Touch-screen smart-phones like the one I have seem like an extremely Californian idea. Show me one that's usable in rain and snow and cold, using mittens, and maybe I can take it seriously.


A set of twins as an xmas gift. This painting was cut in half so each owner could have the art of their twin mailed to them. They will be made whole again when the two owners meet in person at a future date.

Each half is 4"x6". I really like doing these symmetrical cut-apart paintings. I'll post pics of the ready-to-mail cards later once I get them prepped.

#mastoart #watercolor #deer #flowers #gold #matope #zikwa

sweet I just received some APRS frames from the ISS with a hacky coathanger wire dipole :-) #hamradio #swl

Anybody know of a good all-purpose unit conversion tool for Linux?

git changing master to main by default 

The argument against the word "master" is based on the unproven assumption that the term is loaded with racist connotations, and the mandate for change is based on the fact that the possibility of the assumption's truth is nonzero and that the side-effects of the change are small.

If that were true, I would be on board with it. However, it's plainly clear that the impact of git upstream switching the default branch name to "main" is going to be huge. Many scripts with the "master" hard-coded are going to break, scripts written on the valid assumption that the name "master" was an intrinsic, unchanging property of git.

Every programmer who works with repositories before and after the change are going to constantly mis-remember which is which, and we'll have to guess at the default when working with new or unfamiliar repositories.

This event is going to establish a new epoch in git. We should take that seriously.

Which means we have to confront the fact that the assumption (that inherent racism is present in the word "master" and is causing harm to those who have suffered under racism) may not actually be true. The claims do not hold up well under scrutiny. And, as far as I can tell, the cause is championed disproportionately by white people.

The moralized nature of the question puts an external pressure on decision makers on the git project, which is normally not present for other patches. They have to consider, if they review these changes negatively, will it affect their personal reputation? Their careers? If there's even a slight chance of this, is it better not to argue the matter at all, and rubber-stamp the patches? I don't think this change is being developed under the right conditions.

On the left, we have a tendency to rubber-stamp social causes with a lesser degree of scrutiny. I think that this is a testament to how much we value empathy and solidarity, but I don't think it's a healthy way to approach our problems. Software breakage has a social cost, too.

Etherify: This is a really cool hack which uses ethtool to transmit morse which is then picked up by an SDR.



Loving the way the neighbor's bamboo sways in the tropical storm winds.
I might have to go download a plant this weekend.

Tip: if you make an external storage device, please be sure to give it blinkenlights so that I can be reassured I'm dd'ing to the right device

fuck work today. let's go home and eat cheese

There's so much harmful, exploitative, and proprietary software out there that casting your anger at copyleft is a really stupid, self-defeating attitude

Copyleft or permissive, either way, we're all on the same team. If a copyleft license would force you to make your code copyleft by including it, then whatever, dude, just do it, who gives a flying fuck

Show older

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!