It is rare to find someone so enthusiastic about such content, which in turn makes me want to check out the lectures.
Don't have time until the weekend, and I've seen some of the lower quality links here to videos, but I hear they aren't anywhere near the quality of the 720p rips mit had.
Does anyone have a reliable link to the higher quality clips? Torrent or otherwise?
Note that PulseAudio and Jack serve different purposes. Use whichever one supports your needs at that moment. PA happily gets out of Jack's way when you need to do some real-time audio processing.
Jack serves all purposes except one really, low power consumption and massive/varying buffers.
Having multiple devices and multiples streams is an awesome feature that brings Linux a little bit more feature parity with Windows.
We've had that with jack long before pulseaudio was even a thought
There were serious design issues with pulseaudio when first released, I'd seen some of the discussions between poettering (pulse) and davis (jack) it was pretty clear that poettering was winging it without anywhere near as much of a clue about the various design considerations of it all.
Overall the project screamed of "not invented here", there were far better ways to go about the goals without dragging the community through that shitfest.
Now it is certainly a lot better than what it was, but that is not to say that there aren't better ways to go about it, or that the pain it made everyone endure was worth it.
You do realize that not all problems are the same.. right?
And that to different problems, the different properties of different choices can have varying suitability to that task.
tl;dr. systemd is not some omniscient "I will solve every problem" solution. There will be times where it is less suitable than a different option. People who recognize this don't want to have to throw the baby out with the bath water (from dependencies in other software that aren't really necessary) when choosing to use a more suited option to their task.
The anti-systemd integration people seem to still want to be able to choose the best tool for the task, not be forced along a certain path without necessity. Systemd may have plenty of good uses, but to assume it is the best tool for the task no matter the task is just folley.
I think this whole thing would be a non-issue if you could swap out systemd with another system and still have everything function easily.
The pro systemd people seem to never realize that other people may have differing requirements than they do, and dismiss anyone who does as making "a technically inferior choice". I find it very presumptuous to assume that you know every detail of someone elses criteria for a task you've never heard of.
Lithium batteries have short lifespans unless you're only using a fraction of their capacity, high environmental toxicity, and are extremely expensive.
In regards to lifespan to cycling, you are thinking of lead acid batteries, lithium batteries can be deep cycled all the time. When your phone gets to a few percent battery life, it is being deep cycled pretty heavily.
There does need to be some kind of undervoltage protection, because if drained under 3v batteries can be damaged, however by that point well over 99% of all the energy the battery has has been expended. I'd hardly call that "light cycling".
Modern quality lithiums can be deep cycled somewhere between 500-1000 times depending. A 2-3 year life full cycling once a day isn't too shabby at all.
In regards to the usage of the label social justice warrior
It is used as a short hand for people who have a particular culture, generally very well meaning, nice people, who fail to see how their solutions to perceived "problems" may themselves cause differing problems for people, and that other peoples heirarchy of priorities may not necessarily be in a similar order to their own.
Common but not necessary beliefs/traits of SJWS can include. Blaming the 'patriarchy' for all of the worlds ills. Belief in 'rape culture'. The redefining of words in such a way that the same behaviour turned in the other direction does not qualify "only white people can be racist because only they have systemic power" etc.
Individual social justice warriors may believe whatever they like, there are only trends and common themes, common themes and tactics that lead to a common label.
it's that the name you (collectively) chose sounds like it came out of a paranoid conspiracy.
The name fits the behaviour commonly seen. They are for what they perceive to be social justice. They go about it in a way that is potentially/often very hostile to others interests, and are quite devout in their beliefs. They fight for what they believe in, thus the "warriors".
bigotry ËbÉgÉ(TM)tri/ noun intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself
If you are intolerant of his differing views, you fit the bill if a bigot.
This is okay, there are plenty of views out there that people don't tolerate. I sure as hell wouldn't tolerate someone who believes it is perfectly alright to come up and punch me in the face unprovoked and acts on that belief.
The lesson to be learnt here, is that it is probably silly to be tolerant of absolutely everything and that calling someone a bigot in the process of being intolerant of someone else's differing views is a silly thing to do. The social justice crowd just needs to drop it, as a step of winding back the hypocrisy.
Even if you find a cause, or several causes for the imbalance that does not necessarily mean that they are problems.
Its changing the situation to favour the preferences of a group, depending on the situation being changed and what measures are to be taken some people may consider it worth it, but others may not.
the intelligent person wonders why
I have no problem with this, it's always helpful to try to figure out how something came to be.
and tries to correct the problem.
This can be problematic. We can try to figure out what influences the male muscovy duck to hold the female down and force copulation for example, but why is it a "problem"? and why should it be "fixed"?
Since when is people choosing what they want a "problem" that deserves "fixing" with indue influence?
Science is a tool used to try to figure out how things are, it doesn't judge them as morally good or bad.
Wikimedia Foundation efforts to address this "gender gap" have so far remained fruitless.
Why must everything be gender balanced? Why not let women do what they want instead of trying to force them in to places that aren't necessarily their thing?
If women are actors instead of objects, they can make their own damn choices and do what they want to do without requiring others to try to sweeten the deal specifically for them to try to entice them.
I agree with your post, I brought it up mainly because someone said that we know something with certainty, my post was to remind people that we don't really know anything 100% and to always leave room for doubt, nothing more.
I see people claiming that something is without a doubt 100% certain and truth. Which is why I linked that speech.
there are plenty of scientists out there who know the limitations of what they know, and there are a few who are more certain than they should be. When measures are proposed from theories where the measures are likely to destroy some people's livelihoods,the amount of certainty people want can differ. Those who aren't likely to be adversely affected by the measures are the most likely to want to push forward. Those that will be adversely affected, want to be truly sure it is worth it.
wanting to protect the environment from people can be a nice goal, but people need resources. It doesn't matter if we become 30% more energy efficient across the board when the population doubles.
There are lots of things we know with certainty.
i think richard feynman put it best.
The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.
Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.
Were the dissenting opinions from within the organisation though? I remember a piece written by one of the gay employees that said while the revelation of his donation was disappointing that he had always been reasonable and treated them no differently than anyone else.
from a bystanders point of view, it looked like just a lot of hate directed towards him, with no end in sight until there was some form of admission that he was an evil evil person.
The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh
