😛

It’s not that that’s confusing me, I think I’m just surprised at the nakedness. Like, yeah, big business supports fascism, but often still have a pretense. Like, oh I’m investing in the industry, and the industry produces tanks, and there happens to be a conflict on the horizon, and you can pretend it’s just an investment in business. Or whatever.

But this feels like a dude, who isn’t in government or anything, put up a sign that says “I’m a prick”, and then a bunch of companies fell over themselves to give him money for… nothing in return. It’s like the business equivalent of sending all your money to a megachurch televangelist or something!

Again, if I were on the board of one of those companies, or a shareholder in it, I might be like “wait, why did we send this guy 30 million dollars? Even if I’m pro fascism… what does that money… get us? What did we spend it on?”

One thing I haven’t really figured out yet, and it may be because there isn’t an answer, is why some of these companies could plausibly be genuinely sending money to Omarchy.

Like, Digital Ocean. They’re a headless server company. So… why are they donating anything to a desktop distro? There’s nothing Digital Oceany about Omarchy as far as I understand.

It feels like someone was like “Guys, I made open source chicken feed” and Linode was like “son of a bitch I’m in”, I just don’t get it.

Ignoring the part where they just like the vibes and want to spend their money on… favour? I don’t even know that the company pretends to get out of it… Like, how would one pitch this expense to shareholders? We use company money to fund projects we don’t use, that have nothing to do with our business, because the guy running the project we don’t use is mean to people who aren’t white enough for him? And that’s what we’re spending your money on?

Ran outta there like a bandit with a big sack of pixels!

We didn’t invent pixels until Steve Jobs single-handedly started cranking out iPhones in 2007.

I don’t care about Mullvad, but this is an interesting philosophical question. How far does that chain of money carry responsibility? Like, what if you donate to a hospital, and a nurse at the hospital uses their wages to buy bread, and the owner of the bread factory is problematic?

Definitely some fraction of my donation went to the bread factory owner’s politics, but is it my responsibility? Should I withhold donations to the hospital until they’ve pressured the nurse to buy a different brand of bread, or let them go?

Definitely the bread factory owner has a bunch of money, and money is power, and that money was given by customers in exchange for bread, so at some point if we want their power to diminish steps must be taken. But is the hospital donor’s money the right lever for that? Does it outweigh the benefits?

What if the bread factory’s owner is fine, but has a worker who spends their money on a problematic cause. Is it still the hospital donor’s responsibility?

Having the bios able to see the disk, but a live boot can’t, makes no real sense to me. If a partition was messed up I’d get that, but to not even see there is a disk to partition, doesn’t feel right. I know it’s probably a dumb question, but you didn’t happen to be messing around in BIOS settings or something right? Is it possible you changed some settings a while ago but haven’t rebooted in a while, and this issue was waiting for you this whole time?

If you don’t have any other slots on the mother board to try the disk in, you could buy an external adapter for whatever kind of disk you have, which would allow you to use this thing as a USB drive. That should at least allow the live boots to see it.

Also also, is it possible you have two disks, and grub is on one and your data is on the other? Again, kinda weird question, but it’s a kinda weird situation…

Something about this reminds me if the I Spy books of my youth:

I’m pretty sure the DJs in my area record a bunch of inserts and bits ahead of time, those get edited and sliced up, and then put into the playlist at the correct positions. So I don’t think they’re sitting in the booth listening to the music live, and then talking in between, like they used to anymore. So that’s probably how they don’t get bored, they didn’t even hear the music last Friday when they laid down the week’s schedule.

Your needs are pretty basic? Heh, pretty Visual BASIC!?

VISUAL BASIC FOR APPLICATIONS!?!

I have friends that daily drive BSD, but I never have. For me it’s because Open Source is already a small field, and Linux solves all the problems I have, while also having the most mind-share, focus, and community. I want it to be FOSS for ethics, which Linux is, but otherwise don’t need anything that BSD offers, so there’s no reason for me to attempt anything more. If there’s even one compatibility problem, it’d be one too many for no benefit.

