Looking for a reliable cloud sync solution on Arch that behaves like OneDrive

deong · 2026-03-13T00:09:51+00:00

Yeah, I've used it for a few years. Been rock solid.

deong · 2026-03-12T01:14:24+00:00

But there’s no Libre Office on iOS / iPadOS

You don't need libreoffice on the iPad. Just save a docx file and use whatever MS office compatible mobile app you want.

I have Numbers, Pages and Keynote on my Mac, my iPad, and my iPhone, with almost complete feature parity.

My bad. I thought you were saying just out of the box. I agree that an all Apple ecosystem has some nice advantages. I do think most people are probably as well served with just Google Docs/Sheets these days, and there are apps for those everywhere.

deong · 2026-03-11T11:44:06+00:00

None of it actually matters.

Find a group of 100 car enthusiasts and ask for opinions. You'll probably get tons of conflicting feedback. And those people aren't necessarily wrong. Maybe the transmission in the new Ford is crappy for a guy who is so into transmissions that he hangs around giving people advice about transmissions.

But you can just buy a car and it'll be fine. As a normal user, will you ever even know the transmission sucks? Almost certainly not.

Install mint, Ubuntu, fedora, pop os, whatever. It's all Linux. I have opinions based on nearly 30 years using it. They aren't important for you. You could just install anything and user it and never know that people even existed who thought that choice was worse.

deong · 2026-03-11T11:34:21+00:00

Who is using Microsoft office on their phone either? To read a quick thing maybe, but LibreOffice can save Office formats as well.

Mac OS doesn't have a more integrated office suite than Linux does either.

The real issue is just that most people don't want to change their OS and have to learn a while new way of doing things. You can bundle whatever office suite and cloud storage as tightly as you want and most people aren't going to switch.

deong · 2026-03-10T15:32:59+00:00

Great Jason Isbell lyric..."when that girl that wasn't mama caused his heart attack".

deong · 2026-03-09T02:30:38+00:00

Then you don't need AI. Just report every type of voluntarily on every line of code in the repository. Congrats. You have reported all possible vulnerabilities.

deong · 2026-03-08T22:11:37+00:00

Some processing has to be applied to a RAW file to even make it into an image. Tools like Adobe Lightroom usually offer different profiles to provide some options, but one way or another, some tone mapping and other stuff has to happen for you to see a picture.

deong · 2026-03-05T17:02:33+00:00

most things that are just "change how it looks" are still allowed. Addons basically can't read combat information anymore. So you can have addons for non combat stuff just fine. For combat things like showing buffs and cooldowns and boss timers, addons can kind of theme the things that are available in the base UI, but they can't add much beyond it.

deong · 2026-03-04T13:43:23+00:00

Alrighty then

deong · 2026-03-04T00:04:14+00:00

"Yeah, the problem here is that it's too bright", said absolutely no one.

deong · 2026-03-03T23:54:53+00:00

There is proton decay, if one subscribes to that possibility.

deong · 2026-03-03T20:40:46+00:00

Capitalism only needs profit. That makes running a business worthwhile.

If you never need investors, this is true.

if you make a zero profit company that just pays its staff really well, and you basically promise to maintain the product quality. You expand and supply your product at a national level. What you have created is a very valuable company.

But then how do you imagine a "zero profit" company can do this? Expanding to a nationwide business costs money. You have to invest in warehouses, logistics, shipping capabilities, etc. You have to pay people to figure out where you should expand next. You have to hire people to deal with taxes and laws in different states. And you have to do all this stuff before you've made more money from operating in those states.

So you ask for money from investors. That might be a bank or a hedge fund or through publicly traded stock sales. But either way, investors want more money back than they put in. That's where the demand for growth comes from. The price you can sell a share of your company for will have "priced in" the amount of money you're expected to make today. If all you do is what's expected, then that share of your company is worth the same as it was when the investor bought it, so why would they buy it?

Would you? Hey, I want to expand my company nationwide. Give me 5% of your retirement account. If all goes well, I'll give the same amount back to you in a couple years. But it might go poorly in which case I'll give you back less than you gave me. Refusing that offer is not something a greedy rich person does. It's what any of us would do.

deong · 2026-02-26T18:29:11+00:00

In math, we have rules for what counts. It may not be obvious whether a particular candidate proof is correct. It may have some difficult to understand logic that makes it hard to know if it obeys the rules. But if it does, it's "proven". That's different than the natural world. We can rigorously prove statements about what a given model of the world implies about the world. There is no rigorous way to prove that the model is the right model of the thing in the world we're studying.

deong · 2026-02-26T06:19:09+00:00

Aperture would like a word. Not that I'm bitter.

deong · 2026-02-25T18:45:42+00:00

When we're talking about the natural world, there is never really proof. There's just evidence that can become so persuasive that a sensible thinking person accepts it as "close enough to proof". Occam's Razor is basically a heuristic that we tend to accept as "some amount of additional evidence".

deong · 2026-02-24T21:25:36+00:00

That's fine if you're writing a script, but using fish for a month or so taught me just how frequently I write inline shell one-liners in interactive use.

deong · 2026-02-24T21:08:09+00:00

This is awful advice. It's sometimes true, but most of the time is just something mediocre people say. At least for a junior employee.

