He means it's not in his feed. "Random old woman gets kidnapped" is represented 100 times more strongly in the datastream then "1000 protestors organize immigrant protection system" or "US Citizen Mung families defend elderly Vietnam vets".
... at least "Random Old Woman" has got people looking askance at the internet connected security camera ecosystem, I guess.
It's interesting how quickly the OSS movement went from "No, no, we just want to include companies in the Free Software Movement" to "Oh, don't worry, it's ok if companies with shareholders that are not accountable to the community have a complete monopoly on OSS, and decide what direction it takes"
FOSS was imagined as a brotherhood of hackers, sharing code back and forth to build a utopian code commons that provided freedom to build anything. It stayed firmly in the realm of the imaginary because, in the real world, everybody wants somebody else to foot the bill or do the work. Corporations stepped up once they figured out how to profit off of FOSS and everyone else was content to free ride off of the output because it meant they didn't have to lift a finger. The people who actually do the work are naturally in the driver's seat.
This perspective is astonishingly historically ignorant, and ignores how "Open Source Software" was a deliberate political movement to simultaneously neuter the non-company-friendly goals of FOSS while simultaneously providing a competing (and politically distracting) movement that deliberately courted companies.
The Free Software movement was successful enough that by 1997 it was garnering a lot of international community support and manpower. Eric S. Raymond published CatB in response to these successes, partly with a goal of "celebrating its successes" — sendmail, gcc, perl, and Linux were all popular projects with a huge number of collaborators by this point — and partly with a goal of reframing the Free Software movement such that it effectively neuters the political basis (i.e. the four freedoms, etc.) in a company-friendly way. It's very easy to note when reading the book, how it consistently celebrates the successes of Free Software in a company friendly way, deliberately to make it appealing to companies. Often being very explicit about its goals, e.g. "Don't give your workers good bonuses, because research shows that the better a ''hacker'' the less they care about money!".
A year later, internal memos from Microsoft leaked that showed that management were indeed scared shitless about Linux, a movement that they could neither completely Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish, nor practice Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt on, because the community that built it were too strong, and too dedicated. Management foresaw that it was only a matter until Linux was a very strong competitor — even if that's taken 20 years, they were decently accurate in their fears, and, to be honest, part of why it's taken 30 years for Linux to catch up are deliberate actions by Microsoft wrt. introducing and adopting technologies that would stymie the Free Software movement from being able to adapt.
Well, from what I’ve seen, the most likely theory is that the agent who disarmed the man (after another agent had yelled “gun”) then accidentally discharged the weapon, which caused all the other ICE officers to freak out and discharge their weapons.
I don’t want to argue over the broader questions; ie should ICE even be there and doing this; are they adequately trained; are they overly aggressive to tackle this guy and pepper spray him in the first instance; is American law enforcement is way too trigger happy and protective of their own skin; and so on. There’s a lot of validity to all of that. But the narrow story of this particular incident changes a lot if there was an accidental discharge that made the other offices believe he was shooting.
You can quite clearly see the second shooter in the video standing over him, shooting him multiple times as he's laying motionless on the ground after being beaten and shot once.
> the most likely theory
According to whom? What's your source for this? Wild that you're trying to muddy the waters with "theories" that even ICE hasn't claimed (the only defense so far is that he was a violent domestic terrorist who wanted to murder ICE agents, which is demonstrably false).
> You can quite clearly see the second shooter in the video standing over him, shooting him multiple times as he's laying motionless on the ground after being beaten and shot once.
Yes, that's how cops/ICE react when they hear gunshots. They shoot and ask questions later. I'm not necessarily defending that (I think it would be a great thing if cops/ICE received more extensive training, cared more about de-escalation techniques, and perhaps even were more willing to risk their own lives than just always shoot recklessly), but putting all that aside, if someone yells "gun", and then a shot is fired, the second shooter then assuming it's the guy they are tackling that shot, and shooting him multiple times in response, is a typical cop reaction. So the main question is - who fired the first shot and why? The moral weight of the event, at least in my view, is very different if it was ICE deliberately shooting, or an accidental discharge that triggered everything.
