he inherited Vietnam from Kennedy

He co-authored the Southern Strategy, he deliberately sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks to win the election, he explicitly targeted racial minorities and the anti-war left by starting the war on drugs, and need I even mention the obvious?

That what Slick wanted to do would not have helped is not an invitation to whitewash this monster.

Edit: And you mean “from LBJ”, unless you mean to say that Kennedy started US involvement, which he didn’t.

50–150 μg. 600 μg would severely fuck you up – let alone if you’ve never used it.

God bless you, Chargeman Ken.

True. Just an FYI, if you have a reasonable editing track record, you can get an exemption from that block.

So vindicated.

Stop spamming LLM slop, OP.

Get that first week of Macroecon 101 shit out of here before I go into outrage withdrawal.

resist corporate bullshit by spitting in their face.

“Resist corporate bullshit by eschewing the free, non-corporate option – which, because it’s open, gets better the more people use it – in favor of continuing to use the exact same corporate product but with an abstruse, hacky workaround that 0.001% of the userbase will use and will probably be plugged by this time next week. That’ll show those corpo fucks who’s boss. ✊Ⓐ”

The Flintstones, for what it’s worth, came out in a time before cartoons were seen as “for kids” by default. The Flintstones is basically The Honeymooners but animated and prehistoric, so while Winston would’ve unambiguously known it was marketing to some children, The Flintstones was an adult animated sitcom.

The Flintstones is retrospectively seen through the lens of “kids’ show” in large part because of things like kids’ merch (e.g. Flintstones vitamins and cereal), rerunning on stations like Cartoon Network, generally a more heavy “animation is for kids” defaultism, and the fact that later adult animated sitcoms like The Simpsons pushed the envelope much farther.

I guess they think they’re a Homestuck troll.

It’s technically more money upfront, but you’re not just buying the printer itself: you’re also buying the starter ink/toner cartridges that come with the device. The starter toner gives you vastly more pages than the starter ink, and it basically never goes bad. According to Brother, the size of a starter toner cartridge is 1000 A4 pages. According to HP, their Deskjet and Envy starter cartridges print about 150 and 250 pages, respectively.

So that higher upfront cost doesn’t just go into a better, more efficient machine; it also goes into quadruple the starting pages or more. There are people who could seriously never print more than 1000 pages, whereas the starter for a Deskjet is so small that you practically ought to buy a spare cartridge alongside the printer for when it near-immediately runs out.

Basically, if I’m not flat-ass broke, I’m paying another $63 upfront for an XL ink cartridge from HP for one of these printers. And what’s the page yield? 430. I’m still not even near the starter toner cartridge page capacity after spending an extra $63 on ink. To me, the upfront cost of an inkjet printer is pragmatically higher unless I’m so boots-theory-of-economics broke that all I can afford is the printer unit and only print a few pages a month tops.

I replied to Scrubbles, not to you, OP. If you saw it, I actually edited in “sorry for the brutal honesty, OP” at the end for just a minute because after I’d already submitted that comment, I misread something you said that made me think this was your work-in-progress hobby project (which is really sad that I could’ve thought that to begin with). I did try it here as linked below, and it’s hilariously horrendous. It’s like somebody made a bootleg Docusaurus where the contents of the page are editable and you can do a poor man’s git diff between edits and said “done, we’re wiki software now”. There are so many things wrong with this in the way of being serious, productive wiki software that I don’t even know where to begin. It’s somehow only barely less terrible than Fandom, and Fandom has 20% of the screen dedicated to actual articles and is a cancer eating away at fan wikis (plugging Indie Wiki Buddy).

Edit: Is there not even a spot at the bottom of the page for the license the contents of the article are released under? Oh my god. Copyleft is the most singularly important aspect of a healthy, thriving wiki, and instead of telling me a license like CC BY-SA 4.0, it’s saying “Powered by Wiki.js”. I can’t. This is not a serious piece of software created by someone who’s touched a wiki in their life.

Fandom uses MediaWiki just like Wikimedia projects do, and that also means it uses wikitext rather than markdown. MediaWiki is especially nice because 1) it’s something prolific editors are already familiar with, 2) it has a great WYSIWYG editor called VisualEditor, 3) it’s basically guaranteed to be rock-solid, 4) it has good support and documentation, 5) wikitext is portable to functionally any wiki (apparently except Wiki.js right now, which is genuinely unacceptable for wiki software), and 6) a lot of tools, extensions, and preferences that let you customize your editing experience are made for MediaWiki.

