Tootfinder

Happy Fourth of July. A fine new recording that's worth a listen today.
Ben Folds with the National Symphony Orchestra, "But Wait, There's More" (live, 2024)
Wait, there's more.
Don't think we can take too much more.
Pray that there's a bottom somewhere in sight.
Brothers and sisters hold tight.
https:/…

It's really telling how much of the conversation around AI boils down to,
"Is there any value in humans being able to think?"
Which all too quickly reduces to
"Is there any value in humans” ?
https://bsky.app/profile/kevinriggle.b

The key is not allow boys to be raised by older boys, even ones who are legally adults. By the time they’re thinking about dating, they are likely to be ruined.
The problem is too much gendering in childhood. So many people are raised to think in binary gender terms compelled to conform to gender norms and believe in binary-gender ideology.
I will never run out of gratitude for being the only boy in my family for much of my childhood.

So #Gentoo #Python eclasses are pretty modern, in the sense that they tend to follow the best practices and standards, and eventually deal with deprecations. Nevertheless, they have a long history and carry quite some historical burden, particularly regarding to naming.
The key point is that the eclasses were conceived as a replacement for the old eclasses: "distutils" and "python". Hence, much like we revision ebuilds, I've named the matching eclasses "distutils-r1" and "python-r1". For consistency, I've also used the "-r1" suffix for the remaining eclasses introduced at the time: "python-any-r1", "python-single-r1" and "python-utils-r1" — even though there were never "r0"s.
It didn't take long to realize my first mistake. I've made the multi-impl eclass effectively the "main" eclass, probably largely inspired by the previous Gentoo recommendations. However, in the end I've found out that for the most use cases (i.e. where "distutils-r1" is not involved), there is no real need for multi-impl, and it makes things much harder. So if I were naming them today, I would have named it "python-multi", to indicate the specific use case — and either avoid designating a default at all, or made "python-single" the default.
What aged even worse is the "distutils-r1" eclass. Admittedly, back when it was conceived, distutils was still largely a thing — and there were people (like me) who avoided unnecessary dependency on setuptools. Of course, nowadays it has been entirely devoured by setuptools, and with #PEP517 even "setuptools" wouldn't be a good name anymore. Nowadays, people are getting confused why they are supposed to use "distutils-r1" for, say, Hatchling.
Admittedly, this is something I could have done differently — PEP517 support was a major migration, and involved an explicit switch. Instead of adding DISTUTILS_USE_PEP517 (what a self-contradictory name) variable, I could have forked the eclass. Why didn't I do that? Because there used to be a lot of code shared between the two paths. Of course, over time they diverged more, and eventually I've dropped the legacy support — but the opportunity to rename was lost.
In fact, as a semi-related fact, I've recognized another design problem with the eclass earlier — I should have gone for two eclasses rather than one: a "python-phase" eclass with generic sub-phase support, and a "distutils" (or later "python-pep517") implementing default sub-phases for the common backends. And again, this is precisely how I could have solved the code reuse problem when I introduced PEP517 support.
But then, I didn't anticipate how the eclasses would end up looking like in the end — and I can't really predict what new challenges the Python ecosystem is going to bring us. And I think it's too late to rename or split stuff — too much busywork on everyone.

Someone mentioned the "awesome" web site for Milwaukee Critical Mass, but I think they may have been taking the piss...
But honestly, I'd rather see this than an overdone 'full of shit' web site with too much.
As it is, it gives the basic info. Sometimes that's all you need.
Although (sigh) it looks like it hasn't been updated since April.
➡️

