The thing explodes when it collides with sometime, usually because a circuit gets closed. It seems like it exploded the moment he put it down. A better call would have been too keep it in hand and try to disarm it. Or, you know, surrender as soon as you see a drone coming towards you

Even Belarus is abandoning Putin. Slava Ukraini!

shaking in fear?

For me it’s probably the way I self-host overleaf, a online LaTeX editor. The community version has a docker image that’s horribly maintained (because they want to sell enterprise, I reckon), and instead relies on a horrendous amalgamation of setup scripts that wrap docker compose.

What I have is a Dockerfile that pulls the image, manually installs a second version of TeX with the right dependencies, unlinks the old one and links the second one. Then for the database, it uses Mongo replsets, which be to be manually initialized. So I wrote a health check for the container that checks if the repl set is initialized, and if that fails the health check initializes it.

It’s horrendous, it’s disgusting, and it’s an all-in-one compose file to get overleaf running. Good enough.

Glad to see fragging is making a comeback

Too much pillow talk?

…oh, they’re talking about a shirt

You could try emailing the FSF and explaining your situation. They constantly get into legal battles over licencing and care a whole lot about open source. Their opinion is certainly a lot more expert than what any of us can produce :D

That is probably something you should ask a lawyer for, not strangers on the Internet. But I think if you make the case that you already have a lot of the groundwork for the project published under GPL, you can massively reduce effort by using that, but that’ll mean the final project will be GPL licensed as well, most people would agree that’s a reasonable trade off. Just make sure it’s written somewhere, so they can’t pull a fast one on you

I feel like a total idiot now, some time between reading the original comment and my reply my brain substituted BBC for The Guardian, sorry for wasting both our times on that :'D

My criticism still stands, because it does rate The Guardian as mixed as well.

I shouldn’t have to be the one to provide evidence, because MBFC is the site that is making the claim that Breitbart is on the same level of factuality as the BBC. They say that both had numerous factual errors over the years. I’m not disputing that, the BBC is not great when it comes to many issues. But the BBC consists of several broadcasting channels, radio and news outlets. They publish several dozen pieces a day. Breitbart has nowhere near that volume. I was making the point that volume does play a big role, because for credibility, it is the relative accuracy that counts, not the absolute number of mistakes. If you don’t see that point, we can stop right here, the discussion would be pointless.

The thing you are asking for, me providing specific counts for mistakes in reporting, is next to impossible. Still, here is an independent report, focused on statistics as reported by the BBC, that finds that in their sample about 4% of statistics were further challenged, so the number of false statistics reported is likely about that number:

https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/stats_impartiality/content_analysis.pdf

As for Breitbart, and I can’t believe I have to spell this out, here is their introduction on Wikipedia:

Its content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists.[8] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[9][10] and intentionally misleading stories.[11][12] Posts originating from the Breitbart News Facebook page are among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.[13][14][15][16]

If you think that these two are even remotely similar or deserve to be in the same category of factuality, I don’t know what else to say to you.

As pointed out above me, MBFC seems to think so. It gives both a MIXED rating. I don’t really get what you’re trying to argue here? Am I misunderstanding something?

If you put out 100 articles and 5 have mistakes, that is very different than if you put out 10 and 5 have mistakes. You’re not arguing that the BBC and Breitbart are the same level of credibility, right?

I hate MBFC and this bot with a passion. It’s misleading, inaccurate, US-centric and there’s no reason anyone should take it serious, especially not in world news.

no /s needed

c/NCD is in shambles

NixOS for my homelab that I like to tinker with, Debian as Docker host for the server people actually rely on

Young conscripts from western Russia usually, the type with parents in Moscow that Putin actually cares about

That is a war crime. Very explicitly so.

3.6 Röntgen/hour

Amazing shitpost