In a world where in some places you are required to be jabbed every 3 months while simultaneously jabbed people also end up in hospitals and graves, although at lesser rate than unjabbed I give you that, do you really not understand the "anything-but-the-vaccine crowd"? The goal should be world with controlled covid without totalitarian overreaching state control which no government will ever give up, just like after 9/11. Without treatments supplementing vaccines we will have neither as we can see currently throughout the world with ever shortening covid pass expiration and more preposterous limitations for the unjabbed.

Yay, new app! And on Windows the Spotify app still doesn't work on IPv6 network...

So the CEO made a video explaining that this was just a stunt to increase ICO scam awareness, and they are offering ICO advisory now (http://anditsg.one/)... seriously you couldn't make this s**t up!

Thanks to Project Treble the Android fragmentation problem is solved. People already demonstrated this by running generic Android OS images on top of even some obscure phone models, which actually comply with Treble. Treble compliance is mandatory for any device with Oreo and upwards. What treble is - basically complete separation of OS and HAL. It is now possible to update Android regardless of the oem as long as bootloader is not permalocked.

Ok sorry, let me rephrase what I meant then: freedom of my fist ends where your nose begins. I thought it was pretty clear that proponents of freedom and personal sovereignty specifically don't want to trespass on freedom of other's. In this case person injecting himself with random stuff does no harm to others and as long as he poses no danger he should be free to do so.

when we say "freedom" we don't mean "freedom to", we mean freedom FROM. These biohackers should be free from government using force to prevent them from experimenting on their own bodies. What next, outlaw and penalize supplements and diets because government knows best?

Well, first - how does solving "wealth inequality" solve the problem of bad health care system? Given that confiscating all wealth of the so called "one percenters" would not fuel completely free healthcare for long enough for this move to be actually viable. Second - maybe I am wrong on that one, if so then please correct - as far as I know people in the US are not left out to die on the streets once they get sick like they do in some impoverished regions of Africa. They might end up with huge debt instead. While I agree this is a very shitty system where you might be in debt for life after hospitalization, this is far from "corpses on the streets" scenario. Third - in general, in rich countries (which also happen to be countries with fairly big wealth inequality) you have charities, which could help people who did hit the rock bottom. One example would be pharma companies giving away drugs almost for free to people who cannot afford health insurance (like Shkreli's company did with the toxoplasmosis drug for example).

Again, compared to how it was all around the world 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago, it's still pretty great (in comparison). Even in the US (which as you mentioned is kind of another story from the rest of civilized world) you can get food stamps and shelter. It's easy to see flaws of any system/country while being oblivious to the whole historical context, which seems to be common problem with US left wing people. Getting decent education for your kids is not something you are or should be entitled to, it's something you ought work towards before you actually decide having offspring is a good idea for you.

How come there is such focus on wealth inequality in the western world, where poverty is practically eliminated? And by poverty I mean REAL poverty, the one which can still be found in places in Africa, South America and Asia. Why does it matter to westerners for wealth to be equal, isn't that the point that there is some wealth inequality to give incentive to people for growth? And I'm not writing as USA white citizen, I am an Eastern European living and working in eastern Europe and I acknowledge that it was never before as good as it is right now. Yet, in my country the wealth inequality is way bigger right now than it was under the Big Brother time. What's the point of using wealth inequality as any sort of metric for prosperity of people?

100% this! Ever since I started earning money all my games are 100% legal on platforms like Steam, GoG or Origin, where I can actually buy these games online. However, with movies/tv shows for some reason it's completely backwards. To watch Game of Thrones legally in my country I'd have to sign with cable provider which has HBO Go with it. There is no option to buy or even rent the show or single episodes online without the cable. If they don't want my money then they won't be getting it - simple as that! Same with movies. Not everyone is fond of cinemas, there's almost always bunch of loud obnoxious idiots who can ruin the movie for you. Yet, there is no way to watch the movie outside of the cinema early enough without everpresent spoilers potentially ruining the movie. Then there's this bullshit with half an hour of trailers and commercials (I already paid for the movie - don't waste my time!). I would be ok with 30 minutes of trailers if they weren't crap and didn't spoil plot twists or whole movies like they do lately...

I already despise this crap on modern websites and now they want this pushed to handheld UI?!

There seem to be many crazy theories around, like the string theory - which on paper (the math) look plausible, yet the theory predicts nothing. I think the genius of Einstein's theory is that it is able to predict stuff that we're just able to grasp in the XXI century. Now when I think about the simulation theory, what would it predict? Quantized stuff at the lowest scale, finite amount of "stuff". This pretty much matches well established predictions that a) in QM world stuff is quantized and b) total amount of particles in the universe is finite. The logical fallacy people make when arguing against the simulation theory is as follows: "but all the software bugz! Where are they?! Nothing breaks/glitches randomly hence simulation theory is false!". I think the answer to this is pretty much basic - the simulation is simulating only the finite particles quantum world, and all the remaining stuff (the "macro" world) is just a by-product of it which just happens to be, because the simulation was going for long enough. On the lowest level QM world would be very simple to simulate without bugs due to its probabilistic nature. The simulation defines some initial conditions ("big bang"), some constants/limits (speed of light or more precisely speed of causality, dark energy) and then you just have to let it run. If stuff is simulated only on the relatively simple Quantum scale (simple because it has built-in randomness) you don't have to worry about "software glitches" like the ones we have in simulations that we run ourselves. Also, it seems that the EM drive is exploiting one hell of a glitch in this case, sorry - had to!

