any · textlog

Togo sofas remind me of Heidi Klums worm costume

vibing

same

I sit in meetings all day long, I roll my eyes and die a bit and synergize and circle back inner life sacrosanct outer face smiling stone no need to rush: executives don't need to work just synergize and circle back

wrote:

The live tab on the android app is interesting... How does it work? This is a test 🫣

continued:

Does it do some kind of polling? Is there some kind of notify like publisher subscriber? 🤔

replied to:

It’s using the /firehose endpoint. It’s an SSE endpoint publishing everything latest. Though I meant it to be used server-side, since it’s heavily rate-limited — up to 3 conns under the same network, but I can’t control how clients decide to use it so.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

…

continued:

Might just lift the limitation.

continued:

Lifted, that’s how clients want to use it then so be it! Should be fine. We’re nowhere near crashing the server from connections.

created a poll:

Quick, answer immediately without thinking.

Skittles33%

M&M's67%

24 voted

replied to:

Skittles easily.

wrote:

HelloWorld show code

from datetime import datetime
now = datetime.now()
formatted_time = now.strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S")
print("Formatted:", formatted_time)

Wow

Formatted: 2026-08-28 07:22:42

wrote:

hihihi

wrote:

Why was the math textbook sad? revealBecause it had too many problems.

wrote:

anybody tried barefoot shoes? any thoughts on them?

wrote:

Most of programs use key chords, like Cmd-Shift-G, Ctrl-Alt-N and so on, you need to remember and press awkwardly several keys at once. uses key sequences, C-c then k then p then l. If I forget after C-c k p then press C-h and help appears.

wrote:

The pendulum has swung far in the direction of favouring machine generated content over that from actual people. I wonder when it will swing back?

replied to:

What pendulum? The algorithms’? I don’t think any human is happy about their feeds filling with slop.

wrote:

I wonder if there is a way, sane and friendly way, to prove that a piece of software is only accessing whatever it claims it will access.

continued:

Like network addresses or file system access. I want to be able to claim in my software that it only touches this or that file and I can prove it

replied to:

I believe the sanest and friendliest way would be for it to be open-source so it can be audited.

replied to:

I know, and that's totally fine, but it is not always friendly. I guess an agent can "audit" it.

replied to:

Just the fact that it can be audited plus your word is enough. Noone would need to look any further, because they could if they had to.

replied to:

I think a trusted piece of software such as your operating system should be in charge of managing permissions. For example, I believe with Wayland on gnome you no longer need to promise you aren't secretly taking screenshots of the whole monitor and shipping it somewhere because to do that Wayland requires you to get user permission.

…

replied to:

I was thinking along the same line, but then if it is not a gated system - there’s always ways for software to sidestep these - just going down to a lower level. The other issue I have is if the system or software asks or notifies all the time - for every tiny user action!

wrote:

having just spent a week camper-travelling Norway, hiking mountains and glaciers, swimming in fjords really put some things into perspective for me - I should take more vacations

wrote:

been discovering random peoples indie websites and blogs on . takes me back! the internet lost so much charm when everything became coorporate. convenience can come at a big cost

wrote:

Finally watched Project Hail Mary. Easily one of my top 5 favourite films but it’s still not nearly as good as the book — I feel like the cut some pretty important scenes

replied to:

It's the first film in a long time that I enjoyed.

…

replied to:

I loved the book and I’m always fearful when a movie script is developed and a movie produced, so my relief after I saw the movie was immense. I too feel they’ve cut-out some bits, but the main thing that a book almost always takes my breath away with is fueling my imagination. A movie would (possibly) never nail that aspect.

replied to:

I just watched it as well. It was fun. There were a number of things that I felt weren't explained well and broke my suspension of disbelief; I haven't read the book, but I found myself really curious whether the book takes the time to justify things more. Obviously, the movie has a lot of pressure to rush to the next "big moment".

…

replied to:

If there’s one thing Andy Weir can’t be critiqued on then it’s not fully justifying all of the science. I think the film on the other hand can be hard to follow for someone who has neither read the book nor has a scientific background. It’s just hard to monologue about gravitational forces and relativistic speeds on screen.

wrote:

replied to:

_ _ __ ___.--’_`. .'_`--.___ __ ( _`.'. - 'o` ) ( ‘o` - .`.’_ ) _\.’_’ _.-’ `-._ `_`./_ ( \`. ) //\` /\\ ( .'/ ) \_`-’`---'\\__, ,__//`---’`-'_/ \` `-\ /-' '/