Violence is an extreme failure state.

If your goal is to improve the system then you always want to move away from it.

Probably a reasonable justification would be self-defense, committing violence to stop worse violence. (Preemptive violence is not self-defense.)

But that is the kicker. As the sister comment said it matters a great deal what others do.

At some point a broken system enacts soft violence on people. So it isnt surprising people act out when they think survival is at stake. With healthcare, it really can be. But where is the line? When someone you know dies? 10 people?

It is messy.

It's not surprising that violence begets violence, in an escalating cycle. But it doesn't end with a better system.

If your goal is a better system, you'll be looking hard for ways to move away from violence, not justifications to escalate it.

RadioLab did a phenomenal series on illegal immigration years ago. One thing that stuck out to me and has stayed with me ever since was an interview they did with a woman who had been deported multiple times, risked her life multiple times, denied a visa and asylum multiple times. They asked her why she kept trying to get across the border and she said that the alternative was death for her and her family.

Whether or not she was being honest I don't know. But it did make me realize that the broken system has created an all-or-nothing choice for so many people. No punishment or policy could ever outweigh the alternative for them, so you'll never be able to stop immigration, illegal or not.

I'm sure I'm not doing the argument justice, but your comment reminded me of it.

Just above that they explain the tradeoffs leading them to leave twitter.

Basically, they can't reach X users on X.

Do you really need to reach users on X. It is filter for a specific type of user who don't share the ideals of the EFF. And racists.

I don’t know why you dismiss it. There is plenty of astroturfing here, bots and otherwise.

I believe the rule around here is to not assume everyone who disagrees with you or has opinions you don’t understand is a shill. Perhaps there’s a bit of that in the post you replied to, but to me seems mostly about mourning the loss of quality conversations online.

Gotta say, I agree. Not that things were ever great, but it’s really in the crapper now.

Agreed.

I saw one recently where the cyclist shouted out something like, "ON YOUR LEFT!" and all it did was startle the crap out of a jogger who spun around into the path of the bicycle. Luckily just a close call. That cyclist's "warnings", with no time for pedestrians to react properly, were really just a game of Russian roulette. (And really rude, as you say).

Shouting that while traveling too fast is indeed incorrect, but a polite "on your left" or bell while traveling an appropriate speed is considered good behavior to avoid surprising pedestrians.

The problem is there's a good number of people that hear "on your left" and shift left.

A gentle bell mostly doesn't do that.

Yeah, I prefer a bell.

also - even though the pedestrian has the obligation to move over - a friendly thanks! or thank you! helps all cyclists in the long-run.

This again depends on the jurisdiction and kind of path you're on. Where I grew up, if it's not separated into bicyclist & pedestrian lanes, bikes yield to pedestrians.

On US forest trails, the general rule is bikes yield to pedestrians and everyone yields to horses.

(Obviously pedestrians walking in bicycle lanes are doing it wrong.)

Yep, a wave helps as well.

Outside of some stage actors and drill sergeants, there are probably few people who can project their voices well enough that a vocal warning is useful.

You're either traveling slow enough that it's not necessary (and why yell at people if you have to?), or are too far away for someone to understand and get a bearing on who isn't already looking at you.

A bell is still rude in a shared space but used correctly, a decent one can at least be effective.

> A bell is still rude in a shared space

I just don't think that is even a little bit true, or at least it's something that is very culturally specific and thus not generally applicable.

I have a friendly sounding bell I use from an appropriate distance (and I can modulate the volume), and I routinely have people give a light wave to show they heard. In addition, the biggest complaint about cyclists in local social media is about them passing without notice.

If you just bell once or twice, and don't aggressively keep ringing, I'd never consider a bicycle bell in a shared space rude. I even consider it good manners, though as others have said, that varies between cultures.

Being visually impaired, though, I'm grateful for cyclists who use their bell. It's immediately clear. For some reason, my brain takes slightly longer to process someone yelling "on your left!" or similar, than just a quick "ring ring".

