Because most humans are functional enough to understand the concepts of metaphor and allusion.
No rational person would read this headline and assume that some cosmic force prevents you from coding Dwarf Fortress unless you have a math PhD. Therefore the most reasonable conclusion is that the creator of Dwarf Fortress does have a math PhD, and that it provided significant transferrable skills. That this is not what the headline says on a literal reading does not prevent a reader even with zero familiarity on the topic from correctly understanding it.
Because the creator himself specifically addressed the headline in the article. So either you think you know better than the creator, or just saw the headline and knee-jerk wrote a comment without reading the article contents.
Saying "You don't need a PhD you just need to believe in yourself", or whatever, is fine - but it's not related to the article, so gets down votes.
The headline is part of the article. You could say “so you think you know better than the author” by quoting the body or “so you think you know better than the subject” by quoting the headline. Both are quoting the article to react to other parts of the article. The fact that the single most salient and most read part of the article sucks is plenty worthy of criticism.
Tesla is responsible for the consequences of their actions. If their cars exploded when hitting potholes, and the government didn't stop them, Tesla is still responsible.
And Gemini being its own stand-alone thing that is different from everything is a serious hindrance for people to try it.
I've read Drew's stuff for a while and even wanted to test out Gemini out of interest, but it is really annoying/frustrating to use in my experience. And that is even before you get to the fact that there is nearly nothing there and/or it is nearly impossible. to find.
According to some other blogs posted here (links are are elsewhere in this thread) the entire point of Gemini is that it's useless and annoying to use, so useless and annoying that it drives out any advertisers or businesses that would be potentially interested to use it.
I understand the designer's reasons to dislike online advertising but the train of logic here seems to be "internet businesses like to make things that are convenient, so let's make something which is intentionally not convenient at all" which in my opinion is a really convoluted and nonsensical way to reach the intended goal. This one is a swing and a miss for me. I hope the designer keeps trying and comes up with something that is actually useful eventually.
Internet business got trapped in advertising due to the whole classic phenomenon of "bad money chases out good money". I.e. a similar example lies in businesses funded by VC runways for several years; even though those businesses may not be "actually profitable", because they're getting fake profits (VC money) for several years, they're able to compete against "organically funded" businesses that are actually earning real profits and are naturally solvent. More importantly though - they're often able to compete so well that they drive those other companies out of business. It leads to a churn scenario where, since the only businesses left are VC-funded, everything dies/gets-acquired within a 3-5 year time window (except the FAANG giants doing the acquiring).
Advertising did a really similar job.
It completely destroyed most web businesses trying to get their customers to "actually pay" in some form or another, and ... basically the only survivors have been a few giant media conglomerates (with their own ad divisions), and the FAANG companies (actually selling the ads). Everybody else is sharecropping on google/facebook's proverbial plantation, and like all similar historical situations of rentiership, the vast, vast majority of them have gone out of business and been acquired by the proverbial landlord (this is why, you know, something like 2/3 of the newspapers in the USA have gone out of business in the last few decades). What's even worse with the newspapers is that in many cases they weren't even acquired; they were just shuttered completely.
(The only other major survivor has been people selling actual physical products over the web.)
--
There are thousands of articles about why local journalism going out of business (and not getting replaced by anything, typically) is bad, and I'll leave googling those as an exercise for the reader.
Your assessment isn't wrong, but the proposed solution here is to not support any business at all, which is just as bad. Anything that is plans to supplant this and doesn't immediately approach the problem of "how are we going to pay the journalists?" is going to fail.
People here won't like this, but the only realistic alternative to the advertising model where the vendor subsidizes the content, is a DRM model where the user pays to unlock the content.
I think useless and annoying are the wrong words here. It’s elegant in that efforts to extend it beyond its purpose are self defeating. It’s a Chinese finger trap for those who would attempt to embrace and extend for adtech and corp subversion.
That's not really true though, myself or anyone else could fork Gemini right now and add a lot of "unwanted" features to it. The only reason nobody will follow through on that is because everyone who cares about those features is already using the web and has no reason to add them to Gemini. In that sense Gemini has skipped past the "embrace and extend" and moved itself right to "extinguish", which actually seems to be its central design.
Not just that. Whoever uses Gemini already is likely trying to escape those unwanted features, so they have no incentive to use something that adds them in.
