(or, less derisively)

Most of the time, the "need" for a specific version of a library, or even to have a library that is out-of-tree or out-of-distro, comes from less than correct programing practices, where a codebase relies on a depreciated library, a library that is excluded for some other very specific reason, or because a distro does something unusual with the way user data gets stored, and they want to hard-code locations (instead of abstracting, and then using the abstractions in their code.)

These are all programmer failings, and are not REAL reasons to use snap or flatpack.

If you have had to create some library, or create some special expansion to a library, and you need to ensure that this does not collide with a distro-provided one, then .appimage is the correct method.

Pretending that your application needs to download half a literal linux distro worth of dependencies just because you dont want to change your practices or refactor your codebase when the rest of the world has moved on, is arrogant, and stupid.

In the case of cannonicial pushing snaps, I would be apt to see them as 'just the messengers'.

However, the real source of the missive (*application creators*), are pushing the message out of an abundance of arrogance, that has been growing steadily over the years.

Namely, the following sins:

1) my time is infinitely more valuable than yours.

2) the assurances that my beautiful software runs exactly the way I intended it to, trumps any and all concerns you may have about the way your computer runs, DEAR USER.

3) if I cant have it my way, you can have the highway! (Nevermind the fact this is GPLed FOSS, and I legally DO NOT have authority to pull this stunt.)

snap and flatpack provide nothing .appimage does not provide, in a superior way.

They dont really have a legitimate reason to exist. Users clearly do not want them, and go out of their way to not use them. Instead of taking the hint, the app makers just doyble down on the arrogance coolaid, and the distro is happy to oblige.

The results are shittier package management, more convoluted containers that dont actually in practice provide any extra security but sure as fuck mess with normal retention of user settings or permissions, slow as fuck opetation, and a generally shit experience.

But hey! The app maker is 100% sure the exact font they want is used!

I mean the same thing others are saying.

This is a laughably dumb idea, with a very shysterly tech demo, clearly designed to fleece rich idiots.

PT Barnum's axiom applies.

'cheap, disposable microsat constellations'

No, not starlink type, I mean the 'a highschool student made this' kind.

Keeping those OFF the normal communication channel, AND being COTS, would be win-win.

No.

Bluetooth devices (the things being tracked) have a power output measured in single digit milliwatts. Usually around 5 to 7mW. This is why your airpods can last for HOURS AND HOURS on a 75mWH LIPO cell.

Now-- consider that you are usually belting out some 750 WATTS (over 1000 times more energy) using a microwave oven, and your reheated slice of pizza absorbs a significant amount of that, to get reheated--- You have a pretty good idea just how far that energy is gonna actually go through atmosphere.

A few meters. As intended.

Now, statistically, the signal NEVER actually falls to 0. It WILL however, be attenuated all to hell, and reconstructing it will be very difficult.

In order to collect enough energy from space, from a 5 to 7 mW signal on the ground, you are going to need ONE HELLACIOUSLY LARGE DISH up in space, just to even DETECT it.

They would need .... a mac truck sized satellite... for that.

Maybe bigger.

Now-- ASSUMING they mean Satellite to Satellite communication-- (Such as for steering, collision avoidance, time signal synchronization for phased array comm with the ground, etc...)

Sure-- I can see some obvious advantages to using a HIGHLY MODIFIED bluetooth stack, with a bog standard bluetooth transponder.

Namely, bluetooth transponders are made in bulk. They are inexpensive, AND already designed to consume low power. They are being used in a mostly evacuated environment, so attenuation (might.. Possibly. Hard to tell with LEO and ionizing radiation sources up there... Need to see data!!) could be reasonably low enough for effective communication at microwatt rates. The energy use budget of a satellite is pretty tight, so low energy is VERY important.

HOWEVER.

The protocol stack end of Bluetooth assumes distances measured in less than 10 meters. TimeToLive values, retransmit windows, and other variables of the protocol would need to be altered in order to function as the transport for such inter-satellite communications. Bog Standard bluetooth is not suitable. At the speeds satellites are zooming overhead at, the normal signalling radius of bluetooth is laughably small. By the time they managed to handshake, they would be smashing into each other.

Bluetooth is a protocol and frequency combination designed for low power, short distances.

2.4ghz attenuates very quickly through atmosphere, because it also happens to be the frequency that water resonates at. (which is ALSO why it is used for microwave ovens...)

Since it attenuates so quickly in atmosphere, it is perfect for low power, short distance communication of consumer devices, (which would absolutely BOOTSTOMP the spectrum if this was not the case.)

