Kogasa

The standard .NET C# compiler and CLI run on and build for Windows, MacOS, and Linux. You can run your ASP.NET webapps in a Linux docker container, or write console apps and run them on Linux, it doesn’t matter anymore. As a .NET dev I have literally no reason to ever touch Windows, unless I’m touching legacy code from before .NET Core or building a Windows-exclusive app using a Windows app framework.

Ok, there’s no such thing as native Windows apps for Linux, but there are cross platform GUI frameworks like Avalonia and Uno that can produce apps with a polished identical experience across all platforms, no electron needed

It’s fully cross platform with .NET Core and later.

It’s on purpose. They’re trying to avoid calling them people. Not illegal immigrants anymore, just illegals. Not trans people, just things. Yes, the implications of intentional dehumanization are horrific beyond imagination.

Nice pic

Some of it looks like topology. The curvy horizontal lines turning into curvy vertical lines are symbols relating to the Kauffman bracket, which belongs to knot theory.

https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Kauffman_bracket_polynomial

I’m with you until the lockin. How does that happen?

Yeah, specifically for something like coreutils I can’t see the malicious endgame that is suggested by others here. Is the fear that a proprietary version of cat or pwd or printf takes over the ecosystem and then traps users into a nonfree agreement? Or a proprietary coreutils superset that offers some new tool and does the same thing? Or a proprietary coreutils that generates profit for businesses without attribution to the developers? What would stop anyone from just writing their own proprietary set of tools to do the same thing now, even if uutils didn’t exist? Clearly not much, since uutils did exactly that (minus the proprietary bit).

I personally don’t see a compelling reason to change to MIT, but I also don’t see the problem.

It depends on if you use the “relay” feature. If your server is accessible from the outside it shouldn’t be using this though.

There’s not much coherent algebraic structure left with these “definitions.” If Ωx=ΩΩ=Ω then there is no multiplicative identity, hence no such thing as a multiplicative inverse.

Undefined is more precise. 0/0 being an “indeterminate form” refers to expressions of the form lim(x->c) f(x)/g(x) where lim(x->c)f(x) = lim(x->c)g(x) = 0.

This doesn’t clearly identify a problem IMO. Division by a number is defined as multiplication by the multiplicative inverse, and 0 has no multiplicative inverse because 0x = 1 has no solutions.

Missing from that summary is the fact that he’s a confirmed moron.

Code is easy in a vacuum. 50 moving parts all with their own quirks and insufficient testing is how you get stuff like this to happen.

No, that’s what induction is. You prove the base case (e.g. n=1) and then prove that the (n+1) case follows from the (n) case. You may then conclude the result holds for all n, since we proved it holds for 1, which means it holds for 2, which means it holds for 3, and so on.

It’s not actually claiming that all horses are the same color, it’s an example of a flawed induction argument

For an alternative that doesn’t sound insane, try turkey a la king. Turkey in a creamy sauce on puff pastry or toast.

They’re already doing this or may as well be

Empty set is ∅, slashed zero is 0︀ (if your browser decides to render the unicode variant) or 0︀ in html

Learn the difference, it could save your life!

(It could not actually save your life)

“qrstuv” isn’t an abbreviation. It’s the alphabet dawg