FreeBSD's kernel is smaller and more cohesive than Linux's. The whole OS (kernel and userland) is developed as a single project, whereas Linux is just a kernel with a massive and fragmented contributor base. When you need to make deep cross-cutting changes, like modifying how sendfile interacts with TLS interacts with the TCP stack interacts with the NIC driver, that's way easier in a smaller, coherent codebase.
Netflix's CDN nodes are basically single-purpose appliances that do one thing: push video bytes to your screen as fast as possible. For that kind of workload FreeBSD's network stack was historically stronger, and the codebase was easier for a small team to reach into and tune aggressively. They've gotten individual servers past 100 Gbps of TLS-encrypted traffic. A lot of the optimizations they needed (kernel TLS offload, sendfile improvements, custom TCP tuning) they built themselves and contributed back to FreeBSD, and the kernel's size and structure made that practical in a way that would've been harder in Linux.
The other piece is licensing. BSD license is permissive, GPL isn't. Netflix wanted the option to make deep kernel modifications without being required to open source everything. They ended up open sourcing a lot of it anyway, but having the choice mattered.
Worth noting they only use FreeBSD for the CDN. All their backend services, recommendations, control plane, that's all Linux on AWS. So it's not that they rejected Linux, they just picked FreeBSD for the one job where it had a real edge.
>You're better off with white skin and a US passport than with white skin and a British passport, but you're also better off with brown skin and a US passport than brown skin and a British passport and that's still better than brown skin and a third-world passport.
Tell me you're not an American without telling me you're not an American.
I hate to say it, but to many (racist) Americans, brown skin < anything else ... and ICE has a disproportionate number of those people, because they deliberately hire them.
Rational investors live in reality. In reality, a great deal of business conducted throughout the world involves graft; companies accept that, and keep doing business.
It's not a good thing, AT ALL. There's a huge loss of overall productivity when you have corrupt systems (see Russia), which is why modern governments have worked so hard to lower corruption. But Trump ruining all that isn't going to end business ... it's just going to make everyone pay more for everything.
> which is why modern governments have worked so hard to lower corruption
I would argue that they did not. They should have and some were better then others.
But, bulk of financial markets, all of predictionmarkets and crypto, startups and sillicon valley, Musk imperium, Thiel, Murdock, all run on corruption. And to large extend, Trump is the endgame of that.
I find chatbot conversations to be incredibly similar to dreams.
It's human nature to want to share your dreams, because they are fascinating to you.
However, it's also human nature to want to punch someone in the face when they start talking about this crazy dream they had last night ... because it has nothing to do with you, and doesn't interest you at all.
Similarly, when an AI says something useful to you, in response to your prompts, it's very particular to you. When you try to share it with others ... you get the article.
OpenAI just took a major US military contract from Anthropic because Anthropic had morals and wouldn't let the US military use Claude to surveil or attack US citizens ...
... and OpenAI didn't. The military said (effectively) "we need to be able to use AI illegally against our own citizens", and OpenAI said "we'll help!"
Or OpenAI decided to allow democratically elected leaders to make defence decisions rather than have some corporatocracy to step in and start deciding what actions are moral.
Even if you agree with Anthropic's moral stance I would hope people could see that allowing corporations to take on a role like that is a dangerous path.
I love the contrast between this and one of the next comments:
>In my honest opinion, GIMP is a horrific piece of software.
Both are absolutely true!
GIMP has been, for many years, the best free graphics software available. At the same time, it's so horribly anti-user (and anti-usability) that if it wasn't free software, the company behind it would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.
"Anti-user' and "anti-usability" are far too harsh. Outdated, yes. A product of 1990s-era UX design, absolutely. But every changelog has some mention of a UX improvement, and actually using the product at version 3.0 is, dare I say, pretty enjoyable once you unlearn things and pretend it's Photoshop 6.0. Single-window mode by default helps a ton.
I have used far worse software from commercial outfits. You would not believe how much aerospace and specialized CAD stuff still uses Motif and doesn't support scroll wheels or extra mouse buttons.
Don't sleep on the command palette (`/`). It's a really useful tool when even if you don't know _where_ things are, you still know what they are called.
The one saving grace one might find is that a lot of people trying it already had some experience with e.g. Photoshoot and are already influenced by it. And just because Photoshop does it one way doesn't mean it's the way. But honestly, no, it's just bad bad. Thanks for all the hard work for free, but it's just really difficult to use[1]. It would've been better to do less.
