Daniel Quinn

"Didn’t you wear that like, five years ago? "

I’ve been setting UsePam = no for decades because leaving it on meant that it’d still present a password login of keys failed. Is this still the case, was I wrong from the beginning, or is this somehow ok?

If you ask me, the risk is that the actual socialists will appear unwilling to make the necessary changes because the Democrat establishment won’t back it. It will make even genuinely socialist politicians look complicit. They may have to break out as a third party to get shit done.

I don’t know where you saw this “No”, but all of their code has been up on their (self hosted) GitLab for years: https://git.jami.net/savoirfairelinux

It just wasn’t clear what was being downloaded.

For example, here’s a screenshot of the UI when I tried to use it on this page (I was logged in at the time, which grants access to the full video):

The UI presents 3 options, all of which are basically identical, each with impossible file sizes. I ended up clicking [Preview] on each of them 'til I found the full-length video. The preview opens up in a new tab, rather than inline or in a pop-up which wasn’t ideal (I had like 20 tabs open, now my extension tab was on the left and the preview for one of the streams was way over on the right).

It worked well though, once I had the above figured out. Here are my suggestions if you’re interested:

1. When the download options are > 1, try to interrogate the streams a little more for basic information like length, dimensions, bitrate, etc. In my case above, it looks like this was presenting multiple streams of the same full-length video, but in different resolutions, along with a separate opening clip for the Zeteo logo, and another clip for the promotional video. It would have been obvious to find the best quality full-length video with just those three metrics above.
2. Maybe sort the list of streams based on the above and give the user the option to sort/filter?
3. Introduce a preview button that renders in-line like you see on Lemmy or Reddit. It would have saved a lot of hassle with my tab hopping.

Regardless, it’s a great job, so thank you for sharing it! Now I can watch Zeteo videos on my own time without that useless Substack app!

I was dubious. “What could this possibly do” I thought, “that yt-dlp can’t?”.

I pointed it at a video on Substack that I’ve been wanting to watch offline (that platform is just shite) and after a little getting tripped up by the UI… boom. 1hr of video just in my Downloads/ folder.

Thanks. This is pretty great.

Oh yeah, totally my bad. I hadn’t realised that there were three people in this thread! I’m not intoxicated, though I am quite tired. I’m signing off on this whole thread now.

Here’s you:

Your entire tone comes across pretentious, presumptuous and hostile. I’m glad most of the country doesn’t think or act like you.

Also you:

At what fucking point did a comment about her husband diminish one iota of her success? Is that a risk in your world, and all it says about your respect for women?

Holy fuck.

You might want to re-evaluate just who’s being hostile here. I’ll own the pretentious label though. I’m not trying to come off that way, but I’ve been told that my writing can sometimes read like that.

I have been to funerals for women, funerals where they highlight at the funeral the accomplishments of the woman’s dead husband. This sort of sexism is far more common than you appear to believe. The fact that you jumped to the accomplishments of Chow’s long-dead husband in the face of her monumental current achievements is, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, sexism. Had you diminished her achievements and compared them to Layton’s that’d be sexist too — worse really — but that doesn’t make your initial comment any better.

I get it, nobody likes it when people point out something you’ve done as shitty. It’s especially bad when you don’t think the label fits because you don’t recognise what you’ve said as terrible, and the intent wasn’t there. But that’s how this stuff works, it’s why sexism is systemic rather than explicit. It’s the water we’re swimming in and it’s often not easy to recognise.

I get that you weren’t trying to be shitty here, but you said a shitty thing. Maybe you don’t see it yet, but I’m hoping that this will at least start you on the path to getting you there some day.

It’s not a reflection on Jack. I loved him. So much that I campaigned for him pretty hard as I was living in his riding: phonebanking, door knocking, the whole deal. It’s not about him, which is rather the point. It was a post about an entirely different person’s accomplishments, and your first and only comment was to talk about how great her husband was. That’s sexist.

If it helps, consider the absurdity of switching the sexes.

Jack and Olivia are married for some time, each with their own accomplishments. Olivia starts a promising career as leader of the NDP and tragically dies of Cancer. Jack spends the next 15 years doing great things in Toronto, working into a role as the new mayor. He’s got fans and supporters and laundry list of accomplishments. He wins another election, and someone chimes in to say: “I miss Olivia. She was great”.

The only rational answer to that is:

“What the fuck does Olivia have to do with this? She’s been dead for 15 years. This is Jack’s accomplishment.”

Of course, no one would say something like that because it’s absurd. Even if long-dead-Olivia was great, that greatness is irrelevant to Jack’s massive achievement. Citing it, intentionally or not, is to somehow ascribe her greatness to him, and that’s pretty silly.

And yet people do it to women all the time.

If, after 15 years, someone’s first and only response to a woman’s success is to talk about her husband, that’s sexism.

Jack Layton has been dead for 15 years. At some point his wife’s wins should be considered her own.

Yes of course they do. It’s important (to them) that we alternate exclusively between right-wingers in red and right-wingers in blue. If they allow socialists into power even once, the Overton window will be dragged to the left and their owners can’t allow that.

That’s a weird way to say “we’re cooking the planet”.

For the uninitiated.

He compared an LLM to a compiler suggesting that the concerns about using them are the same as suggesting that everyone should write in assembly.

The comparison is invalid, since one mode is deterministic, while the other is not.

LLM-driven development leads to programming via the abstraction of the model, disconnecting you from the source to the point where you don’t understand what it’s done or why. He’s suggesting that this isn’t a problem because an LLM is just like a compiler, which suggests that he’s arguing in bad faith or doesn’t understand the “tools” he’s using.

Does he… think LLMs are deterministic?

Your work lets you use Linux?

“Regret” what exactly? Helping the people trying to erase them?