You used to need admin or something like that. It's only since about 2017 that they are available to normal users by default.
FizzyOrange
joined 2 years ago
Or giving in. Symlinks are a lazy hacky mistake. The original Unix authors knew it and tried to fix it in Plan9, but I guess now we're stuck with that mistake forever. Even WASI supports symlinks.
Sure but that's orthogonal to f-strings.
Realistic more like. Half of the petitions are dumb, so they're already conditioned to ignore them. And this one is literally something that just happened. No way they're repealing it immediately.
Best case they roll back some stuff in like 10 years. I read a BBC article about it though and in the "criticism of the act" section they only had quotes from people saying it doesn't go far enough! So I wouldn't hold your breath.
To be fair this was quite wtf-free. Mostly just unimportant formatting subtleties and stuff you'd never write.
Python definitely has bigger WTFs, like bool being an int, implicit bool conversion, implicit iteration of strings, etc.
Ofcom said these checks "will help stop young children from stumbling across porn".
"Oh no I appear to have accidentally typed pornhub.com into my browser and clicked 'I am over 18' and then clicked on a video. How clumsy of me to stumble across porn like this!"
These people are mind-blowingly naive. If you want an insight into just how naive read the comments from Naomi Miles and Roxy Brealey here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-bfe8d0c8-c977-483c-a074-c15fafb654e8
From personal experience - you can definitely tell when someone watches a lot of porn. I believe they’re more likely to sexualise women - and they do that very openly.
Lol no Roxy. You've met some creeps and you thought "they must be creeps because they watch a lot of porn". Most men watch porn and a lot of women too:
A third (33%) of 18-24 females and three-quarters (75%) of 18-24 males visited [pornhub] in September 2020.
Pure idiocy.
You mean Chinese models. There are no useful LLMs that are trained in an open source way. It's too expensive. There are only "open weight" models.
Windows is doing Linux a solid here by requiring ACPI on ARM. Kind of surprising that Linux doesn't support it.
I dunno... I get the motivation but this feels pretty discriminatory.
The Plan 9 solution looks better to me. At the very least if you keep them then paths should be resolved lexically. I think most people are under the false impression that they are resolved lexically (i.e.
foo/bar/../bazandfoo/bazare the same).But IMO it's better just to not have them and use another solution where you might have used them.