[1]gave up on it 10 years ago, so don't know, maybe things changed
GIMP UI was always bad whereas Paintshop Pro (don't if you remember) and later Paint.NET each had a UI that you'd be up and using without thinking twice.
My biggest beef is the UI constantly goes through massive changes at each release. Options moved, mysterious new configs, literally it is as if you're using an entirely new piece of software every few years.
For those of you who daily drive GIMP, well you'll be up to speed quickly. For those of us that use it once a month or so, for a day, it quickly becomes exceptionally annoying.
I'm happy if the UI isn't the best. I frankly don't care what the software looks like, or if the GUI is purdy. I just want it to work, work well, and frankly that menu items don't magically disappear, get merged into other sub-menus, or that now you can suddenly close a tool, and never ever get it back without finding some obscure menu item to re-activate it.
And if you use GIMP frequently, and are about to say "But, that's easy, you just..." then you're not a casual user.
There are more casual users than you think.
(this goes right up there with devs who change config options in files from option= to Option=, and configs= to config=.
I mean, leave it alone. Forever.
"Updated config options to bring them inline with StudlyCaps" or whatever turns my day into a ragefest filled anxiety attack on upgrade.
"Changed all config names to US English from British spelling." What?! OK b112, you now have to deal.
It's funny to hear that, because we get a large number of complaints that we haven't changed GIMP's interface at all from 2.10 to 3.0 and that's why we're "failing".
We try to be respectful of existing users (and again, we get lots of complaints that doing so "holds GIMP back"). If you have some examples of massive changes you've dealt with (and from what version to what version), I'm happy to look into them further.
Please finally implement pie menus, like Blender has had for many years. There have been various pie menu implementations for GTK for decades, and it's always been easy to roll your own if you suffer from NIH so much that you refuse to look at or use anything anyone else has ever done.
I believe GIMP's deep seated NIH syndrome, and refusal to look at or acknowledge anything else, and lack of respect for users' requests and usability itself, are GIMP's actual deep seated problems (which the Blender project so successfully doesn't self-sabotage itself with), and I have no reason to believe it's ever going to change, because it's so deeply baked into the GIMP "culture", if you can call it that.
Photoshop doesn't have pie menus, so if you must, think of pie menus as a way to be even less like Photoshop, if that is what mission drives you instead of usability. But I think your design goals and motivations should focus more on usability and supporting users than simply spiting Photoshop.
But once you finally get tired of spiting Photoshop at the expense of usability, then why don't you finally declare Mission Accomplished, and move on to trying for once to be as good as Blender's user interface and responsiveness to user's needs?
>One example is that Blender embraced the use of pie menus, and Gimp ignored them. The Gimp team is just not open to outside ideas, and gets really annoyed when users of other tools request features from those tools that Gimp refuses to support, and reacts by digging in deeper and clinging to their bad design decisions out of frustration and spite. A really sad culture of NIH and 4Q2.
>In general and with many other things, Gimp could have been so much better and easier to use, but they systematically and spitefully ignored their user's needs and requests about so many things, while Blender did just the opposite, listened to users and improve the user interface and mouse bindings, instead of being stubborn and parochial about it. [...]
>[...] All of these ideas could be applied to Gimp too, of course, but I've found the Blender developers to be much more open to entertaining other people's ideas and contributions about user interface design than the Gimp developers, who have been historically NIH-limited and stubborn (especially about changing the name to something less offensive to the general public). At least Blender already supports pie menus well, and changed the default mouse bindings in response to user demand, and has made huge strides in usability lately. At this point I think it would be much easier to just add a great image editor to Blender, integrated with its video editor, than try to change the minds of the Gimp developers. [...]
Do you happen to have a reference to GTK implementations of pie menus? The challenge we've run into is that newer versions of GTK "streamline" and remove features, so we have to either discard things or build our own replacement (as one example, we've received many complaints about icons no longer appearing in menus in GIMP 3.0, but that was due to the feature being basically removed in GTK3).
We currently have over 13,000 user-requested issues resolved in our issue tracker, so I don't think we're opposed to user requests. :)
I think that's a holdover from an earlier group of developers (there's been a lot of people coming and going in the 30 years that GIMP's been around!). We're also just limited by how fast we can implement certain things due to the number of developers. For instance, I focused on vector layers for GIMP 3.2 - a feature requested by many users! But that meant that I wasn't working on other features requested by other users.
I think that the weakness doesn't lie within GIMP itself.
Imagine that you are a car hobbyist. You know your way around a wrench.
But then you step in to an F1 garage or even your local repair shop run by that one guy who inheritted his father's shop in the 50s and has thrown a tool away since the Reagan administration.
