I love going from “how tf?” to “the madlad actually did it” in seconds

shudders in NodeJS

        for i in range(1, len(a)):
            if a[i] < a[i-1]:
                like_all_things_should_be = False
                break

What’s going on in Thanos’ head in all that B-roll

then again, who says the OP was for average person

Nobody, the post is to aid us who are assisting other people to switch. I’m saying people here vastly overestimate the average persons ability AND willingness to actually switch, by themselves or assisted.

Linux is not all that horrible compared to Windows.

It is, in part because Linux is not beginner friendly but mostly because everyone is used to windows. Almost every program they’ve used is exclusive to it, which is why this post provides a path to eventually introduce them to Linux. Using Linux isn’t hard, using it the same way people are used to is. As is troubleshooting and installing 3rd party applications.

So when you’re done building strawmans, go touch some grass

Couldn’t have said it better, and I’ve seen the same article as well!

Funny story a coworker told me is his father kept breaking his windows install in the weirdest ways, so he asked him if he’d try Linux and was very reluctant. He showed him his laptop and he said “Oh yeah I used this at work for 30 years!”

Your point is proven by the adaptation of chromebooks, kids have no issue using them and neither should anyone else. It’s not a Linux thing, it’s a “what did you use the most”-thing. Some distros are ready to be shipped to consumers, bought a laptop with Linux pre-installed in 2018 (XPS 13).

You’ll see mainstream use if stores are selling them in-store to consumers. You’re up against the likes of Google, Microsoft or Apple when you try to pull that off.

PS: I believe in mainstream Linux use because money has a tendency to ruin everything, just think it will be much slower than us enthusiasts would want.

Exactly, in reality people will use what’s given to them. Just like windows, introduce it now and people would lose their fucking minds about how convoluted it is.

Transition costs are what we should be looking at, right now to install or use Linux you need someone with experience explaining it to you. Just like it was when PC’s were becoming a thing. Don’t have that person? Only alternative is MacOS or ChromeOS for them.

It’s actually hilarious how disconnected some Linux folks are lmao

The average person

• doesn’t know what an operating system is
• can barely work with windows, has had many struggles learning windows
• is scared of change
• doesn’t know about the existence of a BIOS
• will never be able to boot anything else but default by themselves
• doesn’t know how to troubleshoot anything about computers
• literally does not know or care about the existence of Linux

I know these things are changing, but anyone saying people are able to switch to Linux by themselves and its easy and doable for the average person is fucking delusional, this post is one of the most reasonable takes I’ve seen on the sub

If you enjoy a good voiceover, check out Beau Miles and Bobby Fingers. Beau is all about his adventure philosophy and Bobby doesn’t need an introduction. There’s just no way to discribe his videos, highly recommended.

How else do you suppose I store my API keys?

One of the guys who invented the process for large scale production was Fritz Haber, to make explosives and chemical weapons. He’s also responsible for using chlorine gas on the battlefield in WW1. His wife was a chemist and an activist, who shot herself in the heart after learning about his involvement. Haber left within days for the Eastern Front to oversee gas release against the Russian Army.

He ended up saving more lives than he destroyed, but what a story.

You could start by downloading your Google data raw, much easier to explore your own data if it’s all on the same drive.

He’s clearly taking the “but it’s better for human kind” stand, which I support with all I can. But academics can be guilty of gatekeeping and being pretentious, which I’ve seen by many lmao

Reporting your conclusions doesn’t require being public. It means the larger group of people you release it to, the less bias you’ll have. Meaning in a closed organisation you have added biases of companies and marginally less people to prove you wrong, decreasing the overal quality of the conducted science. But still science, which by definition isn’t black and white.

For sure, and calling Elon a twat would be an insult to twats out there. But saying “if it’s not published it’s not science” to one of the greatest grifters while having to explain the nuance of what you tweeted is a big L in my book.

I agree though, we can argue open science is much better and more reliable. We can argue privatly conducting a study and doing all the steps that would be conducted by the academic community within one organisation leads to more biased and less reliable results. But it’s still science by its very definition, I’d even argue denying that is a bit disrespectful to all scientists doing so.

An organisation with fully independent teams tackling the same problems can absolutely be defined as peer review. Not in the traditional sense, but reviewing, confirming and replicating nonetheless. Following the scientific method is what makes something scientific, not the act of publishing.

You can argue of the merits of those papers, an organisation can never make public statements about private research. But saying that what their doing is not science, then you’re just needlessly gatekeeping.

I think the word you’re looking for is merit, publication which are cited and peer reviewed hold much more merit than those who don’t.

Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world. 1

Nothing in this quote requires external publication. Following the scientific method, publishing, peer reviewing and reproduction can all happen internally in organisation using independent teams. Those private publications hold but a fraction of the merit of publications in recognised journals, but are science nonetheless.

Seems like the only difference is that if it’s public or not ie published. I think it becomes a matter of opinion then, because independent teams within the same organisation can absolutely peer review eachother, use completely different methodology to prove the same hypothesis and publish papers internally so it can be reproduced internally.

Science should be made public, but just because it’s not doesn’t mean it’s not science. When the organisation starts making public claims they should have to back that up along the official route, but they could just as well keep their findings a secret, use that secret to improve their working formula and make bank while doing that. Not calling their internal peer reviewed studies science just seems pretentious.

I feel like I’m missing something here so I’ll be the devil’s advocate, why can’t unpublished papers be reproducible? Multiple teams could independently be verifying hypotheses and results under the same organisation, adhere to the same standard but never publish, that would still be science no? Not doing humanity any favours, but science nonetheless.