The self-contained electron app works better for most people I think.

Ah yes, the Keir Starmer school of winning elections.

I believe it’s 1% for access to the “entire post-open ecosystem”, rather than 1% per project which would be unreasonable. So you could use one or thousands of projects under the Post-open banner, but still pay 1%.

It will take years to develop the post-open ecosystem to be something worth spending that much on.

Also chromosome tests aren’t a foolproof indication of sex anyway. People can have one set or another while still having the properties associated with the other sex, so it doesn’t really work as a definitive measure. The question is reasonable until you examine it and it’s motives.

The question subtly suggests that if she had a Y chromosome then she has some biological advantage and therefore doesn’t deserve the medal she earned. Does she actually have an advantage from the Y chromosome? Are we going to ensure through DNA testing that all competitors are going to be exactly equal by genetics? If so, we’re going to have 8 clones of Usain Bolt competing for the 100m sprint. Michael Phelps arguably had a biological advantage by having hyper flexible shoulders, are we disqualifying those biological advantages? Of course not, so what do they actually mean when asking those questions about the chromosome? They don’t have meaningful answers to the questions I raise, they just want to add fuel to the fires of the culture war for their own political means.

This really got me, thank you!

I for one am frequently so close to my very good friends that my nose is pressed against theirs, my eyes only able to see theirs, the world not existing around us, while discussing in a platonic way how their day is going.

That works until all* games come with root level anti cheat. It was the same with micro transactions which people still defend despite being utter shit.

• Realistically this will never be 100% but it will be enough of the mass market AAA games like CoD etc to mean that if you functionally want to play a game made in the last X number of years you will need to accept this or stop playing games altogether. I think most people will continue to play games. Most people will continue to install root level anti cheat, knowingly or otherwise, and all of them will get fucked by an exploit of that software. They may never even know about it.

Helldivers 2 does the same thing. If this continues it will be extremely advisable to move any non-gaming use-cases to a different computer as you have no idea what the “anti-cheat” is doing with that level of authority over your computer.

Kind of surprised this is getting so much criticism. It’s a thought experiment, not a call for a fundamental change to all PC UX. My only real argument against the idea is that it’s framed as being “for efficiency”. If you want efficiency above all else you would just go full command line.

How’s the battery life? I was considering one recently but saw some claim that the battery would only last 4-6 hours and that put me off.

Literally just bought what I believe to be last generation’s X13 on ebay for half the price of the new one. It’s been great so far, especially with the power efficiency of Ryzen CPUs. My one complaint is the soldered RAM, which judging by the new lineup is getting phased out, thankfully.

My specific point here was about how this friend doesn’t trust the results AND still goes to Google/others to verify, so he’s effectively doubled his workload for every search.

I’ve had this argument with friends a lot recently.

Them: it’s so cool that I can just ask chatgpt to summarise something and I can get a concise answer rather than googling a lot for the same thing.

Me: But it gets things wrong all the time.

Them: Oh I know so I Google it anyway.

Doesn’t make sense to me.

I’ve been programming for too long, my brain just autocorrected the typo so initially didn’t get the joke…

Yeah then you start debating the merits of hate crime as a concept and I am not even slightly equipped to deal with that!

I had similar queries around “biological sex” vs gender a while ago and my understanding now is that biological sex is surprisingly hard to define. You can’t go by genitalia because sometimes a person creates the “wrong” ones. You can’t go by chromosomes because again, sometimes they’re different. And you can’t go by other physical traits (Adams apple for example) because again sometimes it’s there, sometimes it’s not, completely unrelated to sex. You can sort of go by hormones but not really (just look at professional sport) so it’s all a bit of a mess. It’s way easier for me to just accept there’s a spectrum and move on, because to me it’s way harder to actually define where the line is than to just dismiss the line entirely.

Without the context of your understanding of the debate as you’ve outlined here we can only guess what you meant by “the debate” in your previous comment so thanks for taking the time to describe it. I absolutely agree that there needs be great care around the legitimacy of when someone declaring their gender should be taken seriously or not in some limited and extreme circumstances (prisons spring to mind). I think your characterisation of the terf argument if you speak to normal people is about accurate from my limited experience. The media and some outspoken terfs like JK are on the more extreme side of that where they say that it is already “too easy” to legitimately change their gender. Which is where I fundamentally disagree with them since I know the hoops some of my friends have had to jump through to even get the smallest amount of help from health providers.

(I’m using “legitimate” above as a sort of catch all for legal or what the person genuinely feels. I don’t think legal and legitimate are the same thing in this context, hence the distinction.)

In the nicest possible way, what do you mean by “both sides” in this context? One side says that trans people either don’t or shouldn’t exist and the other side says they should exist. I know that may sound extreme or combative but that’s fundamentally “the debate” so I genuinely want to understand how you reached this “both sides have merit” stance that some people close to me also take but I’ve never understood.

You do you. People generally discourage rebase because it rewrites history but that’s what you’re doing anyway. You can achieve the same result with revase --interactive and following the instructions to squash all your in progress commits into a single commit. That way you don’t have to figure out how many commits between your in progress and dev(for your reset command) as the rebase will handle it for you.

I’ve only used helm and hadn’t considered kustomize as an equivalent, what about kustomize makes it bette in your opinion?

Either works