So, the thing we have right now is Tailscale - and it's freaking awesome.
But I want the next thing. Which is like Tailscale2, but for people, not machines.
I want to tell Tailscale2 about all of the people in my life, and which of my self-hosted apps they're allowed to talk to. And if they're also running a self-hosted app, then I want our apps to federate together.
It feels like we're suuuuuper close to having this.
I get that you can basically do this with Tailscale. Basically. But I want the next thing to be designed from the ground-up around this kind of design. People, sharing apps with each other.
Tailscale lets you grant various admin roles to other users, but it does also let you share individual nodes to people. Maybe that suits you're needs? It's on you to manage the human trust relationships though, but no technology can fix that problem for you.
If we blow up a place filled with enriched uranium, shouldn't there be an obvious spike in off-site radiation levels, as the uranium settles to the ground?
Meaning, isn't this damning evidence that there was no enriched uranium?
Based on satellite imagery from Maxar and reports from Iran state news agencies, they moved the uranium in about 50 trucks to a “safe location” [1].
From Reuters [2]:
> Hassan Abedini, deputy political head of Iran's state broadcaster, said Iran had evacuated the three sites some time ago.
> "The enriched uranium reserves had been transferred from the nuclear centres and there are no materials left there that, if targeted, would cause radiation and be harmful to our compatriots," he told the channel.
It's a quote from an individual, which is rightly unedited regardless of what propaganda that specific individual is trying to put out. Reuters does the same with US politicians who are obviously lying, or any other statements from people. It's not their job to only share "what is truth" but to share different perspectives regardless of their biases.
Usually subjective opinions are left for opinion-pieces, which that article isn't.
Another example from the same article, first they write:
> "The strikes were a spectacular military success," Trump said in a televised address. "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated."
Then afterwards they write:
> However, Mohammad Manan Raisi, a lawmaker for Qom, near Fordow, told the semi-official Fars news agency the facility had not been seriously damaged.
That's how real journalism works, find people with perspectives from both sides of the coin, and let them say theirs. Obviously one of them are correct, but it's not Reuter who will put down the foot and tell you what to believe.
Journalists should absolutely fact-check the claims they put in their articles. If they don't, you end up with a president like Trump, shamelessly lying anytime he speaks, and no one to counter his obvious lies. This, is journalism malpractice in my book.
Not saying Reuters does a particularly bad job at that btw.
Sure, but that isn't a claim the journalist put in the article, it's a quote from a government official, the journalist is reporting on what the person said. Editing or hiding quotes because you don't agree with it, feels more like journalism malpractice than letting quotes be unedited.
The best of journalism is about presenting verifiable facts, especially when those facts are inconvenient or suppressed by the powerful. Good journalism is not about providing equal forums to all sides to spew propaganda in equally metered time.
> Good journalism is not about providing equal forums to all sides to spew propaganda in equally metered time
No one claimed this. I'm merely stating the obvious that no one is 100% impartial here, and Reuters is reporting based on what they've been able to verify.
> The best of journalism is about presenting verifiable facts
The fact is that person X said Y, and that's what they're reporting. It's not original reporting about what the quote is about, it's a quote from a person, and that they're sharing that quote means they've verified that it was said by that person.
They're sharing quotes from politicians of two countries currently being pulled into war with each other, of course most of it will be propaganda. Neither of what you read from politicians right now is in earnest and a willingness for dialogue, it's all to pull you in their direction so you support their side.
Both sides are trying to goad everyone into their side, this is obvious. But again, it is not up to independent news to report for one side more than the other, this is why quotes from both sides are unedited, as it should be if you're for independent news.
> with one objectively correct answer and one crazy one
None of this is happening with the discussions and news-reporting from today and yesterday, it's all propaganda designed to make you feel one way or another. There is no "objective truth" to be found here, just two(three) nations who want to destroy each other, having a competition who can sound the most "reasonable" in order to justify whatever comes next.
> "There is no "objective truth" to be found here"
Of course there's objective truth here. This is a technical question with an uncontroversial technical answer (and that quoted physicist told us the answer).
> no materials left there that, if targeted, would cause radiation and be harmful to our compatriots
is a accurate picture of Iran's intention behind moving the uranium or not, is not something an expert of any sector could say for sure, unless they somehow have insider information. Not sure why you'd believe so.
The uranium is supposed to be uranium hexaflouride, right? That's solid at room temperature, so if the mountain collapsed onto it you would't expect to see it off-site.
Possibly. It could also be evidence that the bombs didn't really do their job. Either they missed or the bunkers were fortified enough and/or deep enough to avoid even the bunker busters.
