains, or electrification of transit. Because we have a widening class divide that is increasingly extracting wealth from the poor. Because we've got a food system built around sugar and corn packaged into premade snacks.
Do you need more? Because there's more. Political corruption. Prison recidivism. Military spending at the cost of supporting education, healthcare, housing. Increasing limits on speech. (A state just said that men have to dress like men if they are performing for kids.)
Edit: because we still haven't addressed the Flint water crisis. Because we still have starving children despite producing more food than we can eat. Because care for even routine medical procedures can bankrupt a family.
Police are not interested in justice or ensuring everyone is treated well and given a chance to articulate their situation.
They are interested in what makes their lives easier, which is to pack people into cells and wait for the notoriously slow justice system to sort things out. There's no consequences for mistakes, so there's no incentive to improve.
It should be shocking to the core that anyone, innocent or guilty, would be subject to these conditions. But police just aren't interested in improving them.
I don't deploy it lightly, but the reason I've come around to ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards) has nothing to do with the personalities of individual officers (many of whom are quite nice people). Instead, it's an acknowledgement that every officer subjects people to this sort of treatment as a matter of course. They cannot avoid treating people inhumanely with the current incentives.
Considerably more than thousands. It's not acceptable to treat anyone this way.
The tone of this article that describes the conditions as inhumane and grotesque to the subject of the article feels real weird. It's not just dehumanizing to the one innocent person there, it's grotesque to treat anyone like we treat our prisoners. (Especially those not yet convicted.)
While I recognize the impact to this one man was serious, and I hope he gets the help and support he needs to recover, we need to stop thinking about these one off failures in the system and start looking at what our prisons and policing do to everyone who passes through their custody.
You have a very rose colored view of the world. Some folks are presented with an opportunity to sell (or be an accessory to the sale) and the deal is too good to pass up because the alternative is starving.
What if someone makes a change to the pattern because they are maintaining the code but don't understand it? What if a future version of Python stops accepting that as valid syntax?
It's too clever by half.