everything he said and stood for

Charlie Kirk stood for nothing besides Charlie Kirk. Kirk was a lying grifter. He would have loved everyone treating him with empathy, because he didn’t ever actually care about empathy generally; he cared about hurting other people to his own benefit, and that meant eliminating empathy towards them.

This is more leopard eat my face kind of content

That’s not even vaguely close to leopards ate my face.

Trained on Hollow Knight gameplay footage.

… okay? Yes? Nobody thought otherwise? Do we now have to clarify every statement about algebra by specifying that we’re talking about an algebra over the reals or the complex numbers? Or the polynomials or the p-adic integers, whose multiplications are also commutative?

No one would call these “n-dimensional” number systems either. The algebra for each of these operates in R¹ and R², respectively, but, like, you would describe their algebras as being over an n-dimensional vector space. It’s not wrong, but I don’t think “two-dimensional number system” is something you’d hear mathematicians say.

This pedantic aside feels so “I just watched a 3blue1brown video and feel verysmart™” that I don’t know what to do with it. It’s good to be interested in math, but this ain’t it. Everyone knew what they meant.

I’d go even further: the learning curve for Rust is shallower than C/C++.

• C is obvious: dealing with strings is a goddamn nightmare in pure C, and strings are used all the time in modern programming. Almost no guardrails for memory safety mean that an inexperienced programmer can easily run into undefined, nondeterministic behavior that makes bug hunting difficult.
• In C++, there’s a trillion ways to do anything (which varies enormously based on C++ version), and when you make mistakes of even moderate complexity (not “missing semicolon on line 174”), compilers like gcc spit out a gargantuan wall of errors that you need to know how to parse through.
• Rust, in my experience, gives you a much clearer “good” way to do something with some room for expression, and its compiler tells you exactly what you did wrong and even how to resolve it.

The fact that the compiler actually guides you, to me, made learning it much easier than C/C++.

I don’t know how else they could react:

And the compiler was slow, the code that came out was slow…

The compiler is slower because it has more to check for, but “the code that came out was slow” seems like nonsense, exaggeration, or PEBCAK. Rust code is highly performant and very close to C code.

The support mechanism that went with it — this notion of crates and barrels and things like that — was just incomprehensibly big and slow.

Dude what? C’s build systems like cmake are notoriously unfriendly to users. Crates make building trivial compared to the ridiculous hoops needed for C.

I have written only one Rust program, so you should take all of this with a giant grain of salt,” he said. “And I found it a — pain… I just couldn’t grok the mechanisms that were required to do memory safety, in a program where memory wasn’t even an issue!

He doesn’t say what the program was, and the borrow checker operates by a set of just a few extremely simple rules. There’s no idea of what he was trying to accomplish or how the borrow checker impeded that.

So my reaction as someone who cares deeply about how disastrously unsafe C is and the tangible havoc it creates in modern society:

• I agree the compiler is slower. Honestly boo hoo. It’s slower for two very good reasons (better static analysis and better feedback).
• The code being slower is such a minor issue as to effectively not be true. Benchmarks prove this.
• I’m not going to take “big and slow” as a serious critique of Cargo from someone who idealizes C’s ridiculous, tedious, convoluted build system.
• The borrow checker is trivial, and unlike C, the compiler actually gives you easy, intuitive feedback for why your code doesn’t build.

They struggled to deliver their ambitious mainline Linux phone on time during Covid yes, but they eventually delivered.

And for the people who requested refunds who waited months if not never received them? Despite them moving back their timeline literal years with repeated delays? I don’t care what challenges they faced; they knowingly took people’s money and refused to give it back to them when they couldn’t deliver. It’s their responsibility to be prepared for challenges. And in some extreme edge case where they couldn’t have been prepared, it’s their responsibility to be transparent about that to the people who gave them over a million dollars (let alone purchased the product after the Kickstarter was finished). I suppose too that the pandemic affected Purism in January 2019 when they were supposed to deliver their product?

The fact that they did is a huge win for the mobile Linux ecosystem becoming a real contender just when we need it.

The Librem 5 is not a contender for shit. It’s so overpriced that it can only be successfully marketed to people who care so deeply about their privacy that they’re willing to use an inconvenient mobile OS, get completely boned on hardware specs, and deal with a company notorious for fucking over its customers. Purism’s behavior is a fucking embarrassment to the Linux ecosystem.

NXP i.MX family debuted in 2013; Intel i7 family in 2008. Their phone uses a 2017 i.MX 8M Quad, the same year they crowdfunded their phone.

That CPU is based on the ARM Cortex-A53 and Cortex-M4, launched in 2012 and 2009, respectively.

2017 i7 computers are equally not from 2008…

When I say “2013”, I’m not talking about the debut year of i.MX. I’m talking about the fact that you can compare this phone side-by-side with a Galaxy S4 or S5. 3 GB of RAM, 32 GB of eMMC storage, a 720 x 1440p IPS display, no NFC, USB 3.0, an 8/13 MP front/back camera (which they inexplicably call “Mpx”; good job, guys), 802.11n Wi-Fi, no waterproofing, and a shitty-ass i.MX 8M CPU. I still remember watching a trailer for the Librem 5’s continuing development, and as they were scrolling through a web browser, it was noticeably stuttering. This was years and years ago; I can’t even imagine it today.

It still today remains one of the best ARM processors with open source drivers without an integrated baseband. It means basically any flavour of Linux can install on the device, with a significant layer of protection from carrier conduited attacks. Other modules have similar tradeoffs between performance and interoperability/security.

I do not give even the slightest inkling of a shit try to confirm or deny this, so I’m just going to assume it’s 100% true, because it’s not relevant to the point that the spec is absolute trash and being sold for $800. If you are not absolutely married to privacy, this is not a sellable product in 2025.