> According to whom? What's your source for this? Wild that you're trying to muddy the waters with "theories" that even ICE hasn't claimed (the only defense so far is that he was a violent domestic terrorist who wanted to murder ICE agents, which is demonstrably false).
Most likely according to me, based on the videos I have seen (https://x.com/Landeur/status/2015191223900803407). I could be wrong. I was responding to someone who said there's clear video that it was a deliberate execution. The water of any breaking news reporting is already muddy; it's all speculation on all sides.
You're the only person speculating about their motives. Everyone else is watching the same incident, shot from multiple cameras/angles, which make it clear that an extreme escalation of violence from untrained ICE agents towards a man who was attempting to help a woman (who was also attacked in a show of excessive force) ended in his unnecessary death. The motives are irrelevant - these people are untrained, trigger-happy, and just killed another person.
> But the narrow story of this particular incident changes a lot if there was an accidental discharge that made the other offices believe he was shooting.
Does it? What you are describing is still a monstrous crime. The federal government is insisting that absolutely nothing went wrong and that Pretti was intending to massacre ICE agents. Even taking an enormously charitable reading of the killing I am still horrified by the actions of the government here.
You too. Tell me if you disagree that this seems to show the officer who removed the gun may have plausibly accidentally discharged the first shot: https://x.com/Landeur/status/2015191223900803407
The footage is too grainy to say anything for certain in my view.
> Well, from what I’ve seen, the most likely theory is that the agent who disarmed the man (after another agent had yelled “gun”) then accidentally discharged the weapon, which caused all the other ICE officers to freak out and discharge their weapons.
Then an investigation should clear up the situation and exonerate the ICE folks. But ICE/FBI are (a) not investigating any of the shootings, and (b) are blocking the local police from investigating.
In the Renee Good case, the FBI is actually 'investigating' the victim of the shooting.
Absolutely disgusting how long police as a group have gotten away with just murdering people.
QI is a travesty of a ruling. Looked it up just now:
> '[a] policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does.'
Except they're sure as hell not being held accountable for dereliction of duty either.
I watched the director’s cut again last week, and I don’t see this at all. The Leon character explicitly refuses Mathilda’s… well they’re not even propositions are they.
Ok. I'm not convinced at this point, because I don't know how Besson allegedly wanted the scenes to be filmed. And that isn't to say I approve of Luc Besson's choices in his personal life — I find the idea of a romance between a 32 year old and a 15 year old unacceptable. Whether there are parallels between his private life and his artistic expression, I am unwilling to speculate on.
Loved Dilbert as a kid, even into college, but fell off it eventually. Even if he turned to right wing trolling, I'll always remember those big comic compilations fondly.
My entire question is why can't whatever users do on computers actually work on 2GB of RAM? Like what is the true reason we are in state that it is for some reason not possible?
2 GB is huge amount information. So surely it should be enough for almost all normal users, but for some reason it is not.
Quick.. list your favorite software and tell us how much GBs of space they use after installation and how many GBs of RAM they consume when running.
You will find most of your fave programs struggle badly with 2-4GB of RAM, even on Linux.
Over the years most software programs (even on mobile) have become bloated and slow due to "new features" (even if most people don't need them) and also because it is a nexus with the hardware manufacturers. Who will buy any expensive CPU, more RAM, larger capacity SSDs, bigger displays, etc., if there is no software program needing all that extra oomph of performance, bandwidth, and fidelity?
One potential reason: now that CPU clock speed is plateauing, parallelism is the main way to juice performance. Many apps try to take advantage of it by running N processes for N cores. For instance, my 22-core machine will use all 22 cores in parallel by default for builds with modern build systems. That's compiling ~22 files at once, using ~5x as much RAM as the 4-core machines of 15 years ago, all else being equal. As parallelism increases further, expect your builds to use even more memory.
... at least "Random Old Woman" has got people looking askance at the internet connected security camera ecosystem, I guess.