cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
Oh ffs we’re calling the word “manual” a micro aggression now?
sorry, did my comment trigger you? 🙄
nobody called anything a microaggression or said anything about the non-abbreviated word manual; jokes based on UNIX’s abbreviation of it being homonymous with the common noun man have existed since the man command was created.
nb (short for nota bene) would actually be a good name for a modern replacement for the man command 😂
Wait until you hear about the Alderney pound, Manx pound, Jersey pound, Guernsey pound, Falkland Islands pound, Gibraltar pound, Saint Helena pound, …
from wikipedia:
Throughout the UK, £1 and £2 coins are legal tender for any amount, with the other coins being legal tender only for limited amounts. Bank of England notes are legal tender for any amount in England and Wales, but not in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
[…]
Bank of England, Scottish, Northern Irish, Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Gibraltar, and Falkland banknotes may be offered anywhere in the UK, although there is no obligation to accept them as a means of payment, and acceptance varies. For example, merchants in England generally accept Scottish and Northern Irish notes, but some unfamiliar with them may reject them.[142] However, Scottish and Northern Irish notes both tend to be accepted in Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively. Merchants in England generally do not accept Jersey, Guernsey, Manx, Gibraltarian, and Falkland notes but Manx notes are generally accepted in Northern Ireland.[143] Bank of England notes are generally accepted in the Falklands and Gibraltar, but for example, Scottish and Northern Irish notes are not.[144] Since all of the notes are denominated in sterling, banks will exchange them for locally issued notes at face value,[145][failed verification] though some in the UK have had trouble exchanging Falkland Islands notes.[146]
the edit history on Shehbaz Sharif’s tweet shows that it began with “Draft - Pakistan’s PM Message on X” when it was first posted 😭
certain 2-parters are counted as 1
this explains the total of 170
a handful are credit only
as a main cast member he is in the opening credit sequence of every episode, which explains IMDB saying he’s in every one.
but how/where did you arrive at the number 163? i only arrived there by seeing that Memory Alpha lists 160 character appearances (which I see now does single-count Emissary and presumably two other two-part episodes) and then checking the mirror universe episodes to see if there were any without the Chief in them (and finding two) and then remembering Far Beyond the Stars.
anyway i guess either of the numbers in the meme could be correct, but not both at once: 163 is correct if you double-count three two-part episodes, and 170 is correct if you single-count them. 🤓
(and the numbers in my first comment are inconsistent in the same way.)
Fucking Chief Miles O’Brien appeared in 163 of 170 episodes, Dude
For one thing, there were 173 episodes of DS9.
And while Colm Meaney does appear in 163 of them, he is only portraying Chief Miles O’Brien in 160 episodes: in Far Beyond the Stars he portrays Albert Macklin and in The Emperor’s New Cloak and Through the Looking Glass he only portrays mirror universe Miles O’Brien.
I am curious where the creator of this meme arrived at the number 163, since IMDB incorrectly says that Meaney is in all 173 episodes.
good meme nonetheless
You asked a question and answered it yourself?
I posted the 10 points according to one source and then said
There are many varied but similar versions of these points circulating elsewhere
Why is the pipe required tho?
it isn’t really. what is required for it to consume memory very rapidly is for each invocation of the function to call itself more than once. using the pipe is just one way to do this; it would work just as well if the pipe character were replaced with an &
:(){ :|:& };: is a classic fork bomb for bash (and other shells which allow : as a function name).
running it will likely cause your system to need to be rebooted.
I didn’t say that they should be thrown away?
Sorry that I interpreted your comment as suggesting that anything less than a Pixel is not worth trying to improve the security of.
What’s with the hostility?
No hostility intended. But I still don’t understand why you think that omitting Graphene’s Pixel-requiring hardening features would cause Graphite to be less secure than other Android distributions which also lack those features.
Are there any other options with a feature set comparable to GrapheneOS(-minus-pixel-only-hardening-features) ?
Should the world just throw away the billions of non-Pixel devices in use today?
And/or should everyone just give up on improving security at all for the vast majority of phone users who cannot afford Pixels, since they can’t ever be as secure as a Pixel?
see my other comment in this thread
those benefits rely on the Pixel’s hardware
Doesn’t GrapheneOS have a lot of benefits besides the 3 pixel-requiring hardening features which are removed in Graphite (and the 3 others which are disabled by default but can be re-enabled on some devices)?
I’m not disputing that those hardening features are worthwhile! Pixels with Graphene are obviously much more difficult to exploit than phones without those features.
But there are billions of non-Pixel phones in the world which aren’t about to be thrown away, and the vast majority of phone users absolutely cannot afford a Pixel. GraphiteOS (if it actually works?) seems to me like it is probably a major improvement over the other options available for them.
At that point I’d just use something like Lineage
My impression is that Graphene-without-the-features-requiring-Pixel-hardware would still be a much more secure operating system than Lineage (or the other options available).
Reading that FAQ I get the impression that it should/could run on a very large number of devices, but maybe there is some caveat I’m missing? 🤔
so that many non-pixel devices can have an OS with most of the benefits of GrapheneOS?
😬
That website was made by someone suffering from some cognitive dissonance. They correctly observe that LLMs “can produce convincing-sounding information, but that information may not be accurate or reliable” and then somehow immediately afterwards conclude that “summarize this for me” is the type of thing which LLMs “might” be “good at”.