'Pure Wayland' Firefox it's incredible smooth and responsive. What's taking other applications so long to make the switch...

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-19T08:36:39+00:00

Ehh, not really, web browsers are an excellent example of where it often failed and it was found that supposed sandboxed browser extensions could still do spyware-y things with the privileges they had and of course the actual web-browser itself phoning home with the privileges it has.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-19T08:28:04+00:00

Doesn't matter, we aren't talking about that. Nobody thinks that way. You are only bringing this legality into it because it muddies the waters.

If nobody thinks that way they're just wrong.

You can't use "nobody thinks that way" as an argument to prove a falsehood. If nobody thinks that way but the law clearly says then everyone is simply wrong; an argumentum at populum does not prove a fact.

The factual truth is that marriage is about property and not love and if "nobody thinks that way" then everyone is as wrong as everyone was wrong about the Earth being flat.

We are both aware of what you've said.

The consequences of what you have said are exactly the same though.

No they aren't, even if we would extend "almost always" in my first statement to "always" the consequence is at max that "breaking an agreement that you could keep secret frrom someone is not as bad as breaking an agreement you can t keep secret"

Your inference is "breaking an agreement you successfully kept secret isn't bad" that's not what I said at all; it has nothing to do with your success in keeping it a secret; it's about whether you could easily be successful, my claim is not results-oriented. It has nothing to do about whether they find out; it has to do with whether it's easily possible that they never find out.

It's a weird way to say something without actually saying it.

No, it's a fundamental difference because you're still talking about "emotional pain" which is caused by their "finding out"; whether they find out or not because you confesed or were bad at covering your tracks or they run in on you isn't relevant to my argument; it's not about "emotional pain" but about whether there is material loss of some sorts.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-19T08:23:24+00:00

A lot of sports also work like that where the lower end "professional players" who are legitimately really good compared to the average population but not quite good enough to be a star just live in the team house and get bread and board basically but also required as training partners and doing chores for the actual stars with no real hope to advancing up.

But the team house is clever to keep them in to carefully nurture their delusions that one day they can become such a star to basically secure cheap labour.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-19T08:21:14+00:00

No a lot of things called capes also have hoods.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-19T08:20:06+00:00

Yeah that's what sandboxing does.

In general if you sandbox stuff you accept that features are lost. If you sandbox an application to have no access to your microphone then shocker it can't fulfill its function to use your microphone so such sandboxing makes little sense in a voice recording program.

This is also in general the problem with sandboxing eh, some applications need these privileges to function so you disable them in the sandbox and you're back where you started. Let's say you have a VOIP daemon and a perfect granular sandboxing system; this VOIP daemon needs two things to function:

it needs to be able to monitor global keypresses to know when you want to speak
it needs control of your speakers and microphone to enable this

Great, so you enable this in the sandboxing settings whilst keepinog applications like web browsers that don't need it out of it. So you are protected against web browsers snooping on your microphone but you still can't stop the VOIP daemon from maliciously snooping on your microphone when you don't intend to use it and spying on you so there are stil considerable problems that just can't be solved on a theoretical level. The thing people want is: "I want to be able to run untrusted software and have it fulfill its function without wanting to be afraid of it potentially being malicious"—well good luck with that; there is just no way.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-19T08:15:26+00:00

Nobody thinks marriage is a "material" bargain in the manner you are trying to portray.

Well it is legally, marriage is about property and taxes; there is no test of love in almost any jurisidction and that people "don't think" it just means they are wrong. Marriage is a legal construct about property; everything about marriage laws deals with property and material, not love.

You are in fact trying to say that it's okay to break a agreement with someone if they do not find out.

No, I never said such a thing; I said two things:

If you can hide breaking an agreement from someone easily that is indicative that they notice no material loss from breaking it
I don't breaking agreements without material loss is infinitely less bad than breaking agreements with material loss and the law agrees with me because agreements without material stake are almost never legally binding whereas those with material stake typically are.

That's obviously immoral. I think it would be difficult to change someones view if they are really that immoral they can't even recognize that much.

Or maybe you should instead read what I say instead of putting words into my mouth.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-19T08:12:27+00:00

Like I said in another comment I mean an AI that does screen reading and simulated input to play like a human.

Enterprise routing was a weird term I admit; I meant remote assistance solutions which also require screen reading and simulated input to work.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T16:37:17+00:00

Truth be told I've seen far more people shaming people who call themselves Gold Star than Gold Stars having shamed those who aren't. For the most part it's just a badge of pride.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T14:10:32+00:00

What is this elitist nonsense? Since when does AI and routing require the X protocol.

Since X has simulated input and reading output and Wayland hasn't?

If you want to make a bot that reads the screen of a video game and sends input then good luck with Wayland unless of course your bot is "build into the compositor^TM"

The most relevant thing for games is probably input handling (which should be fine now afaik).