That having been said, I do donate money every month to one of them, because I like that they exist. So that’s probably weird…

I’ve encountered it very little, but when I encounter it it’s because I try to do something and it doesn’t work. So I check the permissions with ls -l, and it all seems reasonable. Huh, this should work. Try again, nope. Hmm. 20 minutes of trying random variations, strange results. Oh fuck, is this SELinux? Shit. Where do those configs exist again? How do I configure that? Google “SELinux cheat sheet” hmmm, I don’t have enough context to use that, Google “SELinux getting started”. Read tutorial, try to skim just enough to figure out what’s going wrong for me.

So I don’t hate it, I just haven’t ever had a use for it, but it has surprised me in a bad way before and cost me a lot of time and confusion, but I’ve never spent the time getting familiar because I’ve never had a use for it. And it comes up rarely enough I never remember anything about it by the time it bites me. I can’t even recall now what I was trying to do the last time I bumped into it.

It’s nice of this poster to ignore the $181m spent on “other projects” and conclude this is some kind of scam. If we include the Linux Kernel with the other projects part, that’s about 67%, or two thirds, of their expenses are paying for various and assorted open source projects. Among them the kernel. So if you’re a “cash and cash alone” person, then 2/3rds of your money is still going as cash to software projects.

And if we include things like community tooling and project services, which may help a project in ways beyond just cash that becomes about 78% in total, or over three quarters.

That’s pretty good, I think, but to each their own.

Right, but what I’m saying is that git doesn’t store authorship information or line-by-line history, no matter how it’s done. Figuring out which line came from where is an algorithm the git blame command does every time you request it, and that algorithm can give different results depending on which options you give the blame command. And so what you’ve found here is a collection of commits that produces a situation the default blame algorithm can follow, without any optional flags, which is neat! Maybe not great for git history, but neat!

Interesting. Yeah, sounds like what git blame -C is for, so I’ve never made copies when splitting files, I’ve just moved lines between files naively. But I guess if one’s tools are limited and doesn’t have the ability to -C, then I guess I could respect the hack that is that solution?

I mean, I’m 99% sure git doesn’t store blame or authorship info in the pack files, even as a convenience cache, and just guesses by traversing the patch log with heuristics live when you run blame anyway, so the history mostly doesn’t matter there, but the way you’ve done it does seem to have tricked the heuristics into doing what you want without relying on an option, so that’s neat! It’s an interesting hack, and I like interesting hacks 😛

By the way, if there are down votes, they’re not from me!

Yeah, I’m with you. I mean, git isn’t magic. You “can” squash anything, including a merge commit, by just being at the end result, running git reset <commit you want to be squashed off of> and then running a manual git add and commit there. That’s basically all a squash is.

But what you’ll be left with us a single commit that contains all of the code from the branch you’re squashing and also all the code pulled in from every branch you merged, all written as though it all came from this one commit. And maybe that’s what you want? But it feels like also maybe it’s not?

Right… for sure… but then if you don’t want to squash, then it doesn’t matter you can’t squash a merge commit.

Huh. I have never in my 19 year career using git, ever wanted to copy a file and pretend all of the history of that file is also the history of the new file. I mean, I don’t think I’ve ever even wanted to copy a file? Why are you copying a file?

Like, maybe I’m just too familiar with git to see the forest for the trees, but what the heck are you doing over there? 😅

And just in case it’s useful, a tip is that you can use git blame -C to have the blame algorithm use a heuristic to try and find a “source” line if it was moved, including from another file, during a commit, and then continue following the history of that line, to try and get the real commit where this was written, not just the last time it was moved around.

Yeah, 2 was just 1 again, with all the same jokes but in reverse. But 3 was legitimately different and better, so it saved the whole thing!

Lord of the Rings barely counts, because not only were all three books out and classics before the movies started (obviously), but the three movies were basically worked on at the same time. It’s nuts, but somehow they managed to do it.

So it’s not like they released the first, got crazy hype, and then phoned everyone up and said “electric Boogaloo, you in?”. They’d already shot most of the second and third by the time the first came out, as I recall.

Also I really liked Glass Onion 😛

Sure, but RAG has a Wikipedia article about the specifics of the process, history of its use, links to papers and articles about it and its advantages and drawbacks. It’s also useful as a feature on a matrix for comparing one tool or model’s capabilities to another. None of that is true of the sentence.

Virtually all of computing could be reduced to voltages across terminals changing over time, but it can still be useful to give specific terms to specific applications of this process, so we have something to talk about.