It's going to be possible for you to do everything that you know how to do, and even to learn some things along the way, but you're not going to be anywhere near as efficient as you were in your garage where the only tools you have are the ones you regularly use and you know the locations (perhaps roughly) of everything.
The same could be applied across any number of domains. Knowing your way around and ambulance isn't going to go as far as you might think it would in a surgical suite.
Knowing some python isn't going to get your pulls accepted in Canonical, Debian, etc.
Knowing your professors preffered citation methodology isn't going to gaurantee academically succesful searching of The Library of Congress or even the New York Public Library.
etc etc etc
GIMP represents nearly the totality of knowledge relating to image manipulation, and you can lay it out to perfectly match your personal knowledge and workflow, but it simply is not possible to have it automatically laid out to perfectly match everyone's workflow.
Could it be more intuitive? Perhaps, but moving things around now is liable to break the workflows of tens of thousands who have learned to use and love GIMP the way that it currently is.
For instance, having only ever used GIMP as my primary image manipulation tool, I can and do have some of the same complaints against [insert other software] that people routinely level against GIMP. The last time I tried to use Photoshop I spent more time in tutorials and help pages than doing actual image editting because Photoshop is as unfamiliar to me as GIMP is to a Photoshop user.
I get where you’re coming from but as somebody who has bounced between three different major NLE’s, a lot of these tools are not radically different from each other.
The differences are pretty substantial sometimes don’t get me wrong, but your previous experience usually carries over in more ways than it doesn’t and you’re able to get up and running with like…80% of proficiency you had on your preferred program after a month I’d say.
GIMP isn’t quite that smooth of a transition and you can feel it. I don’t think it’s necessarily a fault or something they should spend resources addressing, but it is noticeable
I wonder what would it take o implement layout compatibilty packs , to allow the user at install to select which layout they are most comfortable with , v2.0 , Photoshop compatible , stable or experimental. All calling into the same base.
Of course such an effort most likeky would need to be a paid effort fulltime rather than volunteerr work.
It always felt sad to me it never reached the usablility/familiarity that Blender has.
So basically, you could download plug-ins, themes, shortcut presets, etc, directly into GIMP. We have a lot of pieces done - we just need someone to focus on it to finish.
That seems to be a denial of reality. Democrats are already winning races all over the country, in places that (traditionally) have been Republican strongholds.
But don't let me stop you from believing in a worldview that contradicts reality ... lost of Republicans (and some Democrats) do it too.
Democrats are mostly winning because the republicans have totally lost it, not because they are bringing forward a political vision that makes sense. I guess that’s where we are.
And after 4 to 8 years of Democrats running things and nothing improving, the people vote Republicans just in case it's better. It keeps happening. It's the circle of life!
People only think nothing improved because thats what Republicans are saying. Anyone even mildly politically informed can see the progress that happens under Democrat leadership.
Sadly apt. Democrats don’t make progress fast enough, while Republicans pull us backwards on vaccines, diversity, environment, abortion, healthcare, global prominence, naked corruption, oligarchy, theocracy, and military oppression.
False. Local races directly determine the day-to-day laws and rules you live under way more than a POTUS could effectively decree. I don't know about you, but I sure enjoy having reliable electrical, water, and sewer systems.
This is absolutely, in my mind, the opinion that has done the most damage to this country. If people didn't abandon politics that affect them at every level for a celebrity superbowl type show we wouldn't have this circus of Presidential campaigns.
That's just not true. If you iive in Texas or California or wherever, your governor, state reps, judges, etc are all going to affect you far more than the President.
So wildly inaccurate. If you disconnect yourself from the cable news outrage pornography cycle you'll find most things that actually impact you happen at the state and local level. A lot of spooky things on the TV to be afraid or mad about, but for the average person there is vanishly little real effect.
Dems have lost to Trump twice and it looks like they want to run the same campaign strategies in future elections. They are relying too heavily on "trump bad" to win and I worry about what that will ultimately result in down the line.
It's also a statement entirely divorced from reality when you look at the fact that those winning candidates are not in fact doing that, and neither are the candidates that are getting the most national attention like Talarico.
Newsom has a vested interest in making it sound like he's the maverick here that knows the special formula, but it's been obvious to damn near everyone that they couldn't run out the same losing playbook.
> neither are the candidates that are getting the most national attention like Talarico
It's a pretty close race with some recent polling indicating that Crockett will win the primary. Impossible to tell though. I clock her as being a more traditional democrat ultimately policy wise.
