Dammit, I was a day late on making this joke. Filthy Bagginses.

That’s because it’s pure bullshit. And this repo will be deleted or abandoned in a month.

No, I specifically stated that the technology has moved past that, especially in the fiber business. That is not ignoring it, I’m stating he’s flat wrong. This isn’t coaxial shared bandwidth like the late 1990s/early-mid 2000s. That time has passed. The problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding that the technology no longer requires such data cap/bandwidth tradeoffs (in the wireless business, this may still be necessary due to the congestive nature of wireless signals and how towers handoff/pickup/etc, but it is not necessary in the wired business any more). And if an ISP can’t properly support 1Gbps, they shouldn’t offer it. Anecdotally, for my use case (I don’t saturate my 1Gbps synchronous fiber 100% of the time, but there are times I’m downloading on Steam, many many GBs) my ISP handles it perfectly fine – and not once has a data cap been introduced.

Outside of the wireless space, data caps are a money grab – pure and simple. And playing psychological games with consumers, as you have alluded to, in order to get them to not use the bandwidth they pay for is also quite unethical, in my opinion.

I ignored nothing. You misunderstand technology. Data caps are not necessary – they are an artificial price hike. Either you see that, or you don’t, and you clearly don’t. Also, a large portion of the United States has a choice of ONE broadband provider, so your point of “I can pick a provider” is complete nonsense. Just because something doesn’t affect you, doesn’t mean it’s not an issue.

Good bye.

I’m confused where you believe consumers are given choice here.

Data caps are usually scaled up with faster bandwidth, not the other way around as you attempt to define. And that’s simple marketing that attempts to excuse the use of data caps.

Also, data caps are artificial and are literally a money grab under the erroneous guise that data is manufactured and thus has intrinsic value. A congressman literally compared it to manufacturing Oreos — which is complete nonsense.

Also, if what you say is true, then why does AT&T impose no data caps on their fiber network? Clearly this is a marketing issue, not a technical one. And perhaps in the past with the way coaxial internet was engineered, an argument could be made for data caps. The industry has grown up since then, technically speaking, and there is no cause for data caps except to continue to line the pockets of ISPs.

I agree with you that working toward consumers having a choice of ISP is where most efforts should lie, but the FCC can walk and chew gum at the same time and remove anti-consumer practices such as data caps, all the while pushing for more competition at the last mile. They’re not mutually exclusive concepts.

Again, good luck :)

Pretty subjective that what you’re advocating is “right” and not just simple opinion. It also is easily construed as semantics with little benefit to argue. But I admire your convictions. Good luck.

Interview wasn’t bad. I especially like Torvalds’s take on meetings and interruption of flow.

Going to be pretty lonely on that hill.

Anyone who still uses Twitter either condones what Musk has done and is doing, or is completely oblivious.

I long for the day it dies the death it deserves and Musk is left holding the bag having to pay all the debt. If only he’d be forced to do that, but like all rich assholes, he’ll get out of it somehow.

I have decided based on your post history that you are a troll, a Trump supporter, and are doing everything possible to spread FUD with no actual reasonable discourse.

You are now blocked. Maybe stop wasting so much effort going against someone and start working to find a viable option for the next election — if indeed you’re not a troll and a MAGA moron.

Damn good point! I feel the same way about CEOs as of late and how they think AI is going to solve everything, even problems they invent just to say they’re using AI.

In my experience, as a 25-year developer in mostly OOP languages and frameworks, is that people who attack OOP usually don’t really understand it and its usefulness.

And to be fair as it relates to attacking languages or language concepts, I attacked JavaScript without fully understanding it, many years ago. I now understand it more than I ever have in the past and it has some good qualities.

So these days it’s no longer the languages or language concepts I take issue with (though I’ll joke about JavaScript from time to time). It’s the developers who misuse or misunderstand the languages or concepts that irk me. And especially the developers who think being lazy is a virtue.

I have been using Linux off and on for 25 years (using the server pretty consistently, but always hedged with the desktop for various reasons). Since Proton and GE-Proton allow every game I want to play to work in Linux, back when Recall was first announced, I decided to finally stop hedging and went all in on the Linux desktop.

And I’m not going back. Everything is working for me and Microsoft can screw off if they think I’m going to allow such blatant spyware in my house. Their telemetry was always suspect, but this is now overt despite any assurances they attempt to make.

Edit>> And their “oh you can uninstall Recall” isn’t trustworthy when they will easily reinstall it with a Windows update (they have done this in the past with other software — notably Edge and Teams).

This article sounds a decade old.

systemd attempts to cover more ground instead of less

Have I got news for the author about the kernel he seems to have no issue with. (Note: I love the Linux kernel, but being a monolith, it certainly covers more ground instead of less, so the author’s point is already flawed unless he wants to go all Tanenbaum on the kernel, too)

Oh so now that the oppressive ideology and regime are affecting them, too, the men suddenly have a problem with it. Seems we’re at the “and find out” stage.

One of the few giants upon whose shoulders we all stand.

Sure, that, too. Problems are problems, irrespective of by whom and where they are discovered. And solutions should be matched to the problem. If AI is such a solution, great! But I’m not yet convinced that we need to use AI and be in search of problems (which is what CEOs are doing right now), hence my original comment.

I don’t even know how to respond to this. It makes no sense at all and doesn’t really relate to or respond to my comment except it happens to use the word “lazy”, I’m guessing in reference to my comment. Good luck trying to push LLMs, not sure what your agenda really is, other than to be argumentative here. Peace.

And many programmers write some pretty stupid and horrible descriptions. LLMs don’t solve this, they just allow lazy programmers to be even lazier.