I'm all for making it as difficult as possible for the adtech people to get their claws into it, but, at least IMO, this is way over the line into making things worse for end users. Most sites shouldn't be multimedia extravaganza, but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for nicely designed websites.
Honestly, just the lacking of inline links makes this stuff more annoying than anything.
I don't use Tailscale because I don't trust their key distribution, and this open source project would solve that, but it might undermine Tailscale's sustainability.
This would be a shame because Tailscale is working well with the open source community: open source clients, working well with distros, working well with Linux DNS stack, supporting a more P2P secure Internet, and documenting their well through it.
You buy a Tailscale contract for the same reason you buy a Red Hat contract. If something goes wrong, and you need to fix it fast, their experts will work on that, not yourself.
Also, Tailscale offers OAuth through large corporate providers; I'm not sure Headscale is going to support that. (Actually, this is why I don't use Tailscale for my private network: I don't want to depend on an external OAuth provider.)
Companies looking into this will pay Tailscale.com service. You really need commercial support if you plan a large enterprise deployment. Tailscale even now offers a self-hosted version of their service - for those with concerns about using the public SaaS.
You can possibly buy a subscription but tell the devs that you're using headscale. If enough people do this they might make a host-your-own version like bitwarden.
I agree - there's always a danger with companies that try and have a lot of their product as OS that someone will come along with an OS product that plugs the gap in the only place they're trying to make a profit!
I think because in this case they enforce that by hosting the control plane themselves, it doesn't really matter. I wouldn't use something I can't self-host anyway, not something as security-sensitive as a VPN.
So many users will not have even considered the paid version anyway, and their participation will give tailscale a higher marketshare and thus more viability.
I had to switch to upstream GNOME on Arch to realize that my misconceptions about GNOME are largely from lackluster integration in the distros and bad theming from the apps.
I can stick out my neck to recommend upstream GNOME to any coming from macOS or perhaps even Windows. All default apps work great, often better than 3rd party alternatives. Where as in other DE's, I often had to replace default apps including even file manager!
So if preventing theming can preserve this usability, I'm all in for it.
I have exactly the same experience. Actually switched from Ubuntu to Arch to have a vanilla Gnome 40.
Maybe we should just admit that this is the Gnome Way. If customization is super important for you, maybe KDE, .. are the better options. There's a choice. =)
I did exactly the same ~4mo ago, vanilla Gnome on Arch is blazing fast compared to the Ubuntu one...hell the whole system is, and the archinstaller is great! Perfect KISS i would say, if one need's more then do it the "old" way.
However Gnome40 was just installed to test it, since i use i3 normally, i cant stand the Windows shuffling anymore, it makes me just angry to sort the space on my screen, and i don't even use the tilling thing "correctly" just tabs, virtual desktops and sometimes a floating window.
Gnome is so little visible in my workflow I don't care what it looks like. It's the most out of my way and always there for me Desktop I've seen so far.
I love nitter! That redirect is great, I wasn't aware of that; thanks.
I still want Twitter to fix their trending topics "links" though because if their presumably smart engineers can break things like that then others will follow suit and we'll all suffer as a result. I may be tilting at windmills but I can't help myself.
It can only be called a coup if it's successful in actually changing the government. If it's not, you can argue endlessly (as in the Jan. 6 case) if it qualifies as an "attempted coup" (which implies that it had a remote chance of succeeding).
> if it qualifies as an "attempted coup" (which implies that it had a remote chance of succeeding
No, an "attempted coup" means an attempt at a coup d'état. Probability of success doesn't matter for an attempt to be classified as an attempt, only intentions.
Yes, I think a coup implies that it was perpetrated by people already in government, such as the military, or an opposition party. A riot by the populace that aims to violently remove or influence the government is more properly called an insurrection, a la the French Revolution.
People already part of the government could be involved in triggering an insurrection, such as with the Jacobins involved in the Insurrection of 1792, but it still counts as an insurrection and not a coup because it is carried out by the population, not by forces working for the government, such as assassins or the military.
> Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.
> "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."
The recent events that Glenn Greenwald has reported on has accelerated my move off platforms that have censored, or that can censor.
I won't be able to avoid all of them all of the time, but I can make the alternatives my default.
Federated over centralised. Open over closed. Public domain over ToS.