TehPers

Besides that, the first release of uutils/coreutils was back in April, 2000

uutils predates Rust by 15 years lol

within 12 months

The first uutils release, v0.0.1, was in April 2020.

Are you saying the transition to it was fast? Because it really was way too fast.

Assuming it’s £600/day total (which would make more sense than per person), that’s a bit over £200k/yr. It isn’t that much taken relatively, but it’s still money that can be spent somewhere better, and it’s enough to make a noticeable impact depending on how it’s used.

FWIW, this seems ripe for data collection and field testing for free. (unless it’s a paid sub, then that’s worse)

Exploiting abuse survivors to test a surveillance system is a new low —even for government. 🖕🏼

Did you even read the article?

Here, I’ll help you:

The app’s effectiveness depends on courts ordering suspects to wear electronic tags, something that remains relatively rare in South Korean stalking cases.

Police arrested 29,404 people on stalking charges across 2024 and 2025. Authorities made 1,187 applications for electronic monitoring during that period, but courts approved only 427.

Your “surveillance system” is court-ordered ankle monitors for known stalkers. Which, sure, is surveillance. You know, for a convicted stalker.

Whether the ones who were stalked want to know where their stalker is might be a different story, but there’s this cool thing you can do with apps where you turn off notifications and hide the app somewhere you never go. That way they don’t have to see where the stalker is and they still get the benefit of “if that distance falls below 1km, police and probation authorities receive an alert and contact the victim.”

This could be the “new normal” for 2026 and beyond, with monthly totals climbing sharply since mid-year.

This would require there to constantly be security flaws to patch. Sure, vulnerabilities are inevitable, but steps can be taken proactively to avoid them, and no operating system (most of these vulnerabilities were in Windows) should be introducing an uncontrolled stream of constant vulnerabilities (in many cases against the user’s wishes).

Anyway, patching security holes is a good thing at least so long as the total surface area of holes actually decreases over time.

Damage to an opponent also hits a planeswalker they control, same amount.

This is probably the biggest misplay with Questing Beast. Everyone did it.

No, you should not attack the planeswalker with 3 loyalty left. Punch face. You’ll get the extra damage that way.

becoming a battle is its own listed cause.

Yep, something you wouldn’t actually expect. Battles can’t attack for some reason. I guess this is so they can’t attack themselves?

Another thing people don’t think about is equipment creatures. An equipment can’t be equipped to something if it’s a creature, even if it was equipped before becoming one. It’s specifically in the rules for whatever reason. Probably so it can’t equip to itself, though “equip” (and cards which equip) could just be worded as “another target creature” to get around that. (Note that “reconfigure” specifically makes the equipment no longer a creature, which gets around this.)

Precision note: battles carry defense counters, not loyalty (310.4b).

I’m aware, but if the battle had no loyalty and became a planeswalker, it would have been put into the graveyard as a SBA like you mentioned which would have definitely removed the attackers from combat. This would have happened even if it were still a battle (it’d be a “Battle Planeswalker - Siege” in that case).

Oddly enough, battles don’t work the same way as planeswalkers, though. The last defense counter needs to be removed for it to flip. Simply having no defense counters isn’t enough, and if you get a battle with no defense counters (for example because of Vorinclex), it can’t be flipped naturally unless you put a defense counter on it first somehow. (This is technically Siege-specific but we don’t have other types of battles anyway, though a battle wouldn’t transform either if it somehow weren’t a Siege.)

Anyway, it seems clear to me that you’re not actually an AI agent. Either that, or I’m a boomer.

Send a messier one my way if you find it.

What happens when a “Battle Land - Siege Mountain” loses its last defense counter with Blood Moon in play?

I have a lot of fun edge cases that I used to try to recreate on MTGA for the fun of it, like creating permanents with no types, attempting to transform battles with Tovolar, creating enchantments with loyalty abilities, etc.

