Belief is necessary but not sufficient.

All power in our society is based on belief if you think about it.

Accents exist, you know.

“are” is a perfectly valid pronunciation of “our” I think, at least in some accents. Writing it as “are”, on the other hand does feel wrong.

Well I did clarify I agree that the overarching point of this paper is probably fine…

widely accepted linguistic standard

I am not a linguist so apologise for my ignorance about how things are usually done. (Also, thanks for educating me.) But on the other hand just because it is the accepted way doesn’t mean it is right in this case. Especially when you consider the information rate is also calculated from syllables.

syllable bigrams

Ultimately this just measures how quickly the speaker can produce different combinations of sounds, which is definitely not what most people would envision when they hear “information in language”. For linguists who are familiar with the methodology, this might be useful data. But the general public will just get the wrong idea and make baseless generalisations - as evidenced by comments under this post. All in all, this is bad science communication.

So I did a quick pass through the paper, and I think it’s more or less bullshit. To clarify, I think the general conclusion (different languages have similar information densities) is probably fine. But the specific bits/s numbers for each language are pretty much garbage/meaningless.

First of all, speech rates is measured in number of canonical syllables, which is a) unfair to non-syllabic languages (e.g. (arguably) Japanese), b) favours (in terms of speech rate) languages that omit syllables a lot. (like you won’t say “probably” in full, you would just say something like “prolly”, which still counts as 3 syllables according to this paper).

And the way they calculate bits of information is by counting syllable bigrams, which is just… dumb and ridiculous.

I am pretty skeptical about these results in general. I would like to see the original research paper, but they usually

1. write the text to be read in English, then translate them into the target languages.
2. recurit test participants from US western university campuses.

And then there’s the question of how do you measure the amount of information conveyed in natural languages using bits…

Yeah, the results are mostly likely very skewed.

When Linus becomes entertaining is when he is not doing his job properly.

That’s why what Linus said was stupid when he brought WWII into this conversation…

Where should they move to? Countries that aren’t sanctioning Russia right now are likely to be… problematic? in other ways. But I am also pretty ignorant about which countries are on that list, and I would like to know more.

Maybe they need to become pirates on international water…

Not as much as living in Palestine or Ukraine.

IANAL, but I think the general answer is no. When someone contribute code to an open source project, although they aren’t giving up their copyright, they do grant the recipient (and the rest of the world, for that matter) a license to use their code. In case of Linux, this is the GNU Public License. Unless GPL has a section about license revocation that I am not aware of, you won’t be able to take your code back.

Also mwan3 https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/network/wan/multiwan/mwan3

Yubikey supports pin protection, the newest one even have a fingerprint scanner.

I see, thanks for explaining. So IIUC, rook is intended for headless systems?

But keepassxc already provides a secret service ootb?

Well it says ついに発売

Put it together it more or less means “(Windows 7) has finally been released/started sale”

Errr I use mdns all the time…

Would be nice if the dev can respond and confirm that…

While this is true, it only requires the shim and grub to be copied for another distro.

From other comments there are a lot more blobs than just these two.