Oh no, I recently saw someone shitting on it still. They exist!

Most have just wisened up and moved to a systemd-less sphere, I assume, rather than fighting a lost battle on a niche hill.

1. That’s a personal preference. Many people do care about aesthetics and I don’t think invalidating their taste is fair. Hence, if you wanted to add factors accounting for that preference, you’d have to define some additional variable for it.
2. If a is a subjective measure of aesthetic value - as it must be, since taste is a subjective thing - you might as well include the factor already.
3. If a is normalised against some fixed scale, but bloat (having effectively no upper limit) is impossible to normalise, it would be more reasonable to increase f instead in order to model the fact that a larger distro may also come with more functionality.
4. You don’t need the extra parentheses around 0.5*a
5. We’re both fucking nerds and I love it

Really, the metric we should be looking at is (f+a)/b where f is some subjective weighted measure of functionality, a of aesthetic value and b describes the bloat.

I didn’t take your comment as rude, personally. To me, opening with Akshually indicated that joking intent to parody pedantry and I took no offense. I just felt like expressing my opinion on the term with no particular judgement of your joke because I think that the words we use are worth talking about.

I know I have a habit of replying seriously to jokes, which often comes across as me taking issue with them. I keep forgetting to clarify the tone of my message. If only there was a medical term for that communication deficit 😉

I can’t speak for all of us, but I prefer “Autism” as a blanket term (that we hopefully all understand covers a wide spectrum anyway) over “Disorder”. Yes, I get that we deviate from the neurodevelopmental norm, but “Disorder” feels condescending to what I perceive as simply a different way of working.

I also understand that some with higher support needs may differ from that perception. My opinion is not universal.

On the other hand, I’m perfectly fine with calling my ADHD a Disorder. Shit’s chaotic as fuck.

High at 14h

Sure sounds Arbeitslos to me

(This is a joke, not an insult or criticism)

Way off the mark then, embarrassing. Particularly since I’m from Southwest Germany, you’d think I’d recognise Schwyzerdütsch. I definitely need more exposure to dialects.

What dialect is that? Sounds like Pfälzisch to me but I never was good at placing other dialects

Computers are as much ritual and magic as they are understanding. The Tech Priests of WH40k had the right of it.

Then do some digging and find that the GitHub instructions omitted some particular dependency, make a mental note to contribute a PR to the documentation later once you’ve got it working, get it working, promptly forget contributing that documentation, move distro later, try to reinstall the same program, make the same mistake, same discovery, learn nothing, repeat ad nauseam.

[The list concatenation function] ++ is an infix function i.e. [1,2,3] ++ [3,4,5] = [1,2,3,3,4,5] (which will be equivalent to doing (++) [1,2,3] [3,4,5] by virtue of how infix functions work in Haskell).

I think that’s the part I was most confused by. I’m coming mostly from Java and C, where ++ would be the unary operator to increment a number. I would have expected that symbol in a functional language context to be a shorthand for + 1. The idea of it being an infix function didn’t occur to me.

Partial applications I remember from a class on Clojure I took years ago, but as far as I remember, the functions always had to come first in any given expression. Also, I believe partial fills the arguments from the left, so to add a suffix, I’d have to use a reversed str function. At that point, it would probably be more idiomatic to just create an inline function to suffix it. So if my distant recollection doesn’t fail me, the Clojure equivalent of that partial function would be #(str % " Is Not an Emulator").

iterate works the same though, I think, so the whole expression would be (def wine (iterate #(str % " Is Not an Emulator") "WINE") )

This code was typed on a mobile phone in a quick break based off of years-old memories, so there might be errors, and given it was a single class without ever actually applying it to any problems, I have no real sense for how idiomatic it really is. I’ll gladly take any corrections.

NGL though, that last, readable version is sexy as hell.

I’ve never worked with Haskell, but I’ve been meaning to expand my programming repertoire (particularly since I don’t get to do much coding at work, let alone learn new languages) and this makes for a nice opportunity, so I wanna try to parse this / guess at the syntax.

I assume iterate function arg applies some function to arg repeatedly, presumably until some exit condition is met? Or does it simply create an infinite, lazily evaluated sequence?

( ) would be an inline function definition then, in this case returning the result of applying ++suffix to its argument (which other languages might phrase something like arg += suffix), thereby appending " Is Not an Emulator" to the function argument, which is initially “WINE”.

So as a result, the code would produce an infinite recurring “WINE Is Not an Emulator Is Not an Emulator…” string. If evaluated eagerly, it would result in an OOM error (with tail recursion) or a stack overflow (without). If evaluated lazily, it would produce a lazy string, evaluated only as far as it is queried (by some equivalent of a head function reading the first X characters from it).

How far off am I? What pieces am I missing?

Ah yeah, that seems to have Anticheat issues.

Still, I like to term it “System inertia” - moving systems is work, and unless something applies force, getting yourself to switch is hard.

Laziness most definitely is a thing. I didn’t switch until I had to.

What’s TOF? I’m only finding answers about flight instruments and cardiac issues

Playing games in general or specific games? Because just about every game I like to play runs just fine on Linux now. The only one I ever missed was Destiny2, but then I moved on.

You can recommend all you want, the decision is far removed from me

Idk how that person’s IT works, but in mine, that would probably warrant a lot of paperwork. The techs would have to pitch the change to client management, client management would have to pitch it to change management and provide test results to show it has no side effects, then deal with the techs complaining about the uptick in tickets about slow boot times or people justifying never shutting down or restarting with it taking so long to boot.

Not that they’re actually slow, our users are just super entitled. I got to observe the rollout of automatic screen lock for security reasons, and the ensuing pushback. The audacity of having to reenter your password if you’ve spent more than ten minutes doing nothing!

Security even managed to push for reducing it to five minutes after some unfortunate incident… but it got reverted for reasons you can probably guess. Hint: shit always flows downward.

I work in our service department myself (not as support tech though), but obviously, all tickets are supposed to go through 1st level. I don’t wanna be the dick skipping queue, so I did then one time I had an issue.

There’s a unique feeling of satisfaction to submitting a ticket with basically all the 1st level troubleshooting in the notes, allowing the tech to immediately escalate it to a 2nd level team. One quick call, one check I didn’t know about, already prepared the escalation notes while it ran. Never have I heard our support sound so cheerful.