Imagine Saudi Arabia in 10 + years.

With all the weapons that they have also purchased from USA, with all the mutual agreements.

Them being a non human right country, which had abused its own powers. The alliance that it had formed with Iran and China, despite their crimes towards human rights, just as well. We’re in for a hell of a future to deal with, after biden flies away with his golden parachute that is - probably in a far far away land.

And trump supporters lunatics are going to increasingly think that trump is the solution.

To hell with them all. And the grand court; what’s it going to do ? Cave in to the masses demands ? It’s a great feat of them, all on its own, to be complicit to all the things that has transpired thus far in the years we have endured without as much voicing their opposition to all of that which is sought to be immoral and unethical by all standards of maintaining human-rights.

That logo design though, 🔥 fire fire fire

Tori. Play music in your terminal. Built in rust and has great performance, and low trace on memory impact.

Ho !? I didn’t know you had it in you ! 😱

I kind of hoped you would have mentioned any of these: the magnetometer, polarimeter, and the interferometer; or the spectrometer, or the RTG system.

Lol name me 3 of the core components that make up for the structure of the voyager.

Imagine paying the same price for a car that lacks the technology of:

• Smart screen

• • With heat resistant materials that are designed to resist high temperatures and still function properly (i.e in summer times)
• • With GPS features, and media access

• But the screen still sucks because you can literally buy a magnet and stick your phone there, and still be able to do literally everything a smart screen car do.

I mean id still buy it because I prefer cars that are not so impractical, but it’s a shame that it still costs practically the same.

Conceptually, a smart screen sounds like a good idea, but the implementation is bad.

⬇️

(⁠  ͝⁠°⁠  ͜ʖ͡°⁠ )

There are dozens of satellites, and, o’ how ironic that I have mistook this for the reachable ones !

Cut me some slack, I have been reading nothing but books about coding for the past year or so, okay !?

Well considering how far it is… I can only imagine that they are going to let it go due to redundancy. And yet the notion does not escape my mind.

Who knows what solutions we might come up with in the future ?

Coming from arch Linux, I can relate to that.

Yeah, so what ?

Do you know how Gnu / Linux makes money ?

At some point it is not about individuals but big corporations that need their services, and they buy them.

They should have built their business model as per their financial requirements from the outset then, if that was the problem for them.

But that should not justify or excuse them for doing things that are immoral and unethical.

Sounds more like a greedy approach than anything.

If I was an ethical and moral CEO of Google, and sought it costly to maintain such a huge infrastructure for millions of people around the world that are using their services freely, I would have made measures to shut them down or close them, instead of maliciously inserting things and harvesting stuff from them.

Then if they have such data, then they should be held accountable and responsible in the future for any damages as a result of their work processes, and that happened many times historically speaking. And any crime that happens, they either offer evidence or be complicit to hiding fugitives. Which alone is a process that will cost them alot, just having to do it, and cooperate w them any governmental party.

If I get in trouble in the future, I sure would love to have Google assist me in proving that I was innocent, by providing evidence through data that it has. But would they be willing to do so?

This is very interesting in a way to think about, as it shows where their weakness lies in their business model, and where they are strong.

But it goes to show how monopolistic they are, and, if anything, neglectful to basic human rights. Where I’m from, privacy is a human right. So there are many dimensions to take into consideration here - but ultimately they are only a small aspect of this whole complex dimension to boot.

Ultimately, it is their fault for not setting up their business model to meet up with their own financial requirements. And not ours.

So now they are going to send engineers to fix/ replace the unit?

Letting a billion dollar piece of equipment go to waste is not very good either.

So then we shall propose to let them in at our own terms ?

That’s quite reasonable to me, and less radical in my humble opinion.

But I also see how one may arrive at such a conclusion, as all parties may not be as welling to accept such terms and conditions, or even be able to make such terms and conditions enforceable.

One instance may accept favours from meta, and then it spreads out uncontrollably… And then … Its gets more complex.

Perhaps the safest option is to limit their present shares to a maximum of 40% in our servers. That is, they cannot be allowed to have more than a set amount of API exposure to the feeds - and they must allow us to reciprocate, like wise, by being able to have access to theirs by more than 40%. The value of assets can surely be established and estimated par costs of maintenance and OA, etc…

I just realized that it interprets ’ — ’ in the text format as headers. I thought that was funny. (I was using them to make the split between lines from other paragraphs more apparent, and therefore more readable).

I apologize for the oversight, let me fix that.

Absolutely!

I started with mint. Hated it.

Ubuntu, Pop_Os. Hated it.

Fedora. Hated it.

Archlinux, okay, but not so much.

Manjaroo, hated it.

And now I settled with Garuda and Nobara. Like them.

I used Nobara for niche gaming (rarely use it now).

And Garuda Linux for dev work, and downloading and installing stuff, including proprietary packages. And I don’t have to configure all the things to make it capable of allowing me to download stuff from all the nice mirrors, such as the community arch mirror.

Nobara, on the other hand, is great at handling compatibility issues kinda out of the box. Such [Edit1: as GPU] drivers.

The reason I disliked the aforementioned distros was solely because of how much involved I had to be to configure them to integrate with my rare WiFi chip drivers, which triggered me when I banged my head at the keyboard for hours only to find out that my WiFi driver was not supported.

But Garuda and Nobara or a blessing, and a chef’s kiss.

That’s coming from a person who tried more than 20+ distros and/or their derivatives.

[Edit2:] All in all, I would recommend what the comment above suggested, as that will help you find your own path. The samurai path, the kenjutsu path, or the kendo path, the peaceful path, or the hackers path. ;)

[Edit3: sorry Debian users, but I DID try your distros, I just didn’t want to bother with them much as they had compatibility issues too !]

It seems to me that the traditional way of having leaders going to war directly has slowly diminished and vanished from being how the way of things are supposed to be.

(My speculation)

And I speculate that one of the contributing factors which helped in changing people’s mindset and perspective, in normalizing with the cultural and traditions changes, is the fact that people of old time (whom long lived in these similar environment) [Edit: were able to get] used to accepting the benefits and the joys of having appointed such leaders, regardless of the drawbacks that comes with it - and the fact that they are corrupt.

It is a really interesting point to raise up, especially in today’s age.

And maybe, then, the more important question becomes: “How/ why did people normalize their perceptions and mindsets towards such leaders, despite their anticipated character changes became worse than their precedents”.

(Some justification)

It is really interesting, because historically, we have stories of figures (Such as Al-Shimr, the murderer of Imam Hussain) whom were known to have been cowardly, but were presenting themselves nonetheless, due to the fact that people sought the opposing leader was one with more qualities than theirs; and as such, if one leader becomes of the type that is confrontational and upfront in battles; the opposing leader, due to the pressures of his own people, perceptions, and environment, deems it necessary and more appropriate to come forth to present himself as one with better and more fitting qualities that makes him more qualified to be a leader than the enemy.

(It is certainly an interesting topic to discuss, research, and think about. And one might even write a respectable book about it, were there to be someone who writes a book about it.)

*Edit2:

• How did the changes in perception happen ?

(How was it that people’s perceptions towards the current leader were inherited from people that appointed them long before their ages; i.e their ancestors that sought such leaders with presented qualities are more qualifying than others, whom, at some point, when they casted away the ones of their own that had stepped down into the battlefields with such better leadership qualities presented ?)

• When did it happen (at what point exactly in history did it specifically happen, that their perceptions changed so much that they normalized with cowardly leaders) ?

• Why has it not changed ?

• And what would cause it to change ?