I really dislike systemd, and its monolithic mass of over-engineered, all encompassing code. So I have to hang a comment here, showing just how easy this is to manage in a simple startup script. How these features are always exposed.
Taken from a SO post:
# Create a cgroup
mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/my_cgroup
# Add the process to it
echo $PID > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/my_cgroup/cgroup.procs
# Set the limit to 40MB
echo $((40 \* 1024 \* 1024)) > /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/my_cgroup/memory.limit_in_bytes
Linux is so beautiful. Unix is. Systemd is like a person with makeup plastered 1" thick all over their face. It detracts, obscures the natural beauty, and is just a lot of work for no reason.
I applaud your efforts, but that seems difficult to me. There's so much nuance in language, and the original spanish translation would even be dependent upon locale-destination of the original dictionary. Which would also be time based, as language changes over time.
And that translation is likely only a rough approximation, as words don't often translate directly. To add in an extra layer (spanish -> english) seems like another layer of imperfect (due to language) abstraction.
Of course your efforts are targeting a niche, so likely people will understand the attempt and be thankful. I hope this suggestion isn't too forward, but this being an electronic version, you could allow some way for the original spanish to be shown if desired. That sort of functionality would be quite helpful, even non-native spanish speakers might get a clearer picture.
What tools are you using to abstract all of this?
If the spacing and columns of the images are consistent, I'd think imagemagick would allow you to automate extraction by column (eg, cutting the individual pages up), and OCR could then get to work.
For the Shipibo side, I'd want to turn off all LLM interpretation. That tends to use known groupings of words to probabilistically determine best-match, and that'd wreak havoc in this case.
Back to the images, once you have imagemagick chop and sort, writing a very short script to iterate over the pages, display them, and prompt with y/n would be a massive time saver. Doing so at each step would be helpful.
For example, one step? Cut off header and footer, save to dir. Using helpful naming conventions (page-1, and page-1-noheader_footer). You could then use imagemagick to combine page-1 and -age-1-noheader_footer side by side.
Now run a simple bash vet script. Each of 500 pages pops up, you instantly see the original and the cut result, and you hit y or n. One could go through 500 pages like this in 10 to 20 minutes, and you'd be left with a small subset of pages that didn't get cut properly (extra large footer or whatever). If it's down to 10 pages or some such, that's an easy tweak and fix for those.
Once done, you could do the same for column cuts. You'd already have all the scripts, so it's just tweaking.
I'm mentioning all of this, because combo of automation plus human intervention is often the best method to something such as this.
I feel dumbfounded. All I've ever heard from rust users, is the equivalent of football fans running up, waving pendants in my face and screaming. So much so, that everything else said seems like the wild fantasies of "our team gonna win".
To hear "yes, it's safer" and yet not "everyone on the planet not using rust is a moron!!!", is a nice change.
Frankly, the whole cargo side of rust has the same issues that node has, and that's silly beyond comprehension. Memory safe is almost a non-concern, compared to installing random, unvetted stuff. Cargo vet seems barely helpful here.
I'd want any language caring about security and code safety, to have a human audit every single diff, on every single package, and host those specific crates on locked down servers.
No, I don't care about "but that will slow down development and change!". Security needs to be first and front.
And until the Rust community addresses this, and its requirement for 234234 packages, it's a toy.
And yes, it can be done. And no, it doesn't require money. Debian's been doing just this very thing for decades, on a far, far, far larger scale. Debian developers gatekeep. They package. They test and take bug reports on specific packages. This is a solved problem.
Caring about 'memory safe!' is grand, but ignoring the rest of the ecosystem is absurd.
Debian has been doing this for decades, yes, but it is largely a volunteer effort, and it's become a meme how slow Debian is to release things.
I've long desired this approach (backporting security fixes) to be commercialized instead of the always-up-to-date-even-if-incompatible push, and on top of Red Hat, Suse, Canonical (with LTS), nobody has been doing it for product teams until recently (Chainguard seems to be doing this).
But, if you ignore speed, you also fail: others will build less secure products and conquer the market, and your product has no future.
The real engineering trick is to be fast and build new things, which is why we need supply chain commoditized stewards (for a fee) that will solve this problem for you and others at scale!
Not dismissing your point, but Looking at the article, it looks like it's in rust unsafe code. Which seems to me to be a point that the rest of the rust code is fine but the place where they turned off the static safety the language provides they got bit.
Hey! Can't I just enjoy my schadenfreude in peace?
I guess the takeaway is that, doubly so, trusting rust code to be memory safe, simply because it is rust isn't sensible. All its protections can simple be invalidated, and an end user would never know.
Morality being absolute means just that you subjectively consider some moral rules absolute. Doesn't make them so, the way the law of gravity is absolute.