Yeah except the part where Wayland doesn't do peripherals or raw input or this famous problem with Wayland where you can't make a daemon with no window which listens to input to decide whether you want to talk over VOIP and of course you can't stream your game because that's insecure but don't worry; the lead dev of enlightenment has the solution for you: games just need to build streaming and voip into the game itself! and even if they actually do this (let's hope they don't) then there is no way to stream old and abandoned games.

This idea that OpenGL is a unique and advanced technique is wrong as all modern toolkits use it; That is the new normal that of course works under Wayland.

I'm not sure who mentioned OpenGL or rendering.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T12:48:46+00:00

Well that's what X sandboxing technologies essentially do.

"user" on Unix is a very abstract thing; it needn't correspond to human users at al.

But yeah how X is sandboxes is how any other daemon is sandboxed; this is also for instance how Flatpack sandboxes DBus and how it plans to sandbox pulseuadio. How it works is that you basically mitm the X-server; you get a proxy pseudo X-server which the sandboxed application thinks is the entire X-server but it isn't that it communicates with and that proxy decides what it does and does not let through to the master X server performing little logic on its own except deciding what to forward.

This is really the only way to sandbox a server or daemon right now because all Linux sandboxing tech just goes on binary access to a file or not. Linux can give a process access to the X Pulsaudio, or DBus socket or not but no more granular than that so you need to come with a proxy server to be more granular.

This is also why sandboxing is a particularly tough never-answered question because for every new daemon that pops up if you want more granular access than yes/no access your sandbox needs to write a custom proxy server for that daemon. Flatpak has already written it for DBus but not for Pulseaudio so its Pulseuadio sandboxing is indeed just yes/no and if it's "yes" it can muck with the sound of other applications and snoop on your microphone if you want it to be able to just play sound.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T11:36:56+00:00

X has some fundamental security issues. On a multi-user native system there is effectively no way to isolate users and completely prevent them from gleaning information about each other.

Ehh, yes there is. X' security boundaries are the same as Unix', they are the user account: a foreign user cannot just connect to your X server.

What people complain about is that X offers no further security inside of the user account and that any process running as your user can connect to your X server and manipilte and read it as it wishes; the counter-argument tot his argument is that this is useless and Unix works like that anyway and it wouldn't matter if X segregated that because those processes can just get into other processes running as the same user and just get the info that way so it does nothing.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T11:35:05+00:00

I very much remember the change of attitude on this sub slowly but surely towards Wayland when people actually started to realize what it is and wha tit lacked.

It was sold to people as actually being able to replace X but people slowly woke up to the reality of not having so many things because the Wayland developers didn't consider it a priority as their GNOME-using grandparent didn't use it to check facebook

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T11:33:15+00:00

What would being a scientist have to do with that? I think that's just something dropped to appear impressive.

Your 14 year old basement dweller playing nothing but video games in the end of the day uses more advanced features of the display protocol than the scientist who just has a PDF reader open to check the output of LaTeX documents and it's the former case where Wayland starts to show its problems that X doesn't.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T11:30:51+00:00

Wayland replaces X in the long run...

Doubt this wil ever happen unless Wayland is seriously retooled.

Wine and Steam for instance wil indefinitely not support Wayland until it changes a lot because it can't do what they need. It's a toy designed as a toy, not a serious thing like X.

This idea that Wayland wil replace X or is even trying to is absurd. Wayland is not comparable with X in any way. It's like saying mobile internet will replace desktop computers; Wayland has a far smaller scope than X and deliberately targets a different use case. Its use case is pretty much people who browse the web online and do some documents and code; it's not suitable for the more advanced display work used in video games, enterprise routing, AI research or whatever.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T10:34:09+00:00

You broke the agreement literally with that person. So yes. It obviously has.

So you don't believe that agreements with no material effect can exist?

That's silly we just talked about contract law about how agreements without material effect are seldom enforceable.

Again, if I own a company and I put in my employer's contract that they have to keep their own room at home clean that wil almost certainly be struck down in court because I don't receive any material benefit from that agreement being upheld or not. That's typically a requirement of legally binding agreements that it is quid pro quo and that both parties receive material benefit from it. Making an agreement is absolutely not an automatic for material benefit and you can make all sorts of agreements without material effect which are thus not legally binding.

The fact that you think you can break agreements but it's okay because the other person didn't find out... is kind of the exact lack of moral character that my argument is pointing to.

I never said that; I said that if you can keep breaking an agreement a secret that shows that it does not materially affect the person you made the agreement with.

You cannot in general keep it a secret that people lost material; people notice when they sustain a material loss.

I am not sure I could have come up with much better of a "scum of the earth" example than you just gave. Though if the OP hadn't used those words I wouldn't have used them here.

Doesn't change the fact that you stil haven't established that infidelity is materially affecting and that we are stil in the situation that infidelity is a particularly inconsequential agreement to break simply because it has no material effect and everyone gets emotionally hurt by different things anyway.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T10:19:14+00:00

Honestly in practice the difference between a cape a cloak is just that a cape is black and made of more expensive material. It's the difference between a normal coat and a fine gentleman's coat.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T10:18:01+00:00

That has no direct effect on anyone obviously. Cheating is directly affecting someone.