Subtooting since people in the original thread wanted it to be over, but selfishly tagging @… and @… whose opinions I value...
I think that saying "we are not a supply chain" is exactly what open-source maintainers should be doing right now in response to "open source supply chain security" threads.
I can't claim to be an expert and don't maintain any important FOSS stuff, but I do release almost all of my code under open licenses, and I do use many open source libraries, and I have felt the pain of needing to replace an unmaintained library.
There's a certain small-to-mid-scale class of program, including many open-source libraries, which can be built/maintained by a single person, and which to my mind best operate on a "snake growth" model: incremental changes/fixes, punctuated by periodic "skin-shedding" phases where make rewrites or version updates happen. These projects aren't immortal either: as the whole tech landscape around them changes, they become unnecessary and/or people lose interest, so they go unmaintained and eventually break. Each time one of their dependencies breaks (or has a skin-shedding moment) there's a higher probability that they break or shed too, as maintenance needs shoot up at these junctures. Unless you're a company trying to make money from a single long-lived app, it's actually okay that software churns like this, and if you're a company trying to make money, your priorities absolutely should not factor into any decisions people making FOSS software make: we're trying (and to a huge extent succeeding) to make a better world (and/or just have fun with our own hobbies share that fun with others) that leaves behind the corrosive & planet-destroying plague which is capitalism, and you're trying to personally enrich yourself by embracing that plague. The fact that capitalism is *evil* is not an incidental thing in this discussion.
To make an imperfect analogy, imagine that the peasants of some domain have set up a really-free-market, where they provide each other with free stuff to help each other survive, sometimes doing some barter perhaps but mostly just everyone bringing their surplus. Now imagine the lord of the domain, who is the source of these peasants' immiseration, goes to this market secretly & takes some berries, which he uses as one ingredient in delicious tarts that he then sells for profit. But then the berry-bringer stops showing up to the free market, or starts bringing a different kind of fruit, or even ends up bringing rotten berries by accident. And the lord complains "I have a supply chain problem!" Like, fuck off dude! Your problem is that you *didn't* want to build a supply chain and instead thought you would build your profit-focused business in other people's free stuff. If you were paying the berry-picker, you'd have a supply chain problem, but you weren't, so you really have an "I want more free stuff" problem when you can't be arsed to give away your own stuff for free.
There can be all sorts of problems in the really-free-market, like maybe not enough people bring socks, so the peasants who can't afford socks are going barefoot, and having foot problems, and the peasants put their heads together and see if they can convince someone to start bringing socks, and maybe they can't and things are a bit sad, but the really-free-market was never supposed to solve everyone's problems 100% when they're all still being squeezed dry by their taxes: until they are able to get free of the lord & start building a lovely anarchist society, the really-free-market is a best-effort kind of deal that aims to make things better, and sometimes will fall short. When it becomes the main way goods in society are distributed, and when the people who contribute aren't constantly drained by the feudal yoke, at that point the availability of particular goods is a real problem that needs to be solved, but at that point, it's also much easier to solve. And at *no* point does someone coming into the market to take stuff only to turn around and sell it deserve anything from the market or those contributing to it. They are not a supply chain. They're trying to help each other out, but even then they're doing so freely and without obligation. They might discuss amongst themselves how to better coordinate their mutual aid, but they're not going to end up forcing anyone to bring anything or even expecting that a certain person contribute a certain amount, since the whole point is that the thing is voluntary & free, and they've all got changing life circumstances that affect their contributions. Celebrate whatever shows up at the market, express your desire for things that would be useful, but don't impose a burden on anyone else to bring a specific thing, because otherwise it's fair for them to oppose such a burden on you, and now you two are doing your own barter thing that's outside the parameters of the really-free-market.

it's 2025 :-) all i want, as a SUMO (support.mozilla.org) knowledge base writer, is something that will take automated screenshots of Thunderbird for Android, Windows, macOS and Linux. Is that too much to ask :-) ? evidently so!!!!

PLpol, pseudoliberalism
Tell me, is a "liberal" the kind of person to claim that a woman must not become a president, as she'll get mad with power? Does a "liberal" declare their tolerance for specific people by using insulting names for them? Does a "liberal" call certain minorities "loafers"? Does a "liberal" support dismantling public services for "cost reduction"? Yet these are the views held by the voters of PO/KO, the Polish party often called "liberal".
It is not a liberal party, and it won't be one, because they have too much to lose. For years now, they exist only as an alternative to the "conservative" PiS party — not as something truly opposite, but as a comfortable alternative that's not all that different. So the Polish can gladly focus their contrarian, hateful nature into voting against one or the other party, without having to worry too much that some immoral rainbow force will try to shatter the bubble of their worldview.
#PLpol

