Yeah well, this is of course just a singular anecdote, but my experience with any touch-based de on Linux hasn’t been great.

No Linux phone I have ever seen has had a particularly competitive pricing. Or specs.

But perhaps there has been some major advancements I’m not aware of in the past week.

In any case, your latter point is true.

At this point I would not be surprised if steam built on top of the deck idea and the support it already provides for fairly responsive and configurable inputs, touch screen included, to launch a steam phone or something.

I mean deck isn’t all that far from having such a device. For the actual phone network stack they would likely just partner up with someone already in the space.

They’ve already had to tackle powering a lightweight portable device with a touch screen and adapting the UX for a small screen and non-kbd input. They’ve already established they can source parts and mass produce a competively priced device.

But realistically I can’t see it being that much better than the recent Linux phone offerings.

Yeah, the fundamental issue here too, ultimately, condenses down to tolerance and acceptance. Of other faiths, of other customs, of foreign ways to present or identify, of anything your faith or culture might not allow or actively do.

Just being able to accept or at the very least tolerate others, as they are, without trying to turn them, or, kill them if they won’t turn…

I can’t figure out why this is so hard for us humans, the majority of us at least, when it seems so… easy? Unless the difference is offensive to you, which, again, is just intolerance of difference. Just let them be and be your best self yourself. I can understand having a few words to try and sway them to be saved according to your faith or whatever, but failing that, just live your best life and I don’t know… maybe pray for them on your own or something if you’re truly worried about their soul or something. But dont go bothering them with that shit if they aren’t receptive. It seems so simple?

Fair enough, that’d explain it. I did expect air conditioning to be a big part of it, kind of makes a lot of sense that you do run servers as well.

Still, that’s a huge bill to eat each month.

I have personally never seen a bill of more than 60€ per month. I have some friends living in bigger houses, not apartments, and they tell they can get over 100 fairly frequently, the bigger ones more in the North can get over 200 in the winters, but even still, I’ve never even heard of anything reaching 300.

But I’m in my thirties and don’t really know anyone from beyond upper middle class. That might help explain my experience if it happens to be the outlier, but just reading the responses to this, I might not be the outlier here.

Anything four figures is just crazy surreal to me. I can not even imagine what it takes to reach that kind of electric usage. Or maybe it’s just extremely expensive, not the usage itself being crazy? I would think living in a place where sustaining one’s existence requires that kind of resource usage would be very hostile against settling and building in general?

But if it’s just personal usage rather than the regional climate or whatever, and an insane price of electricity isn’t the main reason, then I don’t even know what to say. That’s crazy.

Then you’d need to do something else.

Precisely my point.

And I’m not advocating for any of that. That’s just weird design, both of them, and as such a good example of something that warrants a bigger redesign in general.

Just advocating for clear, sensible, self-documenting and most importantly, expandable and maintainable code.

What’s idiomatic varies between languages and the conventions aren’t the same even then, when arguing across disciplines. This discussion seems to be more about different educations. I can get your point but from my personal experience in academia and working in the field it sounds undesired. But that’s just it. My, as in extremely limited, perspective. From your pov what you argue here is probably equally correct to what I think from mine is from my pov, it’s just a difference in the segment of the field we work in I suppose. Or plain old cultural differences.

Whichever it is, I bet we both can find better use for our time. I’m thankful for the time and effort though, even if I wasn’t persuaded. Sorry to have prolonged it so.

That is all just external implementation details. Not sure if it was you or someone else, but the main argument in defense of the OP as in it reasonable, was that the name is wrong. That it ought to be idAdmin. None of what you just described should have anything to do with user being or not being an admin. In place of checking “isAdmin” for null, the semantical and resourcewise equivalent would be a third variable for “admin rights having been validated” or whatever. Conflating it in this one variable while renaming it to isAdmin or similar, would be even less sensical… what if somewhere else in the code you have to check whether the initial validations have been made (while the actual role or whether is admin or not is irrelevant), you’d have to check if isAdmin equals null, which in that context would be confusing, ambiguous (i.e someone reading that bit will not know this is what is being checked without additional documentation) and just a code smell in general. You do want to make the important things unambiguous and self-documenting. Even more so the bigger the codebase is and the more contributors there are across its lifetime and in parallel at any given time.

But if we go with the original meaning of roles overall, then the union type is just a code smell that warrants a proper role thing around it.

That all is besides the point. There’s no real advantage to use null instead of defaulting to false there… it’s semantically more accurate and also less wasteful in that other code does not have to worry about nulls which always leads to unnecessary overhead when false is already equivalent in your proposed example.

