• 0 Posts
  • 19 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle





  • You’re right. There are multiple definitions of the word stable, and “unchanging” is a valid one of them.

    It’s just that every where else I’ve seen it in computing, it refers to a build of something being not-crashy enough to actually ship. “Can’t be knocked over” sort of stability. And everyone I’ve ever talked to outside of Lemmy has assumed that was what “stable” meant to Debian. but it doesn’t. It just means “versions won’t change so you won’t have version compatibility issues, but you’ll also be left with several month to year old software that wasn’t even up to date when this version released, but at least you don’t have to think about the compatibility issues!”


  • Debian aims for rock solid stability

    To be clear, Debian “stability” refers to “unchanging packages”, not “doesn’t crash.” Debian would rather ship a known bug for a year than update the package if it’s not explicitly a security bug (and then only certain packages).

    So if you have a crash in Debian, you will always have that crash until the next version of debian a year or so from now. That’s not what I’d consider “stable” but rather “consistent”


  • Its enough for me too. But not everyone has the same use case and environment. I definitely see why someone would want this.

    What I disagree with is that it needs to communicate to the internet to do this. It adds delay and potential for outage if your internet is out. But they do this so they can force you to get their app and milk you for extra data to sell. Internet capable smart devices are to harvest data not grant features. Features could be done better by ZigBee and a hub, but that doesnt grant the device a way to phone home





  • bisby@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlEverytime
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    9 months ago

    When you’re a trans teen from OK getting beaten to death by classmates, the culture war feels a lot more urgent to focus on in the moment. Survival isn’t something you can be passive about.

    Some people partake in the culture war as part of manipulation by the rich… Some people are forced into it by defending themselves from the first group. And some people are compelled into it to protect the second group.

    While you’re not wrong about how we got here, it feels like it would be too easy for one side of the culture war to spin this as “Ignore my bigotry, Wall St is the real enemy!”


  • bisby@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlEverytime
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    9 months ago

    He saw himself having an epiphany about privilege in general, so he had to swerve and add race into the mix so he could say a true (albeit unrelated) thing and miss the point.

    It’s like when anti BLM people say “All lives matter” … Sure, all lives DO matter, but they’re intentionally missing the point, so they don’t have to acknowledge that police brutality disproportionately affects black lives.

    Saying unrelated “true” things to undermine the original statement is a bit telling about intentions.


  • bisby@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mlEverytime
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    My dad once told me my mom didnt feel safe walking alone at night in the neighborhood and asked if I felt the same. I said I didnt feel any concerns, but added the caveat that Im not a small woman, and Im a large man.

    He paused for a minute, nodded and said “that makes sense.” Then after another few seconds goes “That’s not white privilege.”



  • Yes. And that is the point of ads. And we can agree that it’s not great to manipulate consumers.

    but “you can never save by buying something. I save if I don’t buy” is NOT identifying the presupposition, and therefore not rejecting the presupposition. It’s just stating that the original statement has a logical flaw. Which it doesn’t have any logical flaws if you accept that language has subtext.

    “I dislike that the implication is that you can only compare to buying at full price, when there are other options like not buying (which saves 100% vs full price)” identifies the presupposition and rejects it.



  • You’re playing a semantics game though. The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing. Society has decided that “save 77%” is a valid shortening of “save 77% compared to buying at full price” because that is the most logical comparison to make. Yes. “Save 77% compared to not buying the item” makes no sense, but that is clearly not what is being implied here. Implying and inferring things is a normal part of human communication, and refusing to accept the implications doesn’t make you clever.

    That said, I agree that “pay 77% less to not even actually own the product that we will eventually lose the license to” is dumb.