It is trivial to get an older, unlocked cell phone that you can root. You then have a device equally or more powerful than a Raspberry Pi with built-in radios.
Any mobile computer can be easily and readily turned into a signal jammer/spammer with an off-the-shelf SDR. There is nothing particularly special about the Raspberry Pi. I didn't see laptops on the list.
It's good you put "poor" in scare quotes. The truly poor are not complaining online all the time because they don't have the time and/or money to be bitching online. You seemed to have missed one of the primary points of the article.
As a long time user of both Emacs (since 18.52) and Neovim and now Helix, I find your last assertion to be false. While it is true that there are many options (though not as many as either Emacs or Neovim), in Helix you cannot write code or install someone else's code to modify your editor. In the past I've spent a good amount of time trying out, integrating, and debugging various packages for Neovim and Emacs. In Helix I might try a new option setting, but the time involved is minuscule compared to what you might spend customizing other editors.
In what state are public high schools allowed to "how to pray"? It sounds like her new high school isn't that good. I have a daughter at a good public high school in California in a quite liberal area. There was none of what you mentioned. One day of reviewing the syllabi and rules and quizzes in most subjects starting less than a week later.
The law is extremely specific about this one, and this is constitutional law that overrules all other laws.
A government institution cannot promote any one religion. It's fine to have a multi-denominational non-secular common worship area. You can also promote religion as a general concept, but not a specific religion.
Whether this rule is followed or enforced properly is an entirely separate problem that we are apparently still grappling with.
Well our insane Supreme Court ruled a few years ago on a case involving a football coach praying at games that schools are forced to allow religious employees to do their weird religious ceremony at school events.
Why shouldnt the football coach be able to pray on the field, alone, without forcing their belief on others? That seems extremely reasonable. Making students also pray would be bad,but he didnt do that.
Because he’s a football coach and there is almost always an implication that you toe the line or face reprisal.
It’s also in poor taste. Jesus himself commented on performative piety:
“Whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may observe them doing so. Amen, I say to you, they have already received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees everything that is done in secret will reward you“
> Because he’s a football coach and there is almost always an implication that you toe the line or face reprisal.
This sounds like nobody in a position of power should be allowed to openly do anything that people around them have the right to not do. Which would be kinda bs.
Very much not an accurate description of what was actually happening, despite what the court’s majority claimed (egregious and surely, at least often, willful factual errors in majority opinions are a hallmark of the Roberts court)
Luckily there are both witness accounts and photos in this case, so it’s pretty clear what was really going on.
I strongly encourage you to glance at the dissents for that case. That is very much not the case. The Supreme Court willingly ignored very important evidence that was the case.
Because he's an employee being paid to do what he's told and the school told him not to because it was causing a disturbance. Why does he have to practice his religion on his employer's time? Let's say he was cussing during school hours, would it violate his 1st amendment rights if the school told him to stop?
Yes, we can. A couple of years ago I drove through Maine and Vermont, and it was absolutely beautiful. Not only because of the natural beauty of those places, but because of the lack of billboards anywhere. It was nice to just enjoy the scenery without being constantly bombarded by ads. The city of São Paulo also banned ads a while back and it made the city a nicer environment to live in and revealed the beauty of some of the architecture that was previously hidden by masses of billboards.
I am a Kicad user, not just a random speculator. The problems are not solved by XWayland. For example, Kicad uses different windows to represent different views of the circuit and circuit board and warps the cursor according to the view you are looking at. XWayland doesn't solve this, because it only allows warping within a single window. I know there is new warping code coming out, but I don't know if it will ever get into the LTS OS we use at my work.
The obvious right choice if you're on an LTS OS where Wayland isn't in a good enough shape is to continue using X11 sessions. Very few things are dropping support for X11 right now, and on an LTS OS you presumably would be insulated from that. Obviously you can't benefit from anything Wayland improves on, but I suspect that's not a huge problem.
I'd guess an LTS release x years from now would be a different story. Even next year possibly, based on the pace things are going lately.
> Obviously you can't benefit from anything Wayland improves on, but I suspect that's not a huge problem.
Indeed, that's not a problem at all, because there are zero such things I care about. The problem is that a lot of distros and DE's are dropping support for X even though Wayland still isn't viable at all for so many people, and LTS isn't forever.
That seems like a solved problem though. LTS distros will drop X11 when the Wayland session is viable for most people, which is very nearly true, but ultimately not. When it does happen, it really shouldn't come as a sudden surprise.
You're always free to step up and support continued X development. Nobody else wants to, because the code is truly terrible, and that's been the main driver for distributions dropping support.
Arch will presumably pick up GNOME 49 as soon as it's released, and so GNOME on Arch will also drop X11 session support this (northern hemisphere) autumn.
I know that most Ubuntu users run LTS versions, but still, those are probably the 3 most widely-used Linux distros in the Western world, and as such, I think the statement that "very few" things is false where it applies to Linux distros.
When I said that, I meant applications and UI toolkits are not dropping X11 support. Non-LTS OSes will definitely be dropping X11 support pretty soon, since yes, KDE and GNOME are both throwing in the towel. To me the timeline seems about right for that too.
I agree with this. People who are writing Python, Javascript, or Typescript tell me that they get great results. I've had good results using LLMs to flesh out complex SQL queries, but when I write Elixir code, what I get out of the LLM often doesn't even compile even when given function and type specs in the prompt. As the writer says, maybe I should be using an agent, but I'd rather understand the limits of the lower-level tools before adding other layers that I may not have access to.
My hunch is that to exploit LLMs one should lean on data driven code more. LLMs seem to have a very easy time to generate data literals. Then it's far less of an issue to write in a niche language.
Not familiar with Elixir but I assume it's really good at expressing data driven code, since it's functional and has pattern matching.
I think for some languages like Clojure and Elixir, it's just so easy to get to the level of abstraction you need to write your business logic that everyone does so. So the code does not have any commonalty with each other. Even when using the same framework/library.
But for Python, JS, etc,... it's the same down to earth abstraction that everyone is dealing with, like the same open a file, parse a csv, connect to the database patterns.
The standard explanation of integrals as summing the areas of rectangles of decreasing width seems extremely intuitive to me without requiring the baggage of having to know some computer language. Generating functions in code are basically a rote repetition of the mathematical definitions, requiring that you also understand variables and functions and other things unrelated to the core idea.
But that "standard explanation" is a process, not a definition. Riemann sums can't be used with all integrals.
In any case, if we stick with Riemann sums, there should be a strong relationship to Generating Functions (which there is).
> Generating functions in code are basically a rote repetition of the mathematical definitions
GFs with a mathematical basis may have, for example, set-theoretic definitions that are not similar to, say, Turing machines. Any non-constructivist math is automatically not like code.