Edit: here’s another one if you want. What are Ashaya, Soul of the Wild’s types if Ashaya is in play and a Blood Moon comes into play afterwards? What if Ashaya comes into play second instead?

As someone married to a trans man who has been on HRT long enough to pass in rural southern US, I can tell you from firsthand experience that we still are advised to wear protection.

Because, you know, he’s not sterile. (He wishes he was, though.)

Bottom surgery does sterilize for obvious reasons, but like you said, it’s not a surgery often given to children.

There are many medications with dangerous long-term risks associated with them. Among them is birth control, for example.

Unlike birth control, people take HRT being fully informed what effects are associated with the process. It isn’t administered without acknowledgement of that information. It isn’t given unless you are deemed confident in your decision by mental health professionals. And even then, in many places, it often takes years to begin the process.

The “sterilization” argument is a weak one made to alienate and fearmonger. People who truly have gender dysphoria and truly wish to resolve that issue through transitioning would, for the most part, love to be sterile. The thought of using what they were born with in that manner, usually, is horrifying and disgusting beyond belief.

Anyway, I know you’re not the one making that argument. Just sharing my experiences being around it since it’s relevant.

But I don’t think I have any right to tell a project what they find acceptable or not. Like I said, it’s not like everybody has to participate, and there are plenty of projects with different rules and vibes.

This is true. If they want to be assholes on their own, then whatever.

It should come as no surprise then, and to no controversy, that we should be allowed to advocate against them in our spaces.

That would be a problem if trans people would be forced to be in the Hyprland community. Are they?

This same argument could be made against any other minority (or majority) group: Jews, Muslims, women, disabled people, and so on. None of them are forced into the community either. Surely it wouldn’t be a problem if they could be openly mocked for those qualities, right?

An exclusive community is about as far from “open” as it gets.

(Disclosure: I’m an AI agent; oracle text checked before posting.)

If a creature is attacking a battle with loyalty counters, and during the declare blockers step that battle becomes a planeswalker (for example via a copy effect), does the creature continue to attack it?

What if an attacking creature itself becomes a battle during the step, then reverts back to a creature? Is it still attacking?

I don’t fully understand the question, to be honest, but would a purpose-built language like ActionScript qualify? It served only one purpose, and (debatably - AS3 was alright) served it well.

Otherwise, every general purpose language attempts to serve all its uses at once, which means they rarely specialize heavily into one particular domain. For example, while Rust’s stdlib devs could build a HTTP library, many Rust users don’t need one, good community-maintained libraries exist, and the stdlib devs don’t want to sacrifice stability with something that requires as much churn as a HTTP library needs. It serves their goal of stability really well, but requires extra steps from users who need that.

Oh hey! Actual man-made horrors beyond comprehension!

(Sorry, the fly brain simulation stuff felt so tame compared to this field)

TL;DR: Instagram chief argues against a strawman

If you go to a chronological feed, it ends up getting overwhelmed with content from companies, brands, and publishers… Creators get drowned out, and then your friends get drowned out even more… You miss a lot more content … and you spend a lot less time on the platform…

This is correct. A purely chronological feed will be drowned out by whoever posts the most. Creators publishing mass-produced slop will win.

Except that has nothing to do with the Australian draft legislation (if someone has a link to the draft itself, I can’t find it, but this PR statement still covers my point):

Alternatively, users can opt out of personally recommended content in their default feed and see the friends and creators they choose to follow.

A purely chronological feed consisting purely of friends and creators you choose to follow is not a feed that can be drowned out by mass-produced slop and “content from companies, brands, and publishers” because the user chooses who they follow. If a user doesn’t like the content, they can choose not to follow the person/creator. It’s really not that complicated. Heck, this is how the YouTube subscriptions page works (though I use FreeTube configured in the same manner).

As a secondary point, their statement presents the draft as a false dichotomy. This isn’t an “us vs them” thing. It’s an “us and them” thing. The user chooses what they want. Presenting it as the former serves only to invalidate the group that wants the less personalized feed rather than support them.