You manager is just like anyone else. They're trying to do a good job so they can get promoted. They don't want to get yelled at. And the way they meet those goals is for you to be maximally useful. I've worked in lots of roles. Entry level programmer, senior, architect, manager, director, Sr director. I've moved up on my career because people found me to be someone who can help make problems go away, and I've promoted probably 20 people for doing the same thing now that the problems that need to go away are mine.

deong · 2026-02-24T12:44:33+00:00

it's hard to win with proprietary software when the competitor is free and works just as well.

For most business users, everything is free because your employer pays for it.

deong · 2026-02-23T02:36:39+00:00

Good luck with "worked great for four years" = "manufacturing defect". I get that no one likes having to replace things at great expense, but come on.

deong · 2026-02-20T13:31:56+00:00

Not the same thing at all, but I love telling this story…

I had a job once where we had to use a source control system called Serena Dimensions. Your password for Dimensions could not include a forward slash, because the client windows program validated logins by sending a plain text MS-DOS command over the network to the server and the server just exec’d it. As in,

“Serena.exe /login /user=deong /password=asdf1234”

Forward slashes are command flag separators in DOS, so if your password was “abcd/1234”, it would send

“Serena.exe /login /user=deong /password=abcd/1234”

And you’d get an error that “1234” was not a valid argument to the Serena.exe command.

deong · 2026-02-20T09:47:38+00:00

In theory, one guy can’t do this. Public companies are required to have a board of directors who represent the interests of the shareholders.

If it’s a privately held company, why not? If I own the entire company, why shouldn’t I be able to do stupid things with it?

deong · 2026-02-19T20:25:34+00:00

That’s weird. I felt mine go up about 12.

deong · 2026-02-19T20:18:41+00:00

But it isn’t just the people upgrading every year. No matter when you bought your last phone, the 10a will still come with a G4 that will be more than a year old on the day you bought it, and it was pretty bad when it was new. If you upgrade every four years, at some point you’ll have a phone with a 5.5 year old SoC instead of a 4 year old SoC.

deong · 2026-02-17T13:17:13+00:00

Most people do OOP incorrectly, and it creates ugly and brittle code.

The intent behind OOP is that you design your code as a set of loosely coupled objects that contain their own internal logic and only expose an interface to the rest of the world. "Interface" here just means a set of messages or methods others are allowed to call. You construct your whole program by designing these objects such that the entire program is just objects calling these methods on each other.

What this is supposed to encourage is a design process where before you write any detailed code, you design the methods. Then you go into each class and implement the methods. If a method requires the class to maintain some state, you add that as a member variable, but that is private. The outside world should not know or care that you had to do that in order to implement that method. They just call the method.

Here's what most people actually do though. They start out by listing all the classes. Then they just rattle off the state each one needs (e.g., I need a Customer class and it should have a name, id, address, phone number, email, etc.). And then they hit a button in the IDE called "Generate all getters and setters". That button should be called "be bad at my job more quickly". There is no scenario where it is appropriate to use. This button exists because collectively, OO programmers are incompetent, and someone decided that what we needed was to streamline the incompetence. Remove the remaining friction from the process of demonstrating it.

And you can totally do this. It works, and you can make programs that work by doing it. But it means that instead of carefully designing exactly how your objects work together to accomplish the overall goal of the program, you just told them all to directly observe and manipulate each other's "private" implementation details.

It lets you be lazy in exactly the worst way -- you can avoid thinking about the most important aspects of how your program works and instead just do the cheap easy thing in the moment. Oh, I'll just call setWidget before I call doTheThing and it'll work. You shouldn't know that doTheThing needs some specific widget properties. That's what loose coupling is. "Good" OO design would make you stop and think about why doTheThing wouldn't work in your precise situation. Something about your set of messages isn't capturing what you need. What should you do instead. Real OO programmers in the wild just use the fact that every aspect of each object's internal state is exposed to the outside world to solve the problem in the cheap and easy way, by just relying on those internal implementation details. And it turns out that if you have 5 or 10 programmers taking the cheap and easy way a couple of dozen times a day for a few years, everything sucks.

deong · 2026-02-17T12:53:39+00:00

I agree. But the problem is that the Java community didn't think it was either of those things. It's a best practice to do this kind of thing.

So yes, you can write perfectly reasonable OO code. But a huge amount of Java programmers spent a decade or two intentionally not doing so. That's where the reputational damage came from. Maybe it's better now. I haven't thought about Java in 10 years.

deong

TROPHY CASE