After all, he wouldn't want any potential competition getting a helping hand, that'd probably be communism or something...
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 166
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 166
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
I was going to say that not every four panel cartoon is loss, but now that I look at the expressions, they sort of make sense...
- Jump
DOGE says it has saved $160 billion. Those cuts have cost taxpayers $135 billion, one analysis says.
The trouble is, you have to account for transport costs that way. Either to bring it to them, or them to it. A Redundant Array of Inexpensive Decapitators (or RAID array) gives you higher throughput, better resilience to component failures and can lower your total costs versus building a single entity that is robust enough to be as reliable.
I am, of course joking. Unfortunately, just eliminating billionaires, cathartic though it might be, wouldn't actually solve any problems as it doesn't meaningfully redistribute that wealth, or stop someone else accumulating in the same way, only with better personal security. It's going to take changing the system at a much deeper, more fundamental, level than that. At the point it becomes actively undesirable to the individual to accumulate that much wealth, and I don't think mere threats to their physical safety will do that, you've effectively decapitated capitalism.
I did the same, pressed on it for the text, got sent straight to the video, and swore under my breath in admiration. In the current climate what he's done isn't risk free, despite the fact it a) should be, and b) shouldn't be needed in the first place.
Nothing but respect for people calling out the crimes of thus administration, and when it's someone with an unrelated platform and an audience, so much the better.
I'm not a truck-nut-ologist, so I don't have much to go on, and it's frustratingly difficult finding accurate dimensions for them online. I have found this
delightfulawful pair (I had to look at them, so so do you).The entire structure is approximately 40cm tall, and I measure that as 660 pixels, it look like the main 'bulk' of it is in the lower 330 pixels, or 20cm, and about 375 pixels wide, or around 23cm. If we assume that section is half as thick as it is wide, and approximate it as a cuboid (I've rounded the numbers, and unrounded the shape), that gives a volume of 5290cm^3, which is disturbingly close to the value you calculated as necessary. Allowing for the top section, I think they might just do the job.
Obviously those numbers are very approximate, but I've started at that model enough that it'll haunt my dreams, and 'Ten million aircraft carriers' is an approximate enough description, that I think we can say it's within reasonable tolerances of being accurate.
From the article, that should be 1017 kg/m3, not 1017kg/m^3. No, I haven't checked the conversion to aircraft carriers per trucknut, I'm going to take the original author's word for it.
I like this plan. The first half made me hate it, which is a pretty good sign it's hitting the right key points of environmental destruction, profiteering, crypto, bad crypto and buying influence, but then brings it back right at the end.
You're going to have to be careful not to touch anything at the dinner before shaking hands, you wouldn't want to give the game away too early.
Whist I would very much like a news source that just presents the unbiased facts, no such thing can exist as all of what we consume is mediated by humans, from story selection, to information gathering, to how that information is filtered, presented and finally how the reader processes it.
Even choosing to use the word 'bribe', the phrase 'buying goodwill' or just calling them 'donations' would be an editorial decision that would influence the reader. Depending on the reader each of those phrases would inspire different opinions. A reader who is more disposed to being positive about this administration may find 'buying goodwill' to be just about tolerable journalism, 'bribe' to be outragious slander and 'donation' perfectly reasonable and accurate. A more left reader would probably consider 'donation' to be unacceptable whitewashing, 'buying goodwill' to be euphamistic, and 'bribe' to fit their world view best. Therevis no phrasing that would avoid an emotional response, so either this can't be reported, or the publication chooses to do so in line with their own biases.
There is also a constant tension between presenting just the bare facts of the current matter, and contextualising them for the reader, who may not be fully versed on the matter. How that contextualisation is done is also going to affect the reader's perception.
There is, however, a very large difference between the presenting the information with some bias, and "a biased news source that tells you what you want to hear whether all the facts are there or not." I would agree with you that the latter is a "rag", though I would classify it that way for the willingness to draw a conclusion unsupported by fact, rather than necesarily for having bias. All sources, even your own senses, will give you a biased view of events. The critical thing is to acknowledge that and understand the bias you're being presented with. Trying to make sure you consume sources with a variety of different biases is a good way to try to balance that, though I personally find it hard to stomach anything further than moderately right of my personal views anymore.
I think your points are well made, but there is another possibility to consider, and that is deliberate language choice for effect. They certainly could have simply called it a bribe, and that would be true enough, but in my opinion lacks 'punch'. We're so used to that sort of behaviour that many people would pretty much just go "yup, that's expected" and move on. By deliberately, and somewhat archly, using understatement, the reader goes "Buying good will?? That's not buying good will, that's bribery! Buying good will shouldn't even be a thing!" thus neatly bypassing the first level of cynasism that a simpler statement would run in to.
