leo.mca.is
London based software engineer at Mozilla, working on MDN. Amateur photographer, enthusiastic cook, and a fan of (almost all) sports. Curious about travel policy and public health.
https://leo.mca.is/
30 posts
126 followers
356 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Anyone who thinks you can solve London's housing crisis, the product of several decades of not building enough houses, without building more houses, does not deserve to be taken seriously. Nor does anyone tagging the NIMBY ultras of CPRE into a discussion on housing.
comment in response to
post
LIGHTNING STRIKES RICE
comment in response to
post
Vance is a fucking snake. Trying to pretend other people have to show decorum as he’s out there calling Zellensky a loser. Fuck that guy.
How can America look at how they ganged up on Zellensky like a pair of bellowing kids & feel good about this
comment in response to
post
That's where the argument needs to be had, is the use of copyrighted works in training a model "fair use"? And even if it is, does a model spitting out something near identical to a copyrighted work violate an author's copyright at that point? These are not simple questions to answer
comment in response to
post
Don't want to be "that guy" but Osman's framing of the argument is nonsense: the poster has "used a copyrighted work" in copying a section from the article: I presume the poster didn't ask The Guardian for permission, and hasn't paid for it, but they haven't stolen it - it's covered by fair use!
comment in response to
post
Not just that driving is free, but that driving itself is a default state of nature: like it's impossible to get anywhere without a car, and everyone and everything bar the car should be inconvenienced so that drivers can get everywhere as quickly as possible
comment in response to
post
Your car doesn't have a bonnet, A pillars, blind spots, and weigh a tonne? Sorry to break it to you mate but your car might be a bicycle
comment in response to
post
Surely the issue is the cyclist saying "I thought people would get out of my way" which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the hierarchy of vulnerability in the highway code (indeed cyclists should "get out the way" of pedestrians, as I do on my bike)
comment in response to
post
Are you saying it would've been impossible for someone to run that red and not knock you over? (Which I'm very sorry happened) Surely the issue is the cyclist not cycling considerately: pedestrians cross outside of crossings all the time (as they should!), cyclists should still be considerate there
comment in response to
post
Also absurd black-and-white thinking in the replies, people unable to understand it's entirely possible to run a red while cycling safely and considerately: it doesn't mean blasting through at 20mph without looking. Where, exactly, is the danger in slowly cycling through an empty crossing?
comment in response to
post
Not badly worded, just people further proving your point: cyclists are held to a much higher standard than drivers, and misbehaviour generalised over the whole group ("cyclists are always..."), rather than the individual ("some drivers...") - or even the object! ("car collides with...")
comment in response to
post
But that's not an issue with "running a red" that's an issue with cycling like an idiot, no? The issue would be exactly the same even if there were no traffic lights, or you were on a shared use path: the issue is with some (very few) cyclists not being considerate of more vulnerable road users
comment in response to
post
You have terrible visibility out your car, whereas on a bike you have as much visibility as a pedestrian, and you can still kill someone even when driving slowly - a bike doesn't weigh multiple tonnes! Just how could a bike going slowly near nobody be a danger?
comment in response to
post
Why? It's perfectly possible to ride slowly and carefully on the pavement (see: shared use paths, canal towpaths), so what's the issue?
comment in response to
post
Guess I'll swap the slots the drives are in to determine if there's an issue with the nvme itself or with the slot/position it's in
comment in response to
post
Enabled all the kernel options to disable power saving, but one nvme keeps crapping out, seemingly on relatively heavy writes, the other one seems fine (though it did eventually crap out one time too). Could be them getting too hot, though they seem to be hovering around 55C which seems fine
comment in response to
post
Unfortunately after a reboot bcachefs decided to not mount, rather than mount ro (this might be a misconfiguration in my fstab tbf), so now I can't ssh in because guess where my pubkey is stored
comment in response to
post
Brentford were crowding the box so it wasn't unexpected: I'm happy we actually took some shots, felt like we've been lacking the confidence to do that lately
comment in response to
post
I don't think so, but bind-mounting subfolders (could be subvolumes) works fine for me
comment in response to
post
Thank you baby Jesus for sbctl which makes enabling Secure Boot on Linux so incredibly easy: github.com/Foxboron/sbctl
comment in response to
post
Not with bcachefs as root, mind: I would like to be able to ssh into this server to fix things if/when it doesn't want to mount, I also have no idea how I'd get bcachefs auto-unlocking in initramfs. Instead I've got a couple of TPM unlocked LUKS partitions in raid1 btrfs as root.
comment in response to
post
Create an NFT for the hard drive because after all: if the original asset is lost or destroyed, its value still remains (have I got that right?)
comment in response to
post
Being able to use my domain name as my handle (without having to self host anything) was just too much to resist
comment in response to
post
Echoes of "freebiegate" and the "starmer's always abroad" narratives: perhaps with such a stonking majority in parliament, they're just ignoring these things for now - will anyone remember them in 4+ years at the next election?