Looking at Wiki.js as someone with a decade of extensive experience editing and administrating various wikis, it looks very style-over-substance. Assuming the screenshot of their docs is supposed to represent the wiki, it’s basic as all fuck in comparison to what a MediaWiki page is capable of. It’s literally just text, headers, and hyperlinks to other pages. This is something fiddling around with CSS for 20 minutes could produce.

The sidebar has a bog-standard telescoping ToC, a standard history button (I hope that leads to a full history, anyway), a star rating system*, and a bookmark/share/print icon trio. This is baby’s first wiki. Where are the templates? Captioned images? Tables? Not all pages have to have these things, but Wiki.js gives the reader one (1) image at the top as a first impression, and it’s something totally unremarkable.

* As someone with 25,000+ edits on Wikipedia where we actually rate articles (other wikis don’t seriously do this), I can tell you this is absolutely fucking useless. We have a rating system on Wikipedia called Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A (basically disused), and FA. This is on the talk page and is nomimally based on various criteria. Almost always, the people using it actually know what they’re doing. Here, though? You’re encouraging substituting an actual talk page discussion (which I don’t even see here) with a useless star rating. Does the star rating reset every time you make an edit in case you resolved past issues? Do the votes get a corresponding message? Will the votes mean literally anything beyond what you could already glean by looking at the page? If I can edit anonymously, can I vote anonymously? It’s just stupid fluff to make up for how utterly redundant this software is to MediaWiki.

Yup! Good call.

Any chance of something like OpenWrt?

OP:

Through the years, archaeologists have found similar results at many other sites in Indonesia, India and China. As the evidence accumulates, it appears that people were able to survive and continue to be productive after Toba blew its stack. This suggests that this eruption might not have been the main cause of the population bottleneck originally suggested in the Toba catastrophe hypothesis.

While Toba might not help scientists understand what caused ancient human populations to plummet to 10,000 individuals, it does help us understand how humans have adapted to catastrophic events in the past and what that means for our future.

It’s a good article, and I enjoyed reading it, but did you? I think you should leave this post up, but you could instead retitle it to something like “TIL humanity survived an eruption 74,000 years ago that was 10,000 larger than the Mount St. Helens eruption”. (Also, Toba is in Indonesia in North Sumatra.)

I don’t know how else they could react:

And the compiler was slow, the code that came out was slow…

The compiler is slower because it has more to check for, but “the code that came out was slow” seems like nonsense, exaggeration, or PEBCAK. Rust code is highly performant and very close to C code.

The support mechanism that went with it — this notion of crates and barrels and things like that — was just incomprehensibly big and slow.

Dude what? C’s build systems like cmake are notoriously unfriendly to users. Crates make building trivial compared to the ridiculous hoops needed for C.

I have written only one Rust program, so you should take all of this with a giant grain of salt,” he said. “And I found it a — pain… I just couldn’t grok the mechanisms that were required to do memory safety, in a program where memory wasn’t even an issue!

He doesn’t say what the program was, and the borrow checker operates by a set of just a few extremely simple rules. There’s no idea of what he was trying to accomplish or how the borrow checker impeded that.

So my reaction as someone who cares deeply about how disastrously unsafe C is and the tangible havoc it creates in modern society:

• I agree the compiler is slower. Honestly boo hoo. It’s slower for two very good reasons (better static analysis and better feedback).
• The code being slower is such a minor issue as to effectively not be true. Benchmarks prove this.
• I’m not going to take “big and slow” as a serious critique of Cargo from someone who idealizes C’s ridiculous, tedious, convoluted build system.
• The borrow checker is trivial, and unlike C, the compiler actually gives you easy, intuitive feedback for why your code doesn’t build.

rather than reading an article talking about it

Good as a supplement, but the RPS article gives context itch.io is too much of a cowardly little bitch to include like: “Collective Shout describe themselves as a “grassroots campaigns movement against the objectification of women and the sexualisation of girls”, but are associated with outspokenly homophobic and anti-abortion Christian conservative groups, according to a now-deleted Vice article.”

Edit: and yes, the Vice article was removed because Vice’s ownership bitched out over covering Collective Shout.

A friend brought up Greenland nuking somebody as a joke. And I imagined how disproportionate a retaliatory strike could be, quickly remembering though that the current population is less than 60,000 and that I’m almost certain I’ve seen figures of more than 60,000 nukes during the Cold War, so I imagined a retaliatory strike where literally every person in Greenland had a personalized nuke.

The research was done make sure I wasn’t misremembering, that Greenland didn’t at any point exceed 60,000 (thus necessitating a closer comparison), and that I’m not Senator Armstrong-ing this.

The original Wired article is a substantially better source than the IBT, which is slop that owns the likes of Newsweek and the Latin Times. On Wikipedia, we avoid citing it wherever possible.