And it doesn't mean that every human society agrees to what you consider "absolute".
All things you consider "absolute", there are whole societies which found them to be just fine, and you'd do too if you were raised in them, including incest, murder of innocents, slavery, torture...
Many things are naturally repulsive, but are indulged out of necessity or gain. For instance Aristotle wasn't opposed to slavery, yet nonetheless in his writings, now some 2400+ years ago, he found himself obligated to lay out an extensive and lengthy defense and rationalization of such, and he even predicted what would eventually end it:
"For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet, 'Of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods.' If, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves." [1]
There were millennia of efforts to end slavery, but it's only the technological and industrial revolution that finally succeeded in doing so. But the point is that even though Aristotle was ostensibly not opposed to slavery, he nonetheless knew it was a decision that needed justification because it was fundamentally repulsive, even in a society where it was ubiquitous and relatively non-controversial, thousands of years ago.
This 'natural repulsion' is, I think, some degree of evidence for persistent, if not absolute, morality throughout at least thousands of years of humanity's existence, and I see no reason to assume it would not trend back long further than that.
>Many things are naturally repulsive, but are indulged out of necessity or gain
Most "naturally repulsive" things were accepted just fine in one society or another.
Aristole spent time to defend and rationalize slavery because that was just job, to spend time rationalizing things. Other societies practiced it with no such worries, and found it perfectly natural.
But even if we grant you your "naturally repulsive" actions existing, it doesn't mean they are objectively morally wrong. Just that their moral judgement is not just based on culture and historical period, but also on evolutionary adaptations. These could very well be considered fine in an earlier/later evolutionary stage (in an earlier one, for sure: animals don't have such qualms).
His arguments were generally driven by logic and reason, not rationalization. Rationalization is generally only necessary for adopting views that seem ostensibly inappropriate, which would certainly include these sort of 'naturally repulsive' acts. And indeed his arguments for slavery were some of his weakest precisely because they were uncharacteristic rationalizations.
I completely agree that if you go back far enough in the evolutionary pipeline then my claim becomes invalid. I also think it would not apply to people of a sufficiently reduced IQ. You need to have a minimum of intelligence to understand what you're doing, alternatives, and its consequences on others. But once you have that baseline of IQ then I think morality, and a natural repulsion to certain behaviors, comes as naturally as communication.
>His arguments were generally driven by logic and reason, not rationalization. Rationalization is generally only necessary for adopting views that seem ostensibly inappropriate, which would certainly include these sort of 'naturally repulsive' acts.
I think that's an after-the-fact assessment of what his treatment of the subject was, which we arrive at because of our modern morals.
In his time he, and his audience, didn't think of it as rationalization, but as legitimate use of logic and reason, just like his treatment of other topics.
>But once you have that baseline of IQ then I think morality, and a natural repulsion to certain behaviors, comes as naturally as communication.
Might go the over way around too though: once you go above a certain IQ, it might be easier to treat morality as a fiction naked apes developed, as opposed to something objective, and even discard it entirely.
No, his arguments were materially different in this case. Most of his arguments came from first principles and worked outwards from some baseline; in particular - what is virtue and how virtue, itself, leads to satisfaction in life, and onward to how this can apply to systems and politics in general. But slavery he treated in an entirely different, practically ad hoc, fashion starting from slavery and then trying to shoe-horn in a justification along the lines of what you alluded to already with e.g. natural order and it being an inescapable inevitability.
It was a complete, and poor, rationalization. He even added, almost as a disclaimer, that there was not a complete overlap between 'natural' slaves and legal slaves, giving himself a plausible out to explain the endless examples of the repulsiveness of the institution by applying a no true scotmans fallacy, 'Ahh yes, I would agree with you there. But that is because that is not a natural slave, but merely a legal one.' And this is not my opinion alone. It has long been considered notably weak, especially from an otherwise brilliant man.
And I think that leads into your next issue. I don't think higher intelligence makes it easier to treat morality as a fiction, but rather even average intelligence, without discipline and virtue, makes it very easy to engage in self delusion and cognitive dissonance. Even those conditions are hardly a guarantee - Aristotle certainly had and strived for both discipline and virtue, yet the desire to rationalize what we want to be true, even if we know it is not, is a never-ending struggle that's easy to fail.
What always strikes me these days, is how old film is now. This "attractive young lady" is likely in her 80s or 90s, if she's still among us. EG, let's take 2025 vs 1965 + 25 years.
There was a time when paintings were the best we knew of the past. Then blurry photos, but we're now over 100 years of motion pictures. Our ancestors had no capacity to see the past, as we have.
