Frankly I don’t know what folks should have otherwise expected. The “standard” candidate was a former governor who left the office in disgrace after misconduct.

Even if people were for whatever reason skeptical of a progressive candidate, the business as usual candidate was such a bad idea that people would rather go for it than vote for Cuomo.

Now we watch as Cuomo probably ruins everything by running in the general anyway. The same reason why people say the progressives that can’t win Democrat primaries should bow out for general elections without RCV applies to “centrists” in the same boat. A progressive candidate won fair and square, stay out of his way.

I’m not exactly sure what you think the specific ask is…

It’s very general, somehow he has the funds to have a maddeningly extravagant wedding, so he can afford to have a tax burden…

It’s vague and doesn’t invite debate over the nature and nuance of his wealth, only that he can somehow pull off a celebration no reasonable person could dream of, including closing off a whole crap ton of Venice to general public use for a whole week. That’s a whole lot of spend that he can casually brush off indicating that in real terms he’s got unreasonable levels of wealth.

It’s not getting down in the details about unrealized gains and leveraging said gains through loopholes and the discussion about what taxable burden might should be associated with unrealized gains of that magnitude, it’s showing a clear example of “he has extravagant financial power, without as high relatively of a financial burden”.

Frankly the online stuff doesn’t get to me, but I could see how the generalizations could leave a person succeptible to a narrative. Online interactions tend to have some people taking the easy way and espousing simplified generalizations and on the receiving end are a lot of people that may take the online stuff too serious.

The false dichotomy works because those are the two loudest viewpoints online, that men are villains without a clear path to being accepted or to embrace horribly harmful toxic masculinity to get some screwed up sense of belonging and success. Young men online are at risk of being ill equipped to navigate the nuance That tends to be quieter over the noise of the two more passionate perspectives.

I apologize in advance if I missed some very bad0 comments by not going into the deeply down voted comments.

But at least some of the concerns are about the young men being declared the “villains” and the other side declaring them to be the victims of injustice and they will gravitate toward the more workable message.

Like bystanders seeing the people making life hard for women and being jerks, but not themselves participating and the commentary is less “that guy is a dick” and more “why are all men so terrible?”

Sure a lot of guys are terrible, but the generalizations can make it feel like you can’t win.

So did I at first

This article was from before the election.

This sounds like a whole lot of convoluted bullshit to use Plex locally and “looking local” through VPN solutions when you could just roll a Jellyfin instance and do things a more straightforward way…

I think before airplane people would have said the same of Leslie Nielson. I’m going to reserve judgement for now.

If a protest of a billion people happens, then it cannot be ignored by the media.

I know, it was hyperbole, but the point is that if 12 million people are on the street, it’s not that the 12 million people need to get people’s attention, they are indicative that the people already have that perspective and are showing it in the streets.

A small protest has a goal of getting attention on a problem that people may lack awareness. A multi-million person protest isn’t about a need to raise awareness anymore, it’s about showing the awareness and commitment that is already there. For whatever volume of people actively protest, you can be sure there’s a singnificant multiple of that number of people who agree with the protestors but didn’t take it to the streets for one reason or another.

Well I meant the more rhetorical “pushing”, but yes, some of the activity of the claimed non-violence seems a bit violent.

I would say that I doubt you can have millions of people protest and manage to be completely non-violent. Some folks will take it to violence in the name of the cause, some will opportunisticly do it under the cover of the movement, and finally some might “false flag” to try to discredit the movement.

On the one hand, most of those incidents cited were in the face of a regime that also didn’t want to care. Just hard to ignore circumstances if 3.5% of your people are out on the streets and likely most of the people off the streets agree with them.

On the other hand, they base this on very few instances, so it’s hardly a statistical slam dunk, it’s vaguely supportive of some concepts, but anyone taking note of specific numbers is really overextending the research beyond what it can possibly say.

I think it’s not “3.5% of people want an outcome” but “protests of significant magnitude to have 3.5% actively on the streets pushing” correlate with a very very large population that agrees, but not enough to be out on the streets.

So even if 40 million people want single payer, there are not 12 million in the streets.

But again, this is based on a scant handful of “movements”, so it’s pretty useless on specifics. Most I can see as a takeaway is perhaps that a violent movement may be too high stakes for people and a largely non-violent movement can attract more people and more people usually matter more than more violence.

Based on the article “no non-violent movement that has involved more than 3.5% of a population has ever failed” has the caveat of “we only look at 3 of them, and those 3 worked”.

So their overall sample size is small, and the 3.5% sample size is just 3. Further, those 3 had no idea someone in the vague future would retroactively measure their participation to declare it a rock solid threshold.

I think the broader takeaway is that number of people seems to matter more than degree of violence, and violence seems to alienate people that might have otherwise participated.

can’t even do video playback on VLC.

I remember back in the day when I downloaded the first divx file my K6-400 couldn’t smoothly play… I had been so used to thinking of that as a powerhouse coming from my Pentium 60, which was the first one I ran Linux on.

You can use one of a few ways to use the TPM to auto decrypt on boot without passphrase. Systemd cryptenroll is my favorite.

Because it says to do so?

Proxmox uses Debian as the OS and for several scenarios it says do Debian to get that done and just add the proxmox software. It’s managing qemu kvm on a deb managed kernel

incorrect behavior that doesn’t even have the courtesy to throw an actual error.

To be fair, this can be said of C. A C executable only really forces a crash out when you royally screw up beyond the bounds of your memory. Otherwise functions just return a negative value and calling code that never bothers to check just keep on going.

Golang is similar, slightly mitigated that if you are assigning any return value from a function, you must also explicitly receive an error and you know full well that you are being lazy if you don’t handle it. Well unless you use a panic/recover scheme but golang community will skewer you alive for casually suggesting that and certainly third party libraries aren’t going to do it that way.

Could I write a compiler in C that does this check on a piece of Rust code?

Well yes, but that code has to be written in Rust. The human has to follow rules to give the compiler a chance to check things.

C is so simplictic, that if I can write a piece of functionality in C, I must understand its inner workings fully. Not just how to use the feature, but how the feature works under the hood.

I don’t think that’s particularly more true of C than Rust or even Golang. In C you are frequently making function calls anyway for the real fun stuff. If you ever compile a “simplistic” chunk of C code that you think is obvious how it would compile to assembly and you open up the assembly output, you are likely to be very surprised with what the compiler chose to do. I’ve seen some professional C developers that never actually had a reason to fully understand how the stack works, since C abstracts that away and the implications of the stack don’t matter until you exceed some limitations.

Technically any language runtime can end in a segmentation fault.

For some languages, in principle this shouldn’t be possible, but the runtimes can have bugs and/or you are calling libraries that do some native code at some point.

Yes, as long as you were on the side that benefits from success, it was better to leave things “simple” and not challenge the incorrect stuff out loud you aren’t going to “well actually…” the “expert” if it risks your job and/or the wrong stuff isn’t too important or too hard to overcome when the rubber meets the road.

Still, sitting in a room or otherwise being a party to a conversation where an executive is constantly being confidently incorrect and still praised as a smart expert likely making 7 figures is maddening.