BaumGeist

The video description says it's aimed at Windows users, dd and cat have no power there

Even the manpage Telorand linked mentions it by name for non-interactive use.

Also, make sure you use the right program depending on thr partition table : sgdisk is the right choice for GPT disks, sfdisk is for MBR.

Use conv=fsync

This ensures the cache is written before dd exits, but doesn't necessarily write to disk directly. This means that, for small files, dd can finish release its hold on the input file quicker

iw dev <interface> station dump will show every metric about the connection, including the signal strength and average signal strength.

It won't show it as an ascii graphic as with nmcli, but it shouldn't be hard to create a wrapper script to grep that info and convert it to a simplified output if you're willing to put in the effort of understanding the dBm numbers.

E.g. -10 dBm is the maximum possible and -100 dBm is the minimum (for the 802.11 spec), but the scale is logarithmic so -90 dBm is 10x stronger than the absolute minimum needed for connectivity, and I can only get ~-20 dBm with my laptop touching the AP.

Basically my point is that the good ol' "bars" method of demonstrating connection strength was arbitrarily decided and isn't closely tied to connection quality. This way you get to decide what numbers you want to equate to a 100% connection.

I'm a big fan of the idea of efficient computing, and I think we'd see more power savings at the End Users based on hardware. I don't need an intel i9-nteen50 and a Geforce 4090 to mindlessly ingest videos or browse lemmy. In fact, I could get away with that using less power than my phone uses; we really should move to the ARM model of low power cores suitable for most tasks and performance cores that only turn on when necessary. Pair that with less bloatware and you're getting maximum performance per instruction run.

SoCs also have the benefit of power efficient GPU and memory, while standardizing hardware so programmers can optimize to the platform again instead of getting lost in APIs and driver bloat.

The only downside is the difficulty of upgrading hardware, but CPUs (and GPUs) are basically blackboxes to the End User already and no one complains about not being able to upgrade just the L1 cache (or vram).

Imagine a future where most end user MOBOs are essentially just a socket for a socketed-SoC standard, some m.2 ports, and of course the PCI slots (with the usual hardwired ports for peripherals). Desktops/laptops would generate less waste heat, computers would use less electricity, graphical software developement would be less of a fustercluck (imagine the manhours saved), there'd be less e-waste (imagine not needing a new mobo for the new chipset if you want to upgrade your cpu after 5 years), you'd be able to upgrade laptop PUs.

Of course the actual implementation of such a standard would necessarily get fuckered by competing interests and people who only want to see the numbers go up (both profit-wise and performance-wise) and we'd be back where we are now... But a gal can dream.

From an outsider perspective (I haven't used Nix at all), the downsides I see are that it's extra software on top of the defaults for any given distro, it's not optimized for the distro (meaning it might pull in dependencies that already exist or not use distro specific APIs/libs), and it doesn't adhere to the motivations of the distro (e.g. not adhering to the DFSGs for Debian).

And of course, most of the packages are community maintained and there's the immutability, which might be a hinderance to some use cases, but not for me.

All in all, not really the worst if you're not worried about space or getting the absolute most in performance and not an ideologue, but it's enough to make me stick with APT. I chose Debian because of its commitment to FOSS, not the stability nor performance.

it's not a "gen" thing. They are still used by bots and scammers and pirates and and well-meaning n00bs who unknowingly abuse the service. They're just also used for privacy now.

Take the passive-aggressive nerd approach:

1. Start a niche online movement that only cares about one aspect of computing and convinces people all their problems are caused by your pet peeve

2. let the company dig its grave

3. create a FOSS alternative

4. sell a premium version for businesses (it includes phone support and management-friendly marketing matetials)

5. congrats, you are now the de facto standard software in your field

thank mr skeltal

Two addenda:

1. Incompleteness applies to all formal systems of logic, not just maths, which means that the systems we based the scientific method and our best attempts at justice systems and formal argumentation/debate and academia are all subject to incompleteness.

2. Incomplete systems can also be inconsistent, it's possible everything we base our collective knowledge on are such systems.

Omnipotent, not just omnipresent (which would be entailed by the combination of omnipotence and omniscience).

Otherwise the problem has a very obvious and unsatisfactory solution (god has no power to make a difference).

I dislike the conception of Free Will that asserts will is only free if it is not deterministic. Any system dictated by the law of Cause and Effect will necessarily be deterministic, given knowledge of First Cause. Together, those premises imply that the only way to be truly free is in a chaotic universe, i.e. one without a relationship between Cause and Effect, where decisions are completely arbitrary and have no predictable outcome anyway.

The fact of the matter is that you're already free to do whatever you want, even if that's shooting yourself in the foot or refusing the choice entirely and running off to live in the woods, and that's freedom enough for all practical meanings of the word.