In Iran's defense, there was credible OSINT[0] warning of the B-2s taking off 12+ hours in advance of the strike. Iran knows what a GBU-57 is, the writing was pretty clearly on the wall that a strike was imminent.
It's possible (though not guaranteed) that they simply relocated the enriched uranium before the attack.
That one was counterintelligence deliberately placed in OSINT to confuse Iran. The B-2's that flew west over CONUS in daylight, in plain view, were decoys on a wrong timing.
Because now I can use their Docker image trivially. They can also trivially use their Docker container on multiple computers, multiple VMs, multiple VPSs. They can Docker Compose it into other Docker images they're setting up, too.
I'm definitely not a Docker expert, but I've become a huge fan.
Please help me figure out the best way to share code between Github repositories...
I love C#, and I acknowledge Github as the king of source control.
I make a new Repository a couple times a week, and use Visual Studio Code to clone it, and open a terminal and "dotnet new gitignore" and then use dotnet to make new projects all over the place...
On multiple machines, even. On a VM on my NAS. On my Windows machine. On my Windows laptop. On a VPS.
And I'm happy.
But how in the holy hell am I supposed to share code from one repository to another?
I want to make VikingCoderLib as a C# library (classlib), and drop in all of my favorite Extensions for generics and strings, and etc.
And then make another classlib for some of my Protocol Buffer utilities. And another classlib for setting up a terminal.js console for an app. And...
What's the best way to do that?
Submodules?
They really seem to suck. I can't easily make changes here, and use them there, without it being a huge pain in the rear.
I don't mind submodules much. I mean when I first used them I thought it was sucked, but now I use it all the time for personal projects. I like to make small Lua libs or fork existing Lua libs and include those in a lib directory in my LÖVE / LÖVR projects. Works fine for me.
Perhaps the only thing that sucks a bit about submodules, might be if you work with multiple people and some reference of a submodule is updated and you need to go into the submodule directory to update the reference locally. But I think that's the only thing, no big deal. I don't think you deal with this issue much when you work by yourself on a solo project, on a single machine.
How does any other language do this? I bounce between submodules and monorepo for hobby projects and both approaches have some issues. I'm not a git expert so working with monorepos are a little easier to work with for me.
Yes you would set up your own nuget feed and publish as part of your build. You can set up the nuget feed on your own machine, use something like Teamcity or GitHub packages.
It feels like there should be a good way to have a dotnet classlib in one repository, and use it from others, but it just doesn't feel like they fit together the way they should.
You can also see my workflow for patching godot engine so it's mergable on a rebased master or stable release.
> This project uses git-assembler to simplify merging patches on top of the latest stable release by allowing each patch to be in a separate branch, so they can all be merged into a fresh branch without complicating the revision history.
Thin-crust (or "tavern style" as some call it) has been widespread across the city for quite awhile.
> As of 2013, according to Grubhub data and the company Chicago Pizza Tours, thin-crust outsells the more widely known deep-dish style among locals, with GrubHub stating that deep-dish comprises only 9% of its pizza deliveries.
I'm not saying we own thin-crust Chicago pizza, just that deep dish was not a thing on the south side when he lived there (it wasn't in the 80s and 90s when I grew up there either).
I ate Edwardo’s several times a month on the south side in the 80’s and 90’s, as did a sizable number of my friends. This is back before it became a chain (I guess technically the south side location was the second location, so it was already a chain) and they decided to take the best pizza on earth and make it mediocre-to-poor for a mass audience, which I guess happened in the early aughts?
So there is at least an existence proof for deep dish very much a thing for south side kids when he was in the vicinity.
Ha! Good to know. Friday is our pizza day, and we usually go with one local to us (Capri's), but on occasion do Aurelio's. I think today we'll have to do Aurelio's.
Yes, it's very much anathema to put ketchup on a hot dog, at least among Chicago hot dog enthusiasts.
For those unfamiliar, Chicago is also one of those American cities with its own style hotdog, so it's something of the local culture:
> All-beef frankfurter, on a steamed poppy seed bun, topped with yellow mustard, chopped white onions, bright green sweet pickle relish, a dill pickle spear, tomato slices, and a dash of celery salt.
Obviously, this is only as serious as you take hot dogs, but they are very good and compared to deep-dish pizza, the Chicago-style hot dog feels almost healthy.
being from the non-Chicago part of Illinois, I love piling ketchup on hotdogs in Chicago just to see the looks of disbelief and scorn. Makes the hotdog taste that much better!
reply