Trying to do this FROM SPACE is.... "So. You want to beam a signal, that is absorbed very intensely by water vapor-- THROUGH the atmosphere, and cloudcover, FROM SPACE?" type dumb.

Now, if they mean "Satellite to satellite" communication, FAR above the atmosphere-- sure-- that might actually work.

But satellite to surface, and vise versa? NO. NO SIR. THAT IS DUMB.

The issue, is that unless you want to fork out 50 to 100% more per month, your typical ISP will go batshit on you if they discover you hosting outbound port 80, or anything not in the far end of the port range (used by bespoke services and online games). Anything in the well known ports range, and they get a butthole puckered tighter than a republican's at a gay day parade.

Even then, they will throttle the fuck out of you if your service gets any kind of traffic at all.

Sometimes even on said overpriced "Business plans"

Not QUITE correct.

the issue, is that adding nitrogen to soil causes rapid CARBON depletion. This has been observed in agri-science literature since at least the 30s.

https://grist.org/climate-ener...

"Fully Automating" nitrogen addition, without a commensurate increase in carbon addition, will result in destruction of soils, not improvements.

Not that this little factoid would in any way dissuade the big agribiz folks for even an attosecond. They will just slap an "ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY! NOW CARBON NEUTRAL!" sticker on their new active algal fertilizer organism treatments, and people will eat it right up.

SIR, that is NOT ammonia YET-- That is a can of salty piss, sure, but that requires room temperatures and access to air to get ammonia!

No, as others have pointed out:

Get a Gotek drive emulator

And

A greaseweazle raw disk reader

Between the two, there is very very very little out there that cannot be read and supported in a solid state manner.

But, if they DISCLOSE those OH SO USEFUL vulnerabilities, then those will become USELESS!!

How will we keep AMERICA NUMBER ONE if we sabotage our own advantage in espionage!?

We KEEP ON INSISTING that we *NEED* to install backdoors in these software stacks AT THE FACTORY, but we KEEP GETTING TOLD NO!!

**ITS SO UNFAIR!!** /s

(GOP Talking Head)

But But But--
WHY SHOULD TAXPAYERS FOOT THE BILL FOR THIS!?

(looks in mirror-- the reflection screams back)

YOU CANT POSSIBLY EXPECT **JOB CREATORS** TO FOOT THIS EXPENSE! THINK OF THE ECONOMY!!
---
(The shadow on the wall chips in)

IT WAS CLEARLY IMMIGRANTS!
---
(Mirror reflection screams at the shadow)

WE CANT FIND QUALIFIED APPLICANTS!!
--
(Talking head)

Please! You're all giving me a ME-ACHE!
It's CLEARLY a case of LAZY WORKERS that JUST NEED TO WORK HARDER!
--

(All three in unison)

HURRAY! 20% CUT!!

They don't. Nobody is saying they do.

What they DO, is create a false sense of security that Timmy wont be able to access the porn, and that this means Mommy and Daddy can postpone talking to Timmy about such "Base" things as prostitution, how he should properly interact with women he is sexually interested in, the myriad reasons why he should not be actively seeking sex at such a young age, and other "Unthinkable!" concepts that parents need to start having, rather than repeating "But my BABY BOY is INNOCENT AND PURE!" ad infinitum.

But let's break these down.

1) Installing blocking software should be a last resort, really. This is the solution you should reach for when having meaningful conversations with your children FAIL. This is because the installation of this software sends a powerful, unspoken message to your child-- "I DO NOT TRUST YOU. I CONTROL YOU. I FORBID YOU ANY AUTONOMY."

Naturally, children seeking to grow in autonomy HATE that, and it will be the source of significant friction between you and your children.

If you are operating a business, or an institution that specializes in chidren (like a school), then sure-- It's in your best interests to protect yourself against the bad choices of your charges or patrons-- by all means, install the software, but PARENTS should be PARENTING first!!

2) Limiting screen time is good and healthy, and they SHOULD have been doing this since day one, in a consistent and healthy manner. Most parents dont do this, and only limit screen time PUNITIVELY. See my response about silent messages above.

3) VERY GOOD! This conversation should be open, and freeform, with nothing held back or barred. You might want to tailor your responses to things that are age appropriate, but do your best to foster this kind of dialog with your kids. You WANT them to come to you FIRST when they have questions, and you WANT to give them accurate and complete information, so that they CAN make good decisions.

4) You only get here when you have been properly parenting from the start. Expecting to get here after several years of coasting on the "But my kids are ANGELS!" mindset, when suddenly "THE DREADED PUBERTY" hits, is a non-sequitur.