I do my best to not blame the past, for most in it were simply ensconced in the culture and mores of the time. And it makes me think that quite surely, many things we do today will be seen as quaint, or improper 100 years from now. Certainly our descendants will think us uncouth, and over things we imagine as proper today. Things we think of as "doing the right thing", will be seen as uncouth, horrible, perhaps vile to our descendants.
Take this out of context statement about the young lady (the context being "the era of the 60s"). Back in the day, women expected such complements. They also expected doors to be opened for them. Chairs pulled out. For a man to stand whenever a woman was to be seated.
In this film, the gentleman says "why are we looking at this woman", yet also felt obliged to couple that with a conditional "she's attractive", for it could be misconstrued as "OMG, why am I looking at this hag!". Societal politeness dictated he do so. He would be doing the young lady a disservice, and seen as impolite by his peers did he not. And further, she'd expect it as her due.
I find today that often people take so many things out of context, from the past. Judge without knowing the circumstances (not saying the parent is judging here). We should understand context, culture, history, before pointing I think.
In the context of the film this has has little to do with politeness. The executive goes on to says of the film "It has to "STIMULATE these men who know far more about the HARD facts of their business".
The woman isn't in the room with the men so you are saying he's being polite to film footage. This is an unintuitive argument.
If you want to test your theory bring up a game show from that era and see if the male host says "You are attractive" to every young female contestant.
If you don't think that's the same thing the dialogue is too idiosyncratic to be explainable in reference to normal social mores.
Yes I read your post where you claimed "Back in the day, women expected such complements"
Either you meant women expected such compliments broadly (as in a game show) or you meant women expected such compliments if featured in the intro of an IBM OCR documentary where a man shows confusion about a woman on screen.
The latter interpretation is ridiculous, yet here we are.
You seem to have missed the context in the post you replied to, and the original. I've said it several times, he said effectively "why am I looking at this woman", but countered with a complement to ensure his statement was not taken incorrectly. EG, he had no issue with the woman in film visually.
You should not be confused, for politeness is not a thing easily turned on and off. It is often automatic. Further, a film is shown to contemporary audiences, and those viewing, audiences of less sophisticated times with media, may find his comment rude otherwise.
Viewing another culture is difficult at best, but I find it more so when it's your culture yet shifted by time or location. An example being British vs US culture.
The statements are the same, but sometimes subtly the meaning not.
Peering into the past is much the same. The language seems the same, but what is conveyed is sometimes different.
I think you're really missing my point, and not really attempting to view this 60 year old film as I suggest culturally.
Regardless, the main point is... viewing the past needs to be taken without finger pointing.
I don't think there is much value responding beyond what I've said. You appear to be slicing concepts out of the whole, and responding to only those portions.
However I don't believe I misunderstand your point. The dialogue is almost certainly scripted, presumably by an advertisement professional. You believe you know why the advertisement person wrote it that way. You think the man was scripted to be "polite" to the woman he was watching in the context of the scene and that particular line. You think your understanding of the society of the time explains the line.
I offered an alternative interpretation. The advertisement professional wanted to begin with something winkingly sexy so had a bunch of guys say a woman was attractive.
I don't even know what to make of the statement that "for politeness is not a thing easily turned on and off." A stock character in an IBM ad doesn't have an internal life so does not struggle to be polite or impolite.
This whole framing would make more sense to me if we were talking about a male game show host (a real living breathing person) trying to be polite to a real life female contestant in an old game show.
It's amusing how much ads hurt, once you're weaned off of them.
Even with traditional TV, growing up, I didn't really mind ads. Then I setup MythTV years ago, and had commercial skip... and of course just downloaded things without commercials too.
When I'd visit my parents back then, any commercial felt like intense agony. So this isn't just about the web, it's really about useless annoying juke being fed to you, when you're used to not having it.
The closest I can compare it to, is once I rented an airb&b which was under a freeway, beside a bridge, and adjacent to another freeway. Yet after a while I just sort of got used to most of the noise.
I wonder if the CEO of Mozilla doesn't use adblock, and just doesn't, literally, understand.
While governments battle big tech on some issues, they are very much on the same side on others. They both want more tracking for example - the governments want to regulate it, and there is a battle for control of the data, but both want the data to be collected by someone.
Not sure what your point is? It doesn't matter the number of users, because the GP's point is that those users are going to immediately bail, for a browser thsy supports ad block.
So that extra money will never materialize. And usage numbers will again crater. This is the point.
(You can disagree with that assessment, but that has nothing to do with telemetry, which cannot gauge users hanging around with blocked .. adblockers)
Taken from a SO post:
Linux is so beautiful. Unix is. Systemd is like a person with makeup plastered 1" thick all over their face. It detracts, obscures the natural beauty, and is just a lot of work for no reason.reply