I think there was originally some confusion because graphics of the sistership were reused for news reporting because they thought it was close enough.

The Nyquist theorem, in very simple terms, describes the minimum measurements you need to take to capture all the information in a signal. It turns out, if you have special information about what signal you expect to see, you can still figure it out using fewer measurements.

Generally speaking, it tells you how many measurements you need to take to capture the whole signal.

Did this come from a series of AI generated green text? I seem to remember the story.

I’ve met one of these zero-regulation idiots thinking that somehow the average Joe benefits from giving all power to anyone with lots of money who isn’t them.

I legit would love to discuss sub-Nyquist sampling. I worked in the field for a few years.

Thanks for the recommendation! Will add this to my reading list.

With what? Where would you store the encryption key for the encryption key on a desktop system where it would not be accessible to an attacker?

Perhaps there could be a pin or password that must be entered every time to decrypt it into memory.

I really don’t think that the Supreme Court is concerned with the details. It’s official if they say it is.

Kings have divine right and cannot break the law.

The shareholders are seeking to juice the company and throw it away as usual. Users need to see the writing on the wall and move on.

Sovcit-tier reasoning from some of the highest points in our rotten justice system once again.

Wow, I didn’t know that the quality of a process changes with time.

Would someone generously explain so that I may partake in the funny?

This is the problem those tools try to solve. They package everything else upon which software might depend that can’t simply be linked into a single binary.

My workflow always definitely includes multiple weeks to debug random issues with building the tools I need to use. Totally a scalable and good solution to dump this work on the end user.

This doesn’t scale. If I have a bug and my package has about two dozen dependencies which can all be different versions, and the developer can’t reproduce my bug, I’m just screwed. Developers don’t have the time and resources to chase down a bug that depends on build time variables.

Ask me how I know this happens.

Great point! At the end of the day, the apps I want to use will decide which distro I main. Many FOSS fanatics are quick to critique Ubuntu, So they should support solutions that allow our distro to be diverse and use all the killer apps.

It’s definitely a moving target and I can see a world where it stays in the same relative position. Moving to a better node is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be competitive.

Precisely. Flatpaks solve an important problem. Perfect should not be the enemy of good.

Binary compatibility is a sad story on Linux, and we cannot expect developers — many of whom work for free — to package, test, debug, and maintain releases for multiple distributions. If we want a sustainable ecosystem with diverse distributions, we must answer the compatibility question. This is a working option that solves the problem, and it comes with minor security benefits because it isolates applications not just from the system but from each other.

It’s fair to criticize a solution, but I think it’s not fair to ignore the problem and expect volunteers to just work harder.

Woof. This is why it’s critically important to use a password manager. We simply have too many accounts to remember unique passwords, and repeatedly we see some of those accounts will get breached and your details stolen.

It’s a great idea to keep this culture alive. Let’s take back what belongs to us, not a profit-seeking company: community.