Cyclists will normally do the same thing passing out other cyclists at a 5-10 km/h speed difference, and it's definitely useful there.

Unfortunately in many jurisdictions it is legally required to do that when passing a pedestrian.

Can you list some examples? When I lived in Chicago it was quite common for cyclists to shout this on the long lakefront trail, I wonder if that's the case there too.

I've never ridden in Illinois, but yeah:

> § 11-1512. Bicycles on sidewalks. (a) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.

https://codes.findlaw.com/il/chapter-625-vehicles/il-st-sect...

No idea if the lakefront trail is classified as a sidewalk but there are at least some cases in Illinois where either a bell or a "on your left" are legally mandatory.

You're right, it's certainly not the primary way to prevent accidents. But it helps at the edges, which seems worthwhile.

That's assuming the bells aren't abused too badly, which is a mixed bag, but mostly true.

WAL relies on shared memory, so while a proper FS is necessary, it isn't going to help in this case.

Why does it not help if both containers can mmap the same -shm file?

Shared memory across containers is a property of a containerization environment, not a property of a file system, "proper" or not.

It's a property of the filesystem, docker does not virtualize fs.

I dug into this limitation a bit around a year ago on AWS, using a sqlite db stored on an EFS volume (I think it was EFS -- relying on memory here) and lambda clients.

Although my tests were slamming the db with reads and write I didn't induce a bad read or write using WAL.

But I wouldn't use experimental results to override what the sqlite people are saying. I (and you) probably just didn't happen to hit the right access pattern.

"the sqlite people" don't say anything that contradicts this

I don't know if it's just me, but this whole post seems to have time traveled forward from about 3-4 days ago.

It's not just a repost. The thread includes a comment I made at the time which now from "1 hour ago".

Makes me wonder if it's an honest bug or someone has hacked the hacker news front page to sell their t-shits, mugs, and AI starter kits.

It's an artefact of the "second chance pool" mechanism.

Interesting choice to change the time of the comment, a deja-vu can be weird enough without staring at a comment with a recent timestamp.

> Companies are seeing this switch, so they adapt.

You’re confusing cause and effect here.

Companies are pushing apps very hard because it gives them a lot more ability to wield their various revenue enhancing dark patterns.

That kids see apps as the primary option is a corporate success metric, not an organic choice.

Anyway, the premise that “phone screen ==> native app not web app” is rather faulty, is it not?

They’re not confusing anything, you’re just sticking your head in the sand.

The modern entry path to “computing” is small screen devices (phones). Their point of newcomers not having our same entry path is accurate. This is organic, however much we don’t like it.

Anything past that is just market skating where the puck is.

I think they mean that a webapp is necessary desktop-first. Many websites/webapps are mobile-first. It resonate with me as I’m used to try new services on a (mobile) browser if available and switch to an app only if necessary.

> the premise that “phone screen ==> native app not web app” is rather faulty, is it not?

Okay but that's not what he's arguing, you're missing the point.

There's nothing stopping a website from being usable on a smartphone. In fact, almost all of these apps are just websites in disguise! They use web views to render.

The reason it's an app and not a website isn't because apps are better for smartphones. It's because apps are native code running.

It's also a choice that websites cannot present as apps (PWAs). Apple and Google purposefully did that so they can push users to apps instead of websites, for data farming purposes.

We're talking about web app vs native app here, not big screen vs small screen.

Obviously, you can have either kind of app on either size of screen, so small screen first doesn't mean native apps. It's enshitification that's driving native adoption, not small screens.

It’s pointless if you believe no one is asking LLMs to generate passwords for them.

Humans will always smash a screw with the handle of a spoon and be proud of themselves when they manage to do it.

I mean, people are still rotating <month><year> passwords because they refuse to remember anything. I only know this, because I am in a customer-facing position, and these customers rarely care about revealing their passwords when they need help...