I’m hoping early 2026, but I’m looking to hire a platform owner for Android, since I don’t use it myself. So it’s 🤞

Such a silly thing, but I’m still proud of my Sudoku Pi game: https://apps.apple.com/nl/app/sudoku-pi/id6467504425?l=en-GB

It’s basically a new finger-friendly UX for Sudoku. The game is also open-source, and an Android build is coming Soon ™.

It may be a kind of Linux PC, but it’s not just a Linux PC. (Also not a fan of the American language…)

I don’t know if you already use Linux or not, but if you do you have a valid excuse for why you can’t help them with their impulse buy from HP. So if they want your help, they can take your suggestions for where to get a Linux computer, such as System76, Framework, and I think even some Dell models come with it preinstalled. There’s probably some I forgot, but the point is, those selling Linux machines are in a growth market that only seems to be accelerating. It should be only a matter of time before more players want a piece of that.

Yeah, familiar with that experience 😅 Could be I end up disliking Sailfish for that exact reason, but if there’s a handful of good native apps that might mitigate quite a lot. Could also be I end up using it as a second phone, one with fewer distractions on it…

Presumably, it’s just that I can’t stand the Android UX personally, which is the main reason I’m on iOS. But if a good, open alternative comes along I’m willing to try…

True, but aren’t there decent Android emulation layers for Linux available nowadays? Not sure how well-integrated into SailfishOS that is, but giving it a shot…

Yeah, absolutely, but I think as soon as you’re getting government funding you would fall under public service rather than civic service, that’s kinda the distinction I was trying to point out.

But I like your idea!

I’m not even sure such recognition is a good idea. Civic service is intended to benefit a (local) community, while open-source work has no such implication. Of course a lot of open-source work does have public benefit, but then maybe it’s better performed as public service, through government funding? I’m an open-source maintainer myself, but I don’t think we should be blind to how open-source can very much be used for commercial benefit.

I think you’re hitting some good points, but the thing we need to teach these boys is that they shouldn’t be looking towards society for rewards. Society’s rewards have become a gamified rat race, so the way out is men to look inward. Not gonna lie though, that’s easier said than done…

I recently wrote a post too that touches on this topic: https://philosophyofbalance.com/blog/the-emancipation-of-men/

I am literally wrapping up a novel where the protagonist is the antagonist at the same time. I’m not the first one to write such a story of course, but holy shit did I have to work through some internal trauma to write that story to a suitable ending. I understand why many people may not want to bother…

Don’t be so gloomy! You’re an individual number too! 😜

Shun the nonbeliever!

I’m not sure I agree with the “no one claimed” part, because I think the proof is specifically targeting the claim that it is more likely than not that we are living in a simulation due to the “ease of scaling” if simulated realities are a thing. Which I think is one of the core premises of simulation theory.

In any case, I don’t think the reasoning only applied to “full scale” simulations. After all, let’s follow the thought experiment indeed and presume that quantum mechanics is indeed the result of some kind of “lazy evaluation” optimisation within a simulation. Unless you want to argue solipsism in addition to simulation theory, the simulation is still generating perceptions for every single conscious actor within the simulation, and the simulation therefore still needs to implement some kind of “theory of everything” to ensure all perceptions across actors are being generated consistently.

And ultimately, we still end up with the requirement that there is some kind of “higher order” universe whose existence is fundamentally unknowable and beyond our understanding. Presuming that such a universe exists and manages our universe seems to me to be a masked belief in creationism and therefore God, while trying very hard to avoid such words.

The irony is that the thought experiment started with “pesky weird behaviours” that we can’t explain. Making the assumption that our “parent universe” is somehow easier to explain is really just wishful thinking that’s as rational as wishing a God to be responsible for it all.

I’ll be straight here: I’m a deist, I do think that given sufficient thought on these matters, we must ultimately admit there is a deity, a higher power that we cannot understand. We may as well call it God, because even though it’s not a religious idea of God, it is fundamentally beyond our capacity to understand. I just think simulation theory is a bit of a roundabout way to get there as there are easier ways to reach the same conclusion :)

It’s possible yes, but the nice thing is that we know we are not merely talking about “advanced people with vastly superior technology” here. The proof implies that technology within our own universe would never be able to simulate our own universe, no matter how advanced or superior.

So if our universe is a “simulation” at least it wouldn’t be an algorithmic one that fits our understanding. Indeed we still cannot rule out that our universe exists within another, but such a universe would need a higher order reality with truths that are fundamentally beyond our understanding. Sure, you could call it a “simulation” still, but if it doesn’t fit our understanding of a simulation it might as well be called “God” or “spirituality”, because the truth is, we wouldn’t understand a thing of it, and we might as well acknowledge that.

I think there is an objective good. That goodness is Life itself. So long as we treat all Life with respect and try to live a life of balance, that makes us good. You are right though that this is still a very simplified view, and what it means to “live in balance” can depend on the situation or environment. But it’s a starting point at least.

As for forgiveness, it’s a choice. If someone makes an honest mistake, it should be easy to forgive them, as whatever harm they caused was not intentional. But if someone makes a wilful mistake, it will be harder to forgive them. And yet, because forgiveness is a choice, we can look at the reasons why someone acted in a manner that was harmful, and still decide to forgive them, especially if they repent.

As for consequences, those are results of our actions, whether intentional or unintentional. They are not strictly related to the concept of forgiveness, but generally speaking, we find it easy to forgive someone if their actions are harmless, or if the consequences don’t affect us personally. But if someone’s actions do affect us, we find it harder to forgive, regardless of whether something was an honest mistake or not. But the key to forgiveness, in my opinion, is that we need to look beyond the consequences and look beyond how we were personally affected. Forgiveness is a choice, and that choice is easier to make if our emotion is not muddied by consequence.

I dunno, I have a Framework laptop and had a keyboard issue with it. It still worked, but one of the keys didn’t register well. So they sent me a new keyboard and I sent them back the old one after I’d swapped it. Not a single day was I without my laptop, which sounds quite unlikely compared to other laptop brands and the support you get (or not) with those. No buyer’s remorse here.

I can take this one: Because he doesn’t actually care about creating anything of value. If he truly believed in it, you’re right, Twitter or even Tesla’s software engineers would be on the chopping block and he’d replace them with AI as soon as he can. But he doesn’t.

He knows this is a longshot. Most likely to fail, but very profitable on the near-impossible chance that it works. But he doesn’t care even if the odds are truly impossible. Because this is an investment opportunity, so people will throw money his way, no matter what the odds.

People assume he’s an idiot, and he is. But he’s not stupid, at least not in every way. He certainly has a skill for separating others from their money, which he happily takes advantage of.

Don’t tell that to the kids in Finland 😉

https://santaclausvillage.info/activities/santa-claus-main-post-office/

That’s fair, although technically you could catch SIGSEGV and release resources that way too.

Also, given that resources will be reclaimed by the OS regardless of which kind of crash we’re talking about, the effective difference is usually (but not always) negligible.

Either way, no user would consider a panic!() to be not a crash because destructors ran. And most developers don’t either.