sukhmel

But that's so much less fun as a headline!

Oh, the #4 is clear pretty much as usual

I think, it's based on an old flake-compat package or something. It's not inherently bad, but it displays what I dislike the most about Nix design, it's very opaque and magical until you go out of your way to understand it.

The globals are another example of this, I know I can do with something; [ other ] but I am never sure if other comes from something or not. And if it's a package parameter, the values also come seemingly out of nowhere.

Sometimes it's also the updates, rolling back a failed update is much simpler with Nix even if it took some elaborate set-up. This might be not wildly useful but it happens more often than spinning up a new machine entirely

Personally I use flakes.

On the work we use an abomination that creates flake.lock but then parses it and uses to pin versions, it took me a while to realise this is why setting a flake input to something local never seemed to have any effect, for instance

You look fab, and I hope you will go on wearing what you like.

Regarding the effect camo has, I'm not 100% convinced. If it were pink or acid coloured ‘camo’ that's one thing, but just a regular one I can't disconnect from military in my mind. That of course will vary widely from person to person

As they say, office is the pinnacle of productivity

Community publishing the configs sometimes confuses even more, because everyone does the same things differently, and some are deprecated, and some are experimental, and I was lost way more times than once while trying to make sense of it.

I like Nix, and I use it on my Mac and in our production for cross-compiling a service, but man is it a pain to fix issues. That is beside the point that for some reason Nix behaves a bit different on my machine and on co-workers', and the only thing I wanted from it is to be absolutely reproducible

Relevant part:

In response to Ofsted's review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges on 10 June 2021, which was prompted by the Everyone's Invited movement, de Souza was commissioned by Government to review online safety for children, with a focus on the prevalence of sexualised content. Over the following three months, she met with the owners and administrators of adult content sites, all major social media companies, and content sharing platforms, and co-chaired a meeting with Ministers and senior representatives of the eight largest internet and social media companies, to urge for greater protections for children and support for the Online Safety Bill, which became law in 2023.

De Souza has campaigned for robust age limits on adult content sites and has called for tighter age verification on sites that children already engage with and use. Her work to strengthen the UK Government’s Online Safety Act, through workshops and focus groups with young people and other leading child’s rights organisations, led to her recommendations being accepted during the passage of the legislation, and to her being named as a statutory consultee on the face of the Act.

But the rest of the article leaves a rather positive impression, she seems like a passionate and helping gal, even if sometimes this leads to a fuck up like this Online Safety Act. So I don't quite understand what was your point, do you want to blame everything on her? I would say that she wasn't the one making a law without listening to experts calling bullshit, she did take part in it but that's never 100%

Why is it even possible to remove public patches that are already used?

All right, that sounds like a good set-up. But you say almost nothing an anticheat could do against it, this again makes me wonder what horrific ways can be devised to detect this. Other than maybe keeping memory and traffic encrypted

Because this part is also wrong (it was a goose)