Changed my mind. Thanks.

…weird. I don’t understand why drop-down terminals are a thing? I can bring up Konsole with a hotkey too, only it just opens a window instead fo doing a fancy animation. That’s such a tiny part of its functionality that I can’t imagine how ‘drop-down’ became a descriptor for a terminal instead of just a bullet point on a feature list somewhere, much less a whole-ass category of terminals, lol.

But, fair enough.

Totally agree that objectively it’s a tiny part. However, for one, I’𝗆 simply used to it because that how terminals behave in games, and two, because terminals with drop-down as a feature were the only ones that introduced me to a one-button hotkey, just like in a game.

Surprised that there’s so few drop-down terminals being mentioned; I use Tilda but I guess they are all fine as long as they work on one’s distro config. It’s so handy to always have the console locked and loaded invisibly, but toggled by the press of a button.

“Impractical. Why would anyone ever need so many screens on the go?”

For the same reason why cars that can’t ride over the slightest speed bumps are sold: low self-esteem and a high urge to stroke one’s own ego.

- -
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.

AutoKey automation / word expander tool.

• I reconfigure ALT + i/j/k/l to ↑←↓→ globally, and more similar shortcuts.
• It expands abbreviations of one’s choice like “gCo” to git commit -m '
• One can assign scripts to abbreviations and hotkeys. E.g., when I press CTRL + Shift + [ it surrounds the selected text with a tag:

text_selected = clipboard.get_selection()
text_input = dialog.input_dialog(title="Wrap with a tag.", message="E.g., type cite to get <cite>x</cite>.", default="")
keyboard.send_key("<delete>")
clipboard.fill_clipboard(f"<{text_input[1]}>{text_selected}</{text_input[1]}>")
keyboard.send_keys("<ctrl>+v")

I’m likely not even harnessing AutoKey’s full capabilities and it’s already absolutely indispensable for being a huge time-saver and annoyance reducer.

- -
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.

You mean Qalculate, right? If so, I agree.

- -
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.

Aggression isn’t toxicity.

Subjective. “A toxic person is anyone whose behavior upsets you and adds negativity to your life.”
Asking a simple question and out of the blue getting a response intermixed with full caps and “fucking” would be enough to add negativity to many if not most people’s lives. Also the unyielding need to defend one’s doing so doesn’t help to convey the converse.

Do most of those strangers know that you are receiving hundreds of requests? They’re strangers, so I’m betting on no.

Sure they do, because I tell them. The screenshot you posted is proof that I inform them.

You “inform” them afterwards, therefore they didn’t know.

The rest of this is needless language policing.

Not sure what the definition of “language policing” is, but welcome to the Internet. You’re free to be crude or toxic while others are free to point out it out, which is rarely needless.

Because the inverse of that is how people get conned. Someone blowing absolute smoke with a confident tone and a sweet word. Tone is about the worst indicator of trustworthiness

Sure, skilled sociopaths con their way up that way, or that’s how soulless marketers manipulate the populace. However, that does not mean that most people who are kind are sociopaths or soulless. On average kind people are just being kind.

You say you’re arguing in favor of less toxicity, but your example was a screenshot of a comment where I asserted my own healthy boundaries (after being needled by hundreds of demands in the form of “what about <other app>?” from strangers over the course of months).

Which is more toxic?

The one that contains the most aggression.
Do most of those strangers know that you are receiving hundreds of requests? They’re strangers, so I’m betting on no. Are they then deserving of any swearing and caps lock yelling? Even if they do know, I can recall few to no