Personally, I do think it’s a useful exercise to decide what your red-lines are when it comes to OS level age verification.

For me: Having a field in a database that could contain my DoB is acceptable. Having a prompt to populate it during first time set up is very concerning. Requiring that data to be validated by a third party is the red line.

If you don’t want to be boiled like a frog, bring a thermometer.

I believe Wales has its own coastal path, but you’re technically not wrong

Well now I’m nervous! My first instinct though is that the vast majority of Emacs packages are plain elisp, and Emacs users have a habit of cracking open and tinkering with their packages, so any malicious code ought to be spotted quickly.

With the native compiled modules however, it could be another story…

The change would be using Gitmail as the plumbing, and normalising the creation of user-friendly porcelain on top.

E.g. suppose there is a repo foo/bar hosted by a forgejo instance at myinstance.org/foo/bar. Sending an email to foo.bar@myinstance.org (or similar) could automatically create a PR and, conversely, opening a PR could send a patch series to the foo/bar mailing list.

To be honest, I’m starting to drink the Sourcehut coolaid here. We have a distributed method of interacting with repositories: Email.

Don’t get me wrong, the current user experience of email-based patches and discussion isn’t great because it’s too easy to send a badly formatted patch. But if we invested time in making email patches easier to use (e.g. sending them through a web ui for people who prefer github style PRs) then we could skip all the architectural pains of solutions like forgefed.

Yes, and that success largely comes at the cost of neglecting development in every town and city outside of commuting distance from London.

I get that calling command line tools is a bit clunky, but python is always my go-to when shell scripting gets too painful

Appreciate the sentiment but can we please stop proscribing things? Surely we should have learned by now that this has an unacceptable effect on freedom of the press and the right to protest.

I do not want to see proscription become a cudgel wielded by successive political parties to ban support for any organisation they oppose.

Could this be the party desperately seeking to replace revenue streams as donors abandon them en masse?

Probably not. Same way that increasing employers NI contributions will have led to slower wage growth (its too early to tell for sure I think)

Before we all jump ship to linux phones, is it possible that custom android ROMs can remove this feature?

Not sure I like their definition of declarative. I’d instead say that a config is “declarative” if the result of applying that configuration is independent of the current state of the system.

To put this into context: Labour currently has an estimated 300,000 members, a figure which seems to be declining rapidly. (Its hard to get exact figures since they stopped publicising them…)

Obviously there’s a much lower barrier to entry here, but for that many people to be that engaged already is frankly astounding to me

I had a go at using guix as a package manager on top of an existing distro (first an immutable fedora, which went terribly, then OpenSUSE). Gave up for a few reasons:

• As mentioned in the article, guix pull is sloow.
• Packages were very out of date, even Emacs. If I understand correctly, 30.1 was only added last month, despite having been available since February. I get that this isn’t the longest wait, but for the piece of software you can expect most guix users to be running, it doesn’t bode well.
• The project I was interested in trying out (Gypsum) had a completely broken manifest. Seems like it worked on the dev’s machine though, which made me concerned about how well guix profiles actually isolate Dev environments. This was probably an error on the dev’s part, but I’d argue such errors should be hard to make by design.

All in all I love the idea of guix, but I think it needs a bigger community behind it. Of course I’m part of the problem by walking away, but 🤷

You know, the more I think about this, the more I bristle at Dyson claiming this will solve Britain’s food security problem.

Firstly, this kind of system seems limited to small cash crops rather than staple foods. (Good luck growing wheat on these.)

More importantly, Dyson has personally done far more to harm British food security than this gadget could offset. He was an ardent Brexiteer, which resulted in substantial barriers to importing food from our closest neighbors. (He also then immediately started relocating his business to Singapore in a stunning show of confidence in post-Brexit Britain)

These people don’t want to save the world. They just want to look like heroes

Yes, but it’s still competing with a field full of dirt. So the value add has to be pretty substantial to justify any cost.

Not saying I disagree, but out of curiosity I looked up the yield of a conventional strawberry field, which is apparently 15-25 tons per hectare, or 11-18% of your threshold.

I agree that this would likely never be economically viable for strawberries, as I imagine it’d cost way more than £1M for a “hectares worth” of this setup.

More importantly, I don’t consider strawberries vital to our food security, unlike Dyson

Most of their quotes come from this Ono guy…

Ono, who is also a freelance mathematical consultant for Epoch AI.

Ahhh, there it is.

That’s kind of my concern. I’m worried they’re cutting so many corners that the competitive edge over busses all but vanishes and, best case scenario, this ends up being a bizarre PR campaign for public transit.

Whilst this is very cool, I’m a little concerned about how the pros for “very light rail” basically amount to having better vibes than busses. Not that I even disagree with that premise, but I’d want something more concrete…