Notices by Elias Mårtenson (loke@functional.cafe), page 5

@aral @shoq I know nothing about this guy, but this post was very poorly written. Directionless, and made a weird turn into UK politics before it just ended without any conclusion.

@catsalad you missed the obvious ones: man🧍♂️, head 😀, tail 🐒, zip 🤐, cd 💿, vi ✏️, tee🏌♂️, dc⚡️, perl 🦪, sh 🐚, reboot 🥾

@ekaitz_zarraga @amszmidt @janneke @vagrantc but bootstrappability and reproducible builds are not the same.

@clacke Did he ever make commercials? Then that.

@siege I'm not a native English speaker, but I do consider myself a decent enough speaker.

That said, I have no idea what "sting quality" means, and I don't think I ever heard it.

I can't even think of a good hypothetical meaning for the term?

@clacke @tindall I have for a long time been of the opinion that the number of people that understands technology is constant. Back in the 80's the people who understood technology and the people who used technology was roughly the same set. This led to a misbelief that using technology made you understand it.

Turns out that the cause and effect were reversed, and just like how you don't have to be a mechanic to drive a car these days, you don't have to understand technology to use it.

The notion that kids who grew up with a smartphone in their hand would understand technology like a child learns their mother's tongue is a huge, and frankly dangerous, lie that keeps being told even today. The term "digital native" is annoying me.

Just like the people who know how to design cars put things like seatbelts, crash protection, engine temperature warnings, etc into the cars to make them safe to use for people who are not mechanics, it's the duty of tech people to make the products they make safe for the users.

The tech industry is full of drug dealers only interested in peddling their dangerous wares rather than engineers that design safe products for the public's use.

@clacke I pretty much completely agree with this list.

@clacke now order the movies. 😄

@jynersolives wait. What did he do this time?

@peteriskrisjanis @jynersolives So he backpedalled on that? I'm almost disappointed.

@eniko I started thinking that when the butt vibrator drama was unfolding.

This is amazing. The "crypto industry" is already so ridiculous that the people who are in cannot tell if they're being trolled.

https://youtu.be/xmVt8lC74ns

@quad When did they go out of stock? I bought one from Sweden early this year.

That was a hassle by the way, when I access the site from Singapore it still says: "This item is not available for reservation in your country"

When I placed by order from Sweden, they clearly went out of their way to make sure that you don't order from overseas. They check all of his, and if you do it wrong you taint your account so you have to create a new one. I think I created 4 accounts before being able to order:

• Need to connect from Sweden
• Need to register with a Swedish address
• Need to use a Swedish credit card
• Need to use a Swedish delivery address

@quad it is so weird that it's still limited. It couldn't possibly be because of supply issues? It's not like it's hard to get in the countries where or is offered.

@quad what part of Asia? Komodo appears to only serve japan?

@galdor

By masking the pointer type in some cases but not others, you are making your code inconsistent.

This one I disagree with. Unless they also expose ssh_key_struct of course. Could it be that you made a typo in your previous message and when you wrote: const ssh_key * you means to say const ssh_key_struct *?

You also hide useful information: if a function accepts a parameter of type ssh_key, it is reasonable to wonder if it is a structure passed by copy, a pointer to something you must allocate yourself, or something more complicated altogether.

This is much more valid argument in my opinion, and the main reason I never hide pointers behind typedefs. And if it's done, then the underlying struct that the typedef'ed pointer points to should be internal and not visible in the main header.

@galdor A const ssh_key * is equivalent to struct ssh_key_struct **. In both cases it's a pointer to a pointer to a struct.

The way to think about it is that the "pointer to ssh struct" is the object itself. The fact that it's a pointer is irrelevant. When you declare a ssh_key * all you do is create a pointer to this object type (which happens to be a pointer).

@galdor I never do that myself, but if the type is meant to be an opaque thing, then I don't really see the problem with it?

@welshpixie I was half-way into writing a counter argument to their tirade about the greatness of federating with facebook.

Then I decided not to and cancelled the post. There is absolutely nothing good that would have come out of that post.

I've been reading up of electronics and circuit design, and I find it very interesting. However, I don't have any hardware to experiment with at the moment, and I'd probably break things even if I did.

Is there a simple circuit simulation tool I can use to learn how to build simple things?

I don't need a full design tool, and I just want something that is simple and easy so that I can test things as I read about them.