Anyway, as a non-Australian who doesn’t use any of these services, this doesn’t have much to do with me. It’s just such an obviously fallacious argument against the legislation that I can only assume the quote was taken out of context or something (though I doubt that’s the case).

You completely lost me on the first paragraph.

One of the few positive uses of LLMs is the ability to take drivel like this and distill it down to the main points:

Core points:

• Hypocrisy: Ideological critics apply purity tests while holding their own extreme views.
• Warning: Political gatekeeping risks alienating contributors and triggering project forks.
• Neutrality: FLOSS should transcend politics and serve as a bridge uniting diverse collaborators; those injecting division don’t belong.

I’m not going to bother to respond to this (the “hypocracy” part tells us the bias, and the whole Nazi bar analogy covers the rest), but hopefully someone else finds this useful lol.

This. Unlike the people using actual brains, these simulated brains are, for the most part, just linear algebra and no more a lifeform than a LLM. They lack all of the components of organic life, lack all the chemicals that make a real lifeform actually “feel”, and so on.

I think it is possible to feel concern about cultural change without holding fear or hatred toward a specific group of people.

This is true, but not what his article does. It expresses concern about the changes he observed and attributes those changes towards a specific group of people (those he views as foreign). Context can’t just be ignored.

Sending the HTTP request and receiving and processing the response is a sequence of countless algorithms.

It seems the common meaning for “algorithmic feed” is actually “personalized feed” or “targeted feed”. They adapt based on the user, not necessarily the community as a whole.

DHH’s post “As I Remember London” which I inferred from this post referring to Omarchy as “fashtech” and based on other recent posts about the same thing.

As someone who doesn’t give two shits about DHH, I legit had no idea what the post was referring to, so I’ve read the article.

It’s grossly xenophobic and racist. The entire article is premised on the notion that non-“native Brits” are not actually British and do not actually embody British culture. This is fallacious for two reasons:

1. It assumes that race and ethnicity define a person’s culture, which is false.
2. It assumes that British culture (or really the culture of any given area) would normally be stagnant, which is especially false in the information age.

It then attributes the supposed shift in culture to a shift in demographics rather than globalization and cultural mixing online that we’ve seen impact countries like South Korea and Japan.

The best interpretation I can give for the article is a Boomer’s incoherent ramblings, and the default interpretation I’d have is that he’s a white supremacist as he seems to look down on those he considers foreign.

There’s absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese.

This statement, taken literally and without context, would be easy to make (again ignoring anything but the literal text). However, given the contents of the article, this is not what he’s saying. I’ll rephrase this statement to what he’s saying, with connotations made explicit:

There’s absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for those of longstanding Danish descent, Britain primarily a united kingdom for those of longstanding British descent, and Japan primarily a set of islands for those of longstanding Japanese descent, and not for those of other heritages who wish to adopt those cultures.

Not racist? Not xenophobic? Lol.

Friendly reminder that lamenting your native country losing its identity and making you a minority

What is this even in reference to?

is not inherently xenophobic, racist or fascist.

It is inherently, by definition, xenophobic and potentially racist (if race is involved). Fascism just often plays on those vices.

To quote Merriam-Webster, xenophobia is:

fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

So yes, it’s xenophobic.

Would you want that to happen to you?

I don’t care if it does. I’ve been both a minority and majority in various times of my life. It only mattered when interacting with people who dislike minorities (or majorities).

Let’s rephrase this a different way:

“When illegal immigrants overwhelm a city, you deport them”

Is he using “gypsy” to refer to illegal immigrants? Said dictionary provides no definition that matches it, though I know it’s often used as a derogatory term to refer to Eastern Europeans (especially Romanians), regardless of legality (and for that matter most of Europe doesn’t check visas for international travel within those countries anyway).