I don’t really follow you there, wouldn’t it be exactly the opposite and wouldn’t checking for nulls be, as a premise, more wasteful? But doesn’t really matter, time to digress. I’m conventionally educated as an engineer so what I know and find reasonable today might be outdated and too strict for most contemporary stuff.

Yeah obviously with constants for the set roles per value. Some languages call them enums, but the point is that what we pass and use is always still the smallest integer type possible. With the extra bonus that if the roles ever become composable, the same value type would likely suffice for a bitflag and only thing needing refactoring would be bitshifting the constants.

But anyway, this turns out to be the weirdest hill I find myself willing to die on.

Yeah, but if it is about being an admin or not, hence the bool, it’d be idiomatic and reasonable to assume it to be false if we have no data. Unless we want to try and allow admin access based on no data. Having three states for a simple binary state is weird. And if it is not about just being an admin or not, the bool is inherently a too limited choice for representation.

Admin is a role though, was my point. And besides, if you check for three different states, and you decide to go with a boolean to represent that, I really find it hard to believe anyone would think it reasonable. It’s valid and it’s practical, but can you really say it’s reasonable?

I don’t do typescript, but wouldn’t a union of a null and a bool be just more resource intensive than simply using an unsigned byte-sized integer? I struggle to find reasons to ever go for that over something more reasonable and appropriate for what it attempts to represent (3 distinct states as it stands, and likely in future more than just 3 when they have a need for more granularity, as you’d often do with anything you’d need an admin role distinction in the first place), but likely I’m just not familiar with ts conventions. Happy to hear the reasoning for this though.

Yeah let’s use a union of a boolean and null to represent role, something that inherently represents more than two (…or three, I guess) different values, as opposed to something like an integer.

Even if the name is clearly misleading in this specific case, the entire choice of using a bool here is just bad because it’s almost guaranteed you’re going to expand on that in future and then you’ll just have to entirely rewrite the logic because it simply can’t accommodate more than two values (or three with the null union… 🙈), while it gives absolute zero benefits over using something more reasonable like an integer to represent the roles, or in this case, admin, not-admin and guest. Even if you’ll end up with just admin, non-admin and guest, the integer would still work great with no disadvantages in terms of amount of code or whatever. Just increased legibility and semantical accuracy.

Not to mention that there’s zero reason to combine the state of being logged in and the role in which you’re logged in in one variable… those are two different things. They will remain two different things in future too…

I mean they’re already chaining elseifs (basically matching/switching, while doing it in an inefficient way to boot 🥴) as though there were an n amount of possible states. Why not just make it make sense from the start instead of whatever the hell this is?

I would have never known better had I not gone to read the comments and see this…

I am in this picture and I don’t like it

I think it’s not about money. It’s the audience.

Maybe this arc leads somewhere better though. He might be big enough to cause a paradigm shift eventually.

Well, just an anecdote:

I simply deleted my WhatsApp and moved to signal. Just did it.

People installed the app, at least the ones that cared about staying in touch. Which was most everyone I cared about staying in touch with. A few of my friend groups also moved the group chat to signal, though all of them do have other ones with the people who didn’t care enough to move too, but I hear it isn’t that big a deal, they had multiple groups before and will have in future, doesn’t really feel like any extra hassle they say.

It’s been fine. No problems. I’ve had more trouble trying to explain to my extended family why I’m no longer posting on instagram. Those I never had in WhatsApp either back in the day, so they “stayed in touch” by watching my pictures I suppose. But I just consistently tell people they can reach me always via signal or plain old sms.

I guess the biggest thing to be scared about would be fomo for most, but I don’t really care enough, I’ve got so much going on already that it’s more of a blessing that I don’t have to be involved in every conversation or meme sharing or whatever.

It really gets so easy after simply switching. Just do it and that’s that. The people worth anything come with you, it’s just another app and another group chat or personal chat. Most already have discord and the meta messenger whatever its name is these days anyway. I know zero people with only one messenger/chat app and unsplintered groups across them. It’s not a big chore, and if it is, there’s always sms.

I do wish to understand the core message, and I’m sorry that I came here for a laugh in a very unfriendly way. But you have to admit it’s extremely hard to infer the message, maybe you can clarify it a bit here

What is there to relate to, though? That page is trying so hard to sell you on something, but never really explains what exactly. And it’s only goofy marketing speech, how would one relate to any of that? I’m probably missing something here.

I guess they were serious when they advertised “zero theory”. There’s zero coherence or actual information as far as I can find