I'd expect she or Talarico has a good shot at winning in TX. They both have the potential to pivot to a more traditional position in the general election.
My main concern is the current elected leaders of the democrats and how the incoming dems view them. Frankly, if a candidate isn't saying "we need to oust Schumer/Jeffries" then I take that as a pretty decent signal that they align close enough with the moderate position to worry me about the future party.
I worry about the actions of the dems after election. I think they'll win the midterms, maybe even take the senate. I even think there's a good shot that they win 2028 presidental elections. The problem is that I think they'll run a biden style presidency and future campaigns once they get in power. That will setup republicans for an easy win in 2030 and 2032.
I'm a Texan so I'm following this pretty closely. I slightly prefer Crockett to Talarico, but I voted for him in the primary because I think he's got a significantly better shot to win.
Texas is going to need moderate and centrist votes to swing blue - we're not making the state more liberal at a rate that is gonna hand either of them a victory. Both are actually fairly progressive. But Talarico is a lot better at selling those progressive values to everyday people. The hispanic vote is one of the biggest factors in Texas, and while they're obviously not a monolith, culturally a lot of them have much more mixed social values than other voting demographics. Statistically, way more likely to be heavily religious, and that's at odds with a lot of the social values from more progressive candidates. Talarico effortlessly refrains these issues in a way that aligns with stuff he can directly quote scripture on.
I'm an atheist so I don't care what scripture says on the matter, but it's the sort of thing that plays well with a lot of a key voting demographic that Crockett just can't do.
Trump also lost everytime he was in a vote against Sleepy Joe Biden. Newsom went in a different tact with the redistricting effort instead of “they go low, we go high”, but yea I am also concerned to see if anyone else in the party actually updates their strategies for our current era instead of pre 2008 politics.
If Democrats actually knew how to message on what they accomplished instead of letting the other side control the narrative and refocus everything on to fringe issues that only the fringe of the party cares about, as well as matching every Biden brain fart/stutter/"senior moment" with the equivalents from Trump, I suspect a Biden vs. Trump rematch would have been a Biden victory.
But they suck at that. And when they failed to convince Biden to drop out early, they should have stuck with him and just ran hard on actual accomplishments during the admin. But Harris was a last minute pivot and it showed. I think she would have been perfectly fine as a president, and I voted for her, but not surprised in the slightest that she lost - and I expected her to lose bigger than she did.
The fact that Trump couldn't even get half the popular vote when running against a last minute ticket change that was never selected to be the presidential candidate by the party she was representing is a pretty big indictment of how unpopular he really is.
I think there's been learning that you can't just be "not Trump", but yeah - I don't know that the party in general has any idea how to handle messaging and narratives.
Agree with you on their failure of messaging, Biden was the most progressive President since Carter and I only limit myself to that because I am not as well versed in history at that point.
Yet somehow the progressives found him more unpalatable than the MAGAs if you look at people like Brianna Gray and Jill Stein.
It’s too far out for me to say I will definitively vote for Newsome but so far he’s the only Democrat whose started throwing hands both legislatively and on social media.
I hope the dems figure out how to do more of that and better, instead of returning to shit like the October shutdown and the exchanging leverage for pinky promises from Mr. John “I am an obligate pinky promise liar” Republican.
> Yet somehow the progressives found him more unpalatable than the MAGAs if you look at people like Brianna Gray and Jill Stein.
Gaza and the border were two big issues where Biden and democrats at large were notably not progressive.
And, as you might imagine, funding a genocide is something that's really hard to stomach no matter how good Lina Khan was.
It also really didn't help that Kamala and her brother, where they did promise changes, it was to eliminate Khan and double down on prosecuting "transnational criminal organizations". They notably made a hard pivot from what was initially a somewhat progressive message to one of Kamala campaigning with Liz Cheney and celebrating the endorsement of a war criminal, Dick Cheney.
Yea, those progressives called Biden “Genocide Joe” while Trump was ranting about how the Israelis hadn’t gone far enough.
They somehow thought the lesser evil was actually a greater evil somehow. It’s like watching the pre Nazi party takeover of Germany where the Communists decided that the Social Democrats were worse than the fascists. It makes zero logical sense, unless they are accelerationists and think that the people will have some glorious revolution after everything gets bad enough despite all of history proving the contrary.
> They somehow thought the lesser evil was actually a greater evil somehow.
Trump is a monster, he's evil, and he had a less evil position on Gaza than Biden did.