I'm not going to say that us definitely what happened here, but looks quite deliberate to me. Language can be weaponised in many different ways, for different causes.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
The hind legs also have the joints in proportionally the wrong places compared to the skeleton. I reckon they gave it to the intern to reconstruct, and they just hastily banged it out last thing on a Friday afternoon after a liquid lunch.
Cat: Wow this snow is cold! Ahhhh, this is SO COLD!!!
It does have that slightly preoccupied look that suggests it wishes it had more insulation in certain areas, but it's determined to pose for the photo anyway.
- Jump
Any truly free options for converting Outlook PST files to MBOX (or something else) without Outlook?
It might already be packaged for whichever OS you're running, and it comes with a utility to do the conversion. On Debian or Ubuntu it should be as simple as installing the
pst-utilspackage and running something likereadpst <path to .pst file>and it'll leave an mbox file for you. It's been a fair few years since I used it, so reading the documentation would probably be wise, but I remember it being pretty straightforward.I don't have a Redhat machine handy right now, but it looks like the package is called
libpstthere. On a Mac you'd need to follow the build instructions in the git repository, but it's not python, the main library and utils are written in C. The tarball they refer to it just a tar of the source, that you can download form the releases page. I can't help you if your running windows, I don't have a machine running it, and haven't used it in many years. You... you don't? Surely there's some mistake, have you checked down the back of your cupboard? Sometimes they fall down there. Where else do you keep your internet?
Appologies, I'm tired and that made more sense in my head.
- Jump
Any truly free options for converting Outlook PST files to MBOX (or something else) without Outlook?
I've used libpst to be this in the past. On Debian it's packaged as
pst-utils. Thereadpstutil will convert your PST to a variety of formats including MBOX. On the other hand, the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less.
That doesn't mean you can't work with them on a common cause, and maybe even show them the benefits of your way if thinking, but don't get caught out when they turn on you.
That, or ICE kidnap him when he tries to return because he's 'obviously' in league with the gang.
Before you can decide on how to do this, you're going to have to make a few choices:
Authentication and Access
Theres two main ways to expose a git repo, HTTPS or SSH, and they both have pros and cons here:
- HTTPS
A standard sort of protocol to proxy, but you'll need to make sure you set up authentication on the proxy properly so that only only thise who should have access can get it. The git client will need to store a username and password to talk to the server or you'll have to enter them on every request.
gitwebis a CGI that provides a basic, but useful, web interface. - SSH Simpler to set up, and authentication is a solved problem. Proxying it isn't hard, just forward the port to any of the backend servers, which avoids decrypting on the proxy. You will want to use the same hostkey on all the servers though, or SSH will refuse to connect. Doesn't require any special setup.
Replication
Git is a distributed version control system, so you could replicate it at that level, alternatively you could use a replicated file system, or a simple file based replication. Each has it's own trade-offs.
- Git replication
Using
git pullto replicate between repositories is probably going to be your most reliable option, as it's the job git was built for, and doesn't rely on messing with it's underlying files directly. The one caveat is that, if you push to different servers in quick suscession you may cause a merge confict, which would break your replication. The cleanest way to deal with that is to have the load balancer send all requests to server1 if it's up, and only switch to the next server if all the prior ones are down. That way writes will alk be going to the same place. Then set up replication in loop, with server2 pulling from server1, server3 pulling from server2, and so on up to server1 pulling from server5. With frequent pulls changes that are commited to server1 will quickly replicate to all the other servers. This would effectively be a shared nothing solution as none of the servers are sharing resources, which would make it easier to geigraphically separate them. The load balancer could be replaced by a CNAME record in DNS, with a daemon that updates it to point to the correct server. - Replicated filesystem Git stores its data in a fairly simple file structure, so placing that on a replicated filesystem such as GlusterFS or Ceph would mean multiple servers could use the same data. From experience, this sort of thing is great when it's working, but can be fragile and break in unexpected ways. You don't want to be up at 2am trying to fix a file replication issue if you can avoid it.
- File replication. This is similar to the git replication option, in that you have to be very aware of the risk of conflicts. A similar strategy would probably work, but I'm not sure it brings you any advantages.
I think my prefered solution would be to have SSH access to the git servers and to set up pull based replication on a fairly fast schedule (where fast is relative to how frequently you push changes). You mention having a VPS as obe of the servers, so you might want to push changes to that rather than have be able to connect to your internal network.
A useful property of git is that, if the server is missing changesets you can just push them again. So if a server goes down before your last push gets replicated, you can just push again once the system has switched to the new server. Once the first server comes back online it'll naturally get any changesets it's missing and effectively 'heal'.
"I am mighty hunter! I kill it! I kill it with my teefs!"