Warming the key of a car in the freezing winter may have driven me to suck keys. Piercings didn’t remind me of such though.

Maybe true but your comment is humanizing “dumb” AI.

Your selfless wish may be granted wwussh @[email protected]

Debian

Some elaboration of mine for doing this post:

Once I helped organizing some huge event. Attending negotiations between a monopol-like company and the purchasing departments.

Attendees required to be far from certain competition and even ruling participation out under certain circumstances.

I am in favor of the doubt but there has to be more similiarities between these sponsor than to the common eye. So I posted this.

I am hiding for posting these. Will flag the post in the dawn as NSFW when everybody asleep.

Word. Running eyes wide open into oblivion. GNU is a big part why our system is as superior as it is.

That’s beyond my experience but I would say functional languages can perform similiarly.

I suppose - and honestly do not know if - aggregation is done via synchronization into some persistance unit.

Therefore I would eypect that a functional language like Elixir, Lisp etc. would outperform a language with manual memory management in terms of maintainability.

Depending on the capabilties of packing structs into close memory or traceability and elaboration of compiler it may outperform single or multi-threaded.

Though outperforming recent JREs may be hard, since they may trace hot paths. Default configuration Java vs. a proficient developer of a functional language I assume that latter at least go even.

But I can’t judge. Even on the repository of said program I did not even bother to look at the contents of the gradle.build or Dockerfile to be honest.

I do think that maintainability of functional languages, when only the common denominator between any functional language is used, is better to spaghetti Java source code. But that’s another issue, right?

// edit: Spaghetti Source Code is a good thing in my opinion. And sincr I did not adsress your question directly: A proficent developer is more likely to write faster Java then functional code, since Java is just a layer above C with one of the best compilers there is. Functional languages require carrying some non-neglectable knowledge of the compiler to make use of the fastest paths through the code. On the other hand Java is just ALGOL-Syntax and therefore imperative; Which translates more easier into *.asm.

// edit2: Synchronization into some db isn’t depending on the nature of the language but there may be overhead where some concepts of languages simply perform better. So I would expect that transitions from some interpreted language is slower then compiled languages. Note that even though Java belongs to the former it is conceptually compatible with the latter. I’m out. You called me out. I’m a still a newbie. Had to append so much.

There is Sublink but it’s written in Java, I don’t think I want to deal with Java’s runtime environment.

Don’t hate Java just for the sake of it. According to the repository they ship a Dockerfile and use gradle to build it. Everything should be abstracted for you.

When comparing environments for a program between Java and Python you should probably prefer Java’s. Years of experience and build from the ground up for enterprise deployment. Python module system is hacked together. It ain’t even be fair for python to compare itself in this regard.

Also this project is spot-on within Java’s main territory. It makes absolutely sense to me to use Java for such a program.

Plus monitoring/maintaining a Java application is way better then any python program.

Pff. I once saw some crack-y woman using the entire shelf of makeup in the store.

Would this again segregate the users? Some attribute on a submission which refers to a license would be nice though

I would be happy to provide my energy to microsoft’s openai /s

This would be a good approach to improve growth of the community.

Does the ActivityPub protocol support copyright for user content? E.g. an artist releases some picture and they explicitly prompt a license. Each client should accept that they are obligated to prompt this license when using the content… Something like this

My lemmy client is able to locally block anything I do not want to see. And I do not want to live in a bubble, so I didn’t block .ml. There are many quality post and comments so I would advise against a premature defederation.

But what do I know

deleted by creator

Don’t hate google too much…! They are an essential company to the west world; They contribute a lot to the community.

As long there is no business interest, the developers there are very competent and would defend their architectural choices I want to believe.

But yes, they - as a whole - have earned such a mistrust by now very much IMO.

The EU will already have projects in development as far as my experience goes.

What I do not know though but think applies: Such an act is legally binding for all member states. If they fight these things, they are allowed to propose at the EU court for adjustment in order to be aligned with the national law. This can postpone the national implementation for a few years.

But it can only be revoked by a new act of the EU council.

And they can simply ignore any new suggestion of the EU parliament if they like to.

The french people are very proud of their culture and free spirit, so even hard opinions are articulated freely.

Additionally it appears they struggle with problems in the suburbs (banlieue); The public opinion in europe shifts to blame uncontrolled immigration it appears to me.

The Debian community not already maintains a Chromium fork. How much does that cost?

I honestly can’t and wouldn’t judge: Time, Resources, implicit know-how etc. are unknown to me.

The human time needed should grow with the number of patches that need to be applied to the upstream code base, …

jupp

… because some will fail now and then.

Forks are done due to different reasons. Therefore it depends why to fork. It could be possible that one feature diverges so much that applying patches isn’t enough. Especially patches in a debian sense, neither .diff/.patch-patches.

This is what I refer to as “fatness” of the fork. The more patches, the fatter. It should be possible to build, packege and publish a fork with zero patches without human intervention, after the initial automation work.

For a brief period, until something rattles on the build system. Debian patches are often applied to remove binary blobs due to licensing - Imagine upstream chooses to include M$ Recall into the render engine. You would need to apply extraordinary amounts of work. Maybe even maintaining a complete separate implementation. This would also imply changes on the build systems, which needs to get aligned continiously between both upstreams, now.

Maybe I’m missing something obvious. 😅

With each version you have to very carefully review every commit if you want to maintain compatability with upstream, in order to merge patches into your fork.

When there are 50 devs working on upstream and you need to review every commit to assure requirement X, this alone is a hard path. If you need to also apply workarounds compatible with future versions of upstream, you need PROFESSIONALS. Luckily these are found in the FOSS community; But they are underpaid and worse: underappreciated.

// plus I could imagine that things like chrome may even not be coming with the full test suite. The test suite of a browser are surely so huge I can’t even comprehend the effort put into it. And then bug tickets… Upstream says: Not in my version. Now the fork has to address these themselves! :)