Want better specs? We either need SoC companies to release more of their drivers open source, or more people to patiently reverse engineer closed source ones.

Actually, if I want better specs, I’m just going to go out and buy a phone that isn’t from Purism. It really sucks that it’s not open, private hardware, but Purism is such a scummy company that so wantonly fucks over their customers that I wouldn’t touch the Librem 5 even if I could justify spending $800 for that spec just for privacy’s sake.

Purism scams their customers left, right, and center and have for effectively their entire existence. They should not be trusted, and their phone specs are basically from 2013 sold for $800.

• Scam (Louis Rossmann)
• Scam
• Scammy
• Scam
• These specs for $800

So even if you’re idealistic enough to pay $800 for a phone that’d be in a landfill if it didn’t have hardware privacy features, Purism will take that trust you have in them and screw you over – delay you for as long as they need to/can/want with no recourse for a refund outside of maybe the courts. After which you hope you either get a functioning product or get good luck with a disorganized, opaque, scumfuck company like that.

Completely fake. A real Italian sniper would never tolerate Barilla.

Funnily enough, that Unidan copypasta is 100% correct. I don’t know why, for as long-winded as it is, though, he doesn’t use more taxonomic names to make it precise: jackdaws are in genus Coloeus, and crows and ravens are in genus Corvus, both under family Corvidae. The apes are the primate superfamily Hominoidea*, which Homo sapiens sits under. There, Unidan; that’s all you had to say.

* To clarify, not “are in” – are. You are an ape if and only if your species is in this superfamily.

For those who might be confused, “daddy longlegs” colloquially refers to two totally separate things. Spiders are of the order Araneae under class Arachnida (they’re arachnids; go figure).

“Daddy longlegs” often refers to cellar spiders, the family Pholcidae within the spiders. However, “daddy longlegs” also refers to another order of arachnids altogether called Opiliones, also known as harvestmen. So if this doesn’t look like the daddy longlegs you know, that’s why; they’re not a “different type” of the cellar spider you’re familiar with.

It’s a vestigial bed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye

(At a glance, this article needs some touching up and hasn’t been meaningfully contributed to in some years.)

Also, if you put your image(s) under a compatible license (CC BY-SA or less restrictive), we on Wikipedia also pull from iNaturalist for images to add to Wikimedia Commons. It helps a surprising amount.

You’re hereby invited to /c/vegan, as you appear to be a Northern Hemisphere vegan.

The short answer is that I really, really suggest you try other things before trying to create your first article. This isn’t just me; every experienced editor will tell you that creating a new article is one of the hardest things any editor can do, let alone a newer one. It’s why the task center lists it as being appropriate for “advanced editors”. Finding an existing article which interests you and then polishing and expanding it is almost always more rewarding, more useful, easier, and less stressful than creating an article from scratch. And if creating articles sounds appealing, expanding existing stub articles is great experience for that.

The long answer is “you can”, but it’s really hard:

• New editors are subject to Articles for Creation, or AfC, when creating an article. The article sits in a draft state until the editor flags it for review. The backlog is very long, and while reviewers can go in any order they want, they usually prioritize the oldest articles out of fairness and because most AfC submissions are about equal in urgency and time consumption. “Months” is the expected waiting time.
• If you’re not using the English Wikipedia, you can try translating over a well-established article from English. There’s no rule that says sources have to be in the language of the Wikipedia they’re on, although it’s still considered a big plus if sources are in the same language. You’d have to keep in mind that the target language may have standards not followed on the English Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia’s notability guidelines are predicated on you understanding other policies and guidelines like “reliable sources” and “independent sources”. They’re also intentionally fuzzy so people don’t play lawyer and follow the exact letter without considering the spirit of the guideline.
• The English Wikipedia currently has over 7 million articles. There are still a lot of missing articles (mostly in taxonomy, where notability is almost guaranteed), but you really need to know where to look.
• When choosing an article subject, it’s extremely important to avoid COI.
• Assuming you have a subject you think meets criteria, now you have to go out and find reliable, independent sources with substantial coverage of the subject to confirm your hypothesis.
• Now you need to start the article, and you need to do this in a manner which:
  • Is verifiable (all claims are cited)
  • Is not original research (i.e. nothing you say can be based on “because I know it”)
  • Is reliable (all citations are to reliable sources)
  • Is neutral (you’ve minimized bias as much as you can, let the sources speak for themselves, and made sure your source selection isn’t biased)
  • Is stylistically correct (there’s a manual of style, but just use your best judgment, and small mistakes can be copy-edited out by people familiar with style guidelines)
• If the article is nominated for deletion, you have to keep your cool and argue based solely on guidelines (not on perceived importance of the subject) that the article should be kept.
• New articles are almost always given more scrutiny than articles which have been around; this isn’t a cultural problem as much as it is a heuristic one.
• An article deleted feels much more personal than edits reverted (despite the fact that subject notability is 100% out of your control).

Some of these apply to normal editing too, but working within an article others have worked on and might be willing to help with is vastly easier than building one from scratch. If you want specific help in picking out, say, an article to try editing and are on the English Wikipedia, I have no problem acting like bowling bumpers if you’re afraid your edits won’t meet standards.

I really wanted to give Lemmy a try, but I think I’ll be returning to the whiteboard in my office for organic, sophisticated discussion.

Ratchet: “I’ll just call you… ***** for short.”

I’m going to write this from the perspective of the English Wikipedia, but most specifics should have some analog in other Wikipedias. By “contribute to new articles”, do you mean create new articles, contribute to articles which are new that you come across, or contribute to articles which you haven’t before (thus “new to you”)? Asking because the first one has a very different – much more complicated – answer from the other two.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/2c31hk/unidan_gets_mad_about_crows_and_jackdaws_in_an/