Where I work at we have both password rules AND mandatory password change every month... MONTH! Who the hell comes up with these stupid arbitrary ideas about security?

Ok, let's see these advantages.

I get it, you don't like all this changing history, rebasing, amending, reflog stuff. But for most basic git operation you need to know as many commands as for SVN. And with git you get the benefit of all the magic you can do on top of that. It's almost like saying that you prefer DOS to anything else because it's simpler - less commands, no pesky multitasking and you can do with it everything YOU need to.

You conveniently ignore the fact that rebase is used almost exclusively in local branches and never on git upstream/production mirrors. The main assumption made by git is that your local history doesn't matter (why should it?). The only thing that matters is the history everyone else is using/depending on. To keep this history clean you use this evil rebase thing to apply your patches to production/upstream branch without polluting the git log with unnecessary noise (I will mention later why this matters for upstream repository even though rebase is not used there). This way git user checks that patches are applied cleanly and if not then fix conflicts. Basically rewriting commits is very useful for your local work and when git "messes them up" it's actually you messing them up because you made a mistake during rebase. I use rebase a lot to squash commits from my local work, to edit commit messages or make any changes to the patch set if something was found by testers. With SVN you don't have this luxury at all. I don't see how this is any advantage for SVN.

I use git in my work, I also had to use SVN in few projects. I *never* encountered any actual situation where git hashes instead of revision numbers were a problem. Any git user knows how to use the git hash properly (i.e. extract meaningful data from it). There is also command in one of replies to you here which can convert git hashes to revision numbers, but I never encountered situation where this was actually needed by anyone, anywhere. I think the sheer inconvenience and all the drawbacks of SVN are not worth the pretty little nice looking revision numbers in the revision log.

It's actually solving (by accident) a very existing problem where you have to contact SVN server every time you want to see the commit log, create patch from commit or see what the commit actually did to files. Ever worked in a project where SVN was on some slow-ass customer server? I did, and it would be so much less painful with git.

And how is that a problem? Why is relying on some magic revision control tool metadata to store such information any better? If you use -x flag for your cherry-pick you basically have all the information you need to find the original commit. Git commit --amend and you can add any additional information you like so it's even more clear. Hell, you can do that later to any commit in your huge patch set using git rebase -i.

You silently ignore the fact that with SVN you have to do this whole tree copy on the svn server to create a branch, which again is a huge PITA if you are dealing with slow SVN server connection. With git creating a branch on which you can start working right now takes exactly as much as it takes to type "git checkout -b ". Other than that, determining to which branch a change was commited - how is that a problem with git? You can easily get information to git about the commit at which the tree was branched. If you enforce using git cherry-pick you can easily track if branch in question has any specific change after branching.

How are these any meaningful information at all (who created a branch, and when)? Hell, with git you get information in the commit message which branch changes were merged from (look at Linux kernel git log for example). Thanks to git rebase you are spared all the stuff the branch was doing and you get only the meaningful information without the noise - i.e. which branch the change in upstream was merged from.

Your local branches are *your* own responsibility. If you accidentally delete your local branch this is *your* fault not git's. Upstream/production branches are not supposed to be deleted and in practice they never are. And if they ever were or if the revision control server crapped out with git you can easily restore the branch because basically any user of this branch is also a mirror. Complaining about the ability to delete a branch without a trace of it is like complaining about the ability of windows to format c:\ or linux to sudo rm -rf --no-preserve-root /. The upstream git admin/maintainer would have to deliberately do it. If you have malicious admin you are screwed anyway, and you would be even more with svn. As for the remainder of your rant - the upstream decides the convention for line-endings stuff. Git was made with Linux in mind but it is successfully used on other platforms. Even kids coding away on github can do it. SVN has way bigger drawbacks than that yet you are here advocating for it.

The first thing I do on my Plasma 5 / Cinnamon installs is loading up the Arc-Dark theme. It's a wonderful dark flat theme which looks modern, yet I never have any problems with "is that a button?" thing. The design is clean, simple and hardly any confusing. From what I see KDE's Kirigami design is going after what Arc theme was doing so far and seems to be what Material should be in the first place. What I hate personally is trend towards bright white UIs which are ok if you are some hipster using your Mac Book 30 minutes a day in Starbucks I guess. For me, if I have to stare at the screen for few hours a day I'd rather not have all these whites burn into my eyeballs. This is where Google did a major f-up with Android UI. They created UI standard which could work perfectly well with black themes on AMOLED displays, yet they insist on the most suboptimal use of AMOLED technology you could ever think of.

Oh my god, it has just occurred to me that there is a way to stop this thin phone madness! Make SJWs believe that thinner phones is some kind of concealed fat shaming and as bad to their worldview and "safe space" as thin models in posters or thin mannequins. That way SJWs will protest, tech corporations will cater to them since catering to SJWs is progressive - that way we will have normal fat... errr, thick phones again! Win - Win !