So the basic idea is that we first compute a "level" for whatever interaction, by adding beneficial modifiers and subtracting harmful ones. Imagine most modifiers are smallish integers like 2 or -3 (though they can be non-integers too). Each level can be thought of as making things twice as good/bad, although this only applies directly when they're balanced. The actual formula starts with a 50/50 chance of "success" at level 0, and then each positive level halves the chance of failure, or if the levels are negative, each negative level halves the chance of success (note that halving the chance of failure is not the same as doubling the chance of success).
The intuitive explanation is that you start with a coin flip. Then if the level is positive, you flip that many additional coins and succeed if any single coin succeeds, but it the level is negative, you have to flip that many additional coins and succeed only if *all* flips succeed.
For example, if I have a dagger with 5 crit chance, and I attack an opponent with no armor modifiers, I'd have to win any 1 of 6 coin flips to score a crit (p = 1 - (1/(2^6)) = 63/64. Increasing my crit modifier by 1 ups my chances only slightly, to 127/128. This is obviously pretty poor return, indicating that the 5 I already have is very strong. If the opponent had armor with -3 to crits, the interaction is now level 2, so the crit chance is 7/8, which is still pretty good. We can see from these examples that the basic system
rewards a small level advantage a lot, but the rewards diminish rapidly. The system has a few avenues for tweaking how it works though, that can let us modify this. There's also a potential benefit (though sometimes drawback) that no matter what the level gap, there's an effective limit to how much the interaction swings.

One of the most important lessons I've learned in life / continue to learn / managed to forget is the importance of "stopping." It is so easy for life to become overwhelming with all the things I must do. Work, family, friends, volunteering, community, finances, chores, taking care of my health, the list goes on...
"Life is a very simple thing. We make it more complex." - Anonymous
"When we are making our life more complex, that is precisely the time when we are totally incapable of seeing what we are doing. The more complex our lives are, the more we need to be present to them and, surprisingly, this is exactly the time when we are most distracted. When we are distracted, we tend to have poor judgment and make more mistakes . . . usually adding to the confusion . . . and so it goes."
"....We usually respond by trying to become even more controlling and, eventually (or immediately!), this just makes things worse."
"It's time to stop, take stock, take some deep breaths, rest, listen to others, and regroup...We may miss something. We may even miss something we think is important. That's okay. We're more important."
"Taking time to stop may be just what I need to move ahead."
-- Anne Wilson Schaef, Meditations for People Who (May) Worry Too Much, Ballantine Books, 1996, entry for May 6th.
#life #quotes #health #productivity

The liberal obsession with optics serves the right and persuades no one. There is literally an active ethnic cleansing happening in the US right now, and the only thing that matters is making that as hard as possible to carry out.
Anarchists destroying intelligence assets saves lives. Every escooter thrown at a cop car is one less escort for a goon too afraid to kidnap random brown people without being flanked by a branch full of bad apples. Spray paint is not violence. Vandalism is not violence. Community self defense in all forms is legitimate.
Make no mistake, these raids are about changing demographics. Demographic trends have been shifting blue for a long time, and the right has, for a long time, been blaming "white replacement." Conspiracy theory aside, Democrats have also been relying on the growth of black and brown voters as a block. The nuances of whiteness as an identity are lost on the current administration and their supporters. They see that "white people will be a minority by 2050" and equate that with the "end of Western Civilization."
The only way to "save Western Civilization" is to change those demographics. Forced birth and forced removal are two sides of the same white nationalist objective. Of course they can't have due process, because they need to be able to kidnap anyone who they see as a threat to their demographic future.
They don't care about optics. The plan is to murder away any threat and flood everyone else with propaganda. There is no mythical middle. There's no one unconvinced. They know this, but they win when democrats buy that myth and save the police the work of policing the protests.
If your protest is 90% "peaceful," they'll take pictures of the 10% that isn't. If it's 99% peaceful, they'll shoot rubber bullets and teargas until someone throws a brick and take 100 pictures from a dozen angles. If its 100% "peaceful" and no one can be provoked, they'll generate pictures with AI or photoshop like they did during the George Floyd uprising and the pictures from the CHOP/CHAZ. Do you have literally no memory?
#USPol #FiftyFiftyOne #50501movenent #resistance #NoKingsDay #NoKingsDayOfAction