Show newer
joshleeb boosted

I just hate how they always add crap to a 💸 bill.

10 years in prison for illegal streaming? It's in the Covid-19 relief bill

cnn.com/2020/12/22/tech/illega

joshleeb boosted

Stop using "Zoom" as a general term for video conferencing.
Stop using "Google" as a general term for searching the web.

joshleeb boosted

@calcifer @ajroach42 Anyway I like "permatech" for machines that aren't designed to be thrown away.

joshleeb boosted

I’ve been thinking a lot about various creative reactions to the absurdity that we all carry supercomputers in our pocket but have to keep upgrading even to retain functionality because software gets worse and surveillance gets more pervasive

Things like low-power computing (Rpi and friends, microcomputers, retro computing, etc), some of the solarpunk stuff, the “smolnet” (Gopher and Gemini and the like), and so on seem to be interesting ways of highlighting that things could be other than they are

Is there an umbrella term for this? Is someone collecting projects that relate to “computing designed to work well even with low-performance/low-power gear”?

joshleeb boosted

Engagement is the target metric on social media algorithmic sorting, and that's bad for the world.

joshleeb boosted
joshleeb boosted
joshleeb boosted
joshleeb boosted
joshleeb boosted

Upgraded to Vivaldi 3.5, and I love what they've done with tab stacks. I also think the QR code thing is cool, but can't think of anything I'll ever actually use it for.

vivaldi.com/whats-new-in-vival

joshleeb boosted

I barely even remember what pre-quarantine was like

joshleeb boosted
joshleeb boosted
joshleeb boosted
joshleeb boosted
joshleeb boosted

GitHub may contain the largest collection of open source projects but this is a warning about monopolies again Reposting some projects could get you banned dctr.pro/2jz

joshleeb boosted

git changing master to main by default 

The argument against the word "master" is based on the unproven assumption that the term is loaded with racist connotations, and the mandate for change is based on the fact that the possibility of the assumption's truth is nonzero and that the side-effects of the change are small.

If that were true, I would be on board with it. However, it's plainly clear that the impact of git upstream switching the default branch name to "main" is going to be huge. Many scripts with the "master" hard-coded are going to break, scripts written on the valid assumption that the name "master" was an intrinsic, unchanging property of git.

Every programmer who works with repositories before and after the change are going to constantly mis-remember which is which, and we'll have to guess at the default when working with new or unfamiliar repositories.

This event is going to establish a new epoch in git. We should take that seriously.

Which means we have to confront the fact that the assumption (that inherent racism is present in the word "master" and is causing harm to those who have suffered under racism) may not actually be true. The claims do not hold up well under scrutiny. And, as far as I can tell, the cause is championed disproportionately by white people.

The moralized nature of the question puts an external pressure on decision makers on the git project, which is normally not present for other patches. They have to consider, if they review these changes negatively, will it affect their personal reputation? Their careers? If there's even a slight chance of this, is it better not to argue the matter at all, and rubber-stamp the patches? I don't think this change is being developed under the right conditions.

On the left, we have a tendency to rubber-stamp social causes with a lesser degree of scrutiny. I think that this is a testament to how much we value empathy and solidarity, but I don't think it's a healthy way to approach our problems. Software breakage has a social cost, too.

joshleeb boosted

Revised git master -> main thoughts 

Changing the branch name is something we *can* do. It's going to be very annoying and break a lot of things, but we *could* do it and it wouldn't be the end of the world.

I value software which is stable, and robust. I value making and keeping promises about how your software works to users. I value an objective, fact-driven engineering process. I don't think this issue is any of those things, so it's pretty obvious why it rubs me the wrong way.

I'm also still pretty sure that the campaign is largely led by white people who would presume to speak for their black peers, and I really fucking hate it when people presume to speak for someone else on moral grounds.

All things said, however, I do care about people's feelings, and I understand that there are legitimately some PoC who feel personally uncomfortable with the word. I have still never seen even one first-hand take from a PoC, but I've seen enough second-hand accounts to at least reduce confidence in my position.

So, I have been downgraded from "I am against this change" to "I am annoyed by this change". I call for a measured, unemotional discussion in the planning and execution of the change, careful not to presume that anyone is a racist for pushing for a more careful rollout. Give ample notice to affected parties and have a sense of empathy for those who are going to face problems resulting from the ensuing large-scale breakages.

joshleeb boosted
Show older
Fosstodon

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.