• 2 Posts
  • 42 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 8th, 2023

help-circle



  • The subjectiveness of it being a superior product aside.

    Brave is chromium under the hood and therefore contributes to the rendering engine homogeneity that leaves Google in control of web standards.

    Iirc they are keeping some support for manifest v2 , for now. It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out for them both financially and from a technical upkeep point of view.

    I’d guess it doesn’t last long, but haven’t looked at it hard enough to have an informed opinion on it.



  • I don’t see the appeal of watching her win only because she is allowed to compete against women with much lower levels of testosterone than she has.

    Let’s try adding your first argument to your second and see how it sounds.

    “I don’t see the appeal of watching them win only because they are allowed to compete against people much shorter than they are.”

    A genetic predisposition to success in a particular sport is either a problem for all sports or none of them.

    If you are arguing that the current categories are what they are then testosterone shouldn’t be a factor unless you are positing that testosterone level has a threshold past which you are male.

    The whole point of having a women’s competition is to prevent that.

    The whole point of having a women’s competition is to separate “men” from “women”, if the point was to prevent unbalanced categories we’d be basing the categories on things that were important to the perceived integrity of the sport.

    You could also argue that historically ( in the west at the very least ) it was partially to stop “women” from competing in “men’s” competitions, not because of a difference in physicality but because of a difference in societal expectations.

    it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that men have over women to compete in the women’s competition.

    Again, lets switch the subject of your phrase

    “it makes no sense to allow a person with the specific set of innate physical advantages that tall people have over short people to compete in the short peoples competition.”

    This is not a good argument.

    As you said the theoretical solution to this is to based the brackets/categories on things other than biological sex, something that can be measured reliably and precisely, but also as you said , good luck convincing the public/advertisers to switch at this point.







  • Yeah, I’m going with a tiny dedicated infra bootstrapping box with all the tools I’d need to bootstrap the main infrastructure.

    Using a hypervisor (proxmox in this case) I have some prebuilt vms’s and container images that I can use for the bootstrap instances so i’d not need to completely hand roll it again should it be needed.

    I’m looking at cloudinit scripts to see if that’s useful for this.

    I really like packer but I’m hesitant to rely on anything hashicorp until whatever they have going on shakes out.

    Then I just load up the bootstrap box with the main infra code and use woodpecker to deploy.

    Code and config backed up, also mirrored to newly created infra forgejo instances, just in case.

    If I can get a semi presentable cloud init based bootstrap system working nicely I’ll stick it somewhere people can get to it, in case it’s useful to someone else.







  • I mean, yes? That’s a good summation.

    The part where you get to call something “open source” by OSI standards (which I’m pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.

    Don’t want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn’t adhere, because that’s how commonly accepted standards work, socially.

    Want to make an “open source 2 : electric boogaloo” licence , still no problem.

    Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.

    Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn’t adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.

    To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.

    Much like the “true” 1 open source licences and the other, “closely related, but not quite legit” 2 variations.

    1 As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI

    2 Any other set of standards that isn’t compatible with 1

    edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable


  • “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s wrong”.

    I think it’s more “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s not open source, don’t pretend it is”.

    The “wrong” part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn’t to gain some advantage. I’m this case community contributions.

    There’s not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.