I mean, you’re free to continue using your crescent wrench as a hammer if you find it drives nails for you decently well and you are comfortable using it that way. But it was neither designed with that purpose in mind, nor does anyone expect you to use it that way, so no one will be writing how-to guides on it.

I just got home from a 12 hour day of work. This has been my entire week.

Help.

1. Decide your budget
2. Go to logicalincrements.com
3. Find the tier that matches your budget
4. Buy that
5. Enjoy your PC

Once you get a feel for building and owning, then you can start making more informed choices about what you really need.

it’d be poor style to put more than one statement on a line

Unlike Python, most languages do not endorse a specific concept of style. You’re free to dabble in all the bad style choices you like, on the off chance that once in a blue moon they prove to be situationally useful.

I just click the litte nag icon in my taskbar whenever I notice it.

Since I’m on Debian Testing that is often daily. But it varies. If I don’t look at that part of my screen that day, w/e.

I thought I turned on auto update so it would just do it on its own. But it didn’t work for whatever reason. Sigh… Linux moment. There is an answer, surely, but the cost of debugging it outweighs my patience. Typing in my password an extra once(ish) a day is fine, I guess.

Edit: Just realized this is the Arch community. D’oh.

The only difference between a novice and a professional is that a professional checks what they are copying to understand it first before allowing it into their codebase.

Novices copy code to avoid having to understand it. Professionals copy code to avoid reinventing the wheel.

I replied to that thread.

OP was claiming to be working on a static HTML-serving search engine. They suggested that because it’s just HTML and CSS, and that interested parties can use Inspect Element to read the network requests, that it constituted “open source”.

Commenters then got on his case about not open sourcing the server backend. OP defended that choice saying they didn’t want a competitor taking their code and building a company off of it that would “drive [them] out of business”. Uh-huh. So, proprietary software, then. Bye.

My thoughts exactly when reading this.

I believe people when they claim to develop free software. Often because it’s software the dev wants for themselves anyway and they’ve merely elected to share it rather than sell it. The only major cost is time to develop, which is “paid” for by the creation of the product itself.

You (OP) are proposing a service. Services have ongoing fees to run and maintain, and the value they create goes to your users, not you. These are by definition cost centers. You will need a stable source of funding to run this. That does not in any way mix with “free”. Not unless you’re some gajillionaire who pivoted to philanthropy after a life of robber baroning, or you’re relying on a fickle stream of donations and grants.

You indicate in other comments you will not open the source of your backend because you don’t want it scooped from you and stealing your future revenue. That’s fine, but what revenue? I thought this was free? What’s your business model?

It sounds like what you want to do here is have a free tier anyone can use, supported by a paid tier that offers extended features. That’s fine, I guess. But if you want to “compete with DuckDuckGo”, you are going to need to generate enough revenue to support the volume of freeloaders that DDG does. If your paid tier base doesn’t cover the bill, you will need to start finding new and exciting ways to passively monetize those non-revenue-generating users. That usually means one or more of taking features away and putting them behind the paywall to drive more subscriptions, increasingly invasive ads on the platform, or data-harvesting dark patterns.

Essentially what I’m saying here is, as-proposed, the eventual failure and/or enshittification of your service seems inevitable. Which makes it no better than DDG long term.

It is, at any rate, a very intriguing project.

mean: <2 eyes

median: 2 eyes

mode: 2 eyes

Seeing “please” in the script for some commands but not all of them is giving me INTERCAL flashbacks.

They mutually imply one another.

If something was private, but not secure, well, that implies there are ways to breach the privacy, which isn’t very private at all.

If it’s secure, but not private, that implies it’s readable by someone other than the consenting conversational parties, which makes it insecure.

Do you have a minute to talk about our lord and savior Hydrus?

Nvidia and AMD broadly cover the same use cases. Nvidia cards are not intrinsically better to my knowledge, Nvidia simply offers ultra high-performance cards that AMD doesn’t.

If you just need nonspecific games to run decently, a card from either brand will do it. If you need to run the most intensive games there are on unbelievable settings, that’s when Nvidia should be edging out.

ML dabbling may complicate things. Many (most?) tools are written for CUDA, which is a proprietary Nvidia technology. I think AMD offers a counterpart but I do not have details. You will need to do more research on this.

I am going to continue to tell people “just get an AMD card”, but only if they have indicated to me that they are shopping for new parts and haven’t committed to any yet.

Giving that advice to someone who already has an Nvidia card is just as useless as those StackOverflow answers that suggest you dump your whole project architecture and stuff some big dumb library into your build to solve a simple problem.

Tab hoarding is just poor man’s bookmarks.

Oh wait, you’re on Gelbooru. Nevermind, I get it.

People tend to contribute to the projects they already have the skills for.

People also tend to pick up new skills when they have a driving incentive to do so, like supporting a project they have a vested interest in seeing improved.

You need to learn the language’s structures

Most of the bread and butter ones have analogues in other languages you should readily understand. More language-unique structures are rare; the more niche they are, the lower the odds your ability to contribute in a meaningful way hinges on your understanding of them.

you need to learn how the compiler works

You really don’t, though? Modern compilers, particularly the Rust compiler, are designed to abstract away as much of the details of compilation as possible. If the project really does need to tickle the compiler a certain way to get it to build, it will almost certainly have a buildscript and/or a readme.

you need to learn the libraries that the FOSS project is using

This is true regardless of the language in use. I’m not sure why you brought it up.

you need to learn the security pitfalls for the language

I would imagine most of these language-specific security footguns are either A) so specific that you will never hit the conditions where they apply, B) are so blazingly obvious that code review will illuminate what you did wrong and you can learn how to fix it, or C) so obscure that even the project owner doesn’t understand them, so you’d be at minimum matching the rest of the codebase quality.

Mind, I am not insinuating that one can simply bang out a whole new submodule of a project in an unfamiliar language with minimal learning time. Large contributions to large projects can be hard to make even when you’re a veteran of the language in use, as the complexity of the project in and of itself can be its own massive barrier. But not every contribution needs to be big. And for most contributions, I don’t believe the language is the most significant barrier to entry. It’s a barrier, sure. But not the biggest one.

I’d wager it’s not having a significant impact on the volume of contributions to Lemmy in particular.

No one said it was shameful?

It’s a huge win, but not the kind of win people reading the statistic with no context (like me) probably thought.

I’m sure a lot of us looked at “15 percent of desktop PCs in India run Linux” and, regardless of whether it was hasty and irresponsible for us to do so, extrapolated that to, “15 percent of Indian PC users are personally selecting Linux and normalizing its paradigms”.

But in reality, it sounds more like “15 percent of Indian PC users use Linux to launch Google Chrome”. Which is impressive, but not the specific kind of impressive we wanted.

It feels a bit like how I imagine, say, a song artist feels when they pour their heart and soul into a piece of music, it gets modest to no traction for a while, and then years later a 20 second loop becomes the backing track for a massive Tiktok meme, and almost zero of that attention trickles back to their other work.

these sliders are very thin, but not thin enough. neither of my laptops close correctly with one equipped. :(

Ah well. Masking tape suffices.

Stateless functions still deal with state, they just don’t hold onto it. Without state to mutate, a so-called stateless function doesn’t do anything.

In declarative languages, your state is the sum of everything you’ve declared. You don’t query results out of thin air. Computational results logically conclude from everything you set up.

HTML ““has state””, as in it has a DOM, but it doesn’t do anything with it. You don’t mutate the DOM after it’s built, or query the DOM to compute results that weren’t trivially evident from the state you declared.

You can do those things with JavaScript. But all that proves is JavaScript is a programming language, and HTML is just a data format it can interact with.