In 2 years, Biden did jack shit to curtail Israel's genocide. The majority of the genocide happened while he was president. He continued to sign and promote bills funding Israel and he openly talked about how he was a Zionist and believed in the Israel project. His foreign policy advisors were horrendous. Israel killed so many American citizens and aid workers under Biden and his admin took Israel's side each time or would simply put out a "it's troubling, we are looking into it" which they never did.
But you know why I say Trump was better on Gaza? Because he did 2 things Biden and Kamala refused to do. He met with people that supported Gazans and he forced peace negotiations. Negotiations, mind you, that are worthless and israel is violating. Negotiations that have allowed Israel to illegally take over a huge swath of gaza. But none the less, peace negotiations.
Biden would put up a red line, watch Israel cross it, and then literally just move the line (the goalposts) or ultimately ignore the issue all together. There would not be even a peace deal today under a Biden presidency. Literally, we were told to just hope that Kamala who was shutting down this conversation, would be better.
And the autopsy on this issue shows that the Campaigns of both Biden and Kamala were well aware that if they didn't shift on this, they'd lose the election. There are reports that campaign when getting issues from phone banks was instructed to hang up on people that raised Gaza as a problem.
It's not the voters problem that Trump won. It's the Biden and Kamala campaign who prioritized supporting a genocide to continue getting AIPAC funding and support over doing the right thing and the thing their voters were screaming at them to do.
People were watching Nazis go on a rampage and their government giving them billions to do that rampage. They did not vote believing there was no difference between the two parties. That was a glorious failure of the biden and kamala campaign. And something we know they knew because of a leak of an autopsy which democrats don't want to reveal because they still want AIPAC support today.
> Trump is advocating for a takeover of Gaza and letting the Israelis go nuts in the West Bank.
And Biden simply allowed Israel to do that. Trump is saying the quiet part out loud, but the plan has been the same. Words without actions are meaningless.
> Also lol at peace negotiations
Yeah, an actual action that happened almost immediately under trump. [2]
> do you think Trump ended 8 wars already as well despite violence still ongoing?
No, I already said that it was a somewhat meaningless peace negotiation, but one that is measurably more than what Biden accomplished in 2 years.
> We’re in phase 2 of his “peace plan” which requires Hamas demilitarizing, which they say they won’t do, and fighting is still happening.
They actually did agree to that. [3] There's not ongoing fighting, it's Israel murdering civilians. But because big news organizations have never cared about Israel's war crimes, it is very under-reported. Trump flagging peace was enough for them.
I don't like trump and I think this is a travesty. However, he has objectively done more. Biden did nothing for peace in Gaza. And it's not like Biden didn't have a lot of levers to pull. He simply refused to pull any of them because he full heartedly supported Israel's actions. I wish he didn't.
Trump at very least cares about the optics of Gaza which is the only reason he's put in the slightest amount of effort. Still genocidal, still supporting Israel, but also at least pushing them to make PR political moves. Which is more than Biden did.
The Biden administration publicly set quotas for Gaza aid that were supposed to condition their continued military support. Then after the administration determined Israel failed 15 out of 19 of *their own" meager conditions, they decided it was fina anyway and that they weren't going to enforce their own stated conditions.
> I don't like trump and I think this is a travesty. However, he has objectively done more. Biden did nothing for peace in Gaza. And it's not like Biden didn't have a lot of levers to pull. He simply refused to pull any of them because he full heartedly supported Israel's actions. I wish he didn't.
Trump is advocating for Israel to go whole hog while Biden tried, and I agree failed, to rein them in but Biden is the one you classify as fully supporting their actions?
Also in your third source
> The source said that Hamas has already handed over arms and tunnel schematics “through a mechanism that has not yet been revealed.”
Totally happened bro just trust me
You’re also ignoring the air drops for aid, inb4 you yell that people died from the crowds of hungry people rushing in for some food.
If you think Trump is better for the Palestinians than Biden despite all evidence and stated goals, then I kinda just think you have a mental issue going on. good luck
There's zero evidence that Biden tried, and a lot of evidence that he didn't (including statements by Israeli government officials). What he did was occasionally pretend (not very convincingly) to try, while telling the Israelis something different behind closed doors.
Your claim was that Biden tried to rein Israel in. What do a few token airdrops of aid by the US and the ridiculous pier have to do with that?
I'm specifically responding to that claim, I don't have much interest in the "which of these two genociders is slightly better" conversation, but when people try to rehabilitate Biden's image they should know the facts.
Linux is just as free (or free-er), and it's a ton better supported: why would these major companies not use it?
reply