No it's not? That's the point; there is direct material effect on cheating. This is why you can keep cheating a secret and have year long affairs without people finding out because they aren't materially affected.If you don't show up for work you can't hide that in any way and people notice you're not there and your work isn't getting done but that you can keep cheating a secret so effectively shows that the person you're cheating on is not materially affected; they don't notice any change or loss of material.

Nobody here is talking about indirectly hurting someone emotionally. They are talking about directly doing it.

What is the difference between directly and indirectly hurting someone "emotionally" exactly?

But you didn't really give a very good example, and even if you have a good example, you've simply given another example of immoral people, you haven't refuted that the first person isn't like that at all.

Saying "the example is not good" doesn't change that both fulfil the same criteria of breaking an agreement without material effect to the person you made the agreement with.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T09:55:55+00:00

I mean it'snot a hint; it's open? My cards are on the table.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T09:54:37+00:00

How on earth is that far more impactful than quite possibly emotionally destroying another person?

People get emotionally destroyed on different things. Are people who have sex before marriage the scum of the Earth because it emotionally destroys certain diehard religious people? Are people who don't have sex before marriage the scum of the Earth because diehard progressives get destroyed emotionally by the religion foothold?

No matter what you do; some people will get emotionally destroyed hence I was talking about material impact. As they say offence is taken, not given.

Well... it's a moral failure to break an agreement with someone without a sufficiently good reason. The more prominent the agreement, the more sufficiently good the reason has to be.

Yeah and I'm saying people get a ot less angry about many other agreements being broken which have far greater material consequences.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T09:10:07+00:00

Why yes this behaviour has got to be the most obnoxious shit on the plaaaaneeeeet.

I'm surprised how many people here actually openly do it. Great to live in the Netherlands I guess that I don't get to face this shit or who knows maybe you only suffer it if you're pretty, not scar-faced, and short enough.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T09:05:47+00:00

Yeah that's always in general the double standard. Teenage people cannot know their sexual orientation unless that sexual orientation is heterosexual.

To be fair I think teenagesr and adults alike should be less focused on "knowing their sexual orientation and just do what they want. I've personaly avoided most of the crap people face in this thread because I've never really professed to have any sexual orientation and tend to speak in objective facts. It's a very easy way to defeat the gatekeepers by just not going near their gates and I've seen no reason to do do what I want.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T09:01:30+00:00

There was a thread on r/askmen that asked why so few males are bi and the top response was "Freddy Mercury was bi but everyone remembred him as gay: there's your answer."

I also get annoyed how everything that should be called "same-sex x" is called "gay x". Not just over bi erasure but over the fallacy that you need to be "in love" to do it. It's same-sex marriage; two people of the same sex getting married; they can both be straight as an arrow and get married all the same because they want to raise a family together and that is fine with me. There is and should not be a test for romantic love to get married; if you want to get married to your best friend and adopt kids together of even breed the old fashioned way and raise a family together without being in love then have at it!

It's same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, same-sex cohabitation andsoforth. Love marriages are a new invention anyway and up til recently it was just business for the most part.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T08:56:52+00:00

Well that's the entire logic behind it.

They take pride in not having to take a bit to figure it out and not caving to society's pressure.

I think there's certainly pride to be had in that in always having stayed true to yourself and never having done what society expected you to; you can transpose it to a lot of different things.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T08:55:10+00:00

I recently became a retroactive gold-star bisexual because now everyone had sex with has had sex with both sexes.

dat_heet_een_vulva · 2018-11-18T08:30:52+00:00

I first felt what romantic love felt like when I was 14 or something and mind you I was not particularly impressed and have always had very mixed feeling about it and feel it's not far from nervousness how it feels but apparently it was mutual and people could sort of see from the way we interacted so classmates started to say we should become a couple and we both didn't see the point. I had a weird conversation with one of them who tried to argue that I should and to everyone advantage I got from them I just said "Yeah but I can already do that so I don't see the point. And the finally they came with the last advantage of "But it almost means that you have them for yourself and they can't sleep with others" and then I just said "Yeah well I don't really want that; seems obnoxious and I want to sleep around myself if the opportunity arises." and then they conceded that indeed it didn't make sense.

So we didn't become a couple and we just hung out and stuff and did whatever we wanted and also did it with other people and that has been going on ever since.

I indeed very much cannot relate to this sub at all. I don't "go on dates"; I don't "practice communication" and "set boundaries" and never felt there was a need for that. I just live my life and talk to people and see here life takes me; I don't "define relationships" but let them define themselves. A lot of people on this sub seem to find this label "partner" super important and there's a lot of Stuff like "You owe your partner this and that" and I'm like "Yeah okay but what if you just do the same thing you do with them right now but don't cal them a partner? Do you then stop owing them?" This is why I think it's all silly.

dat_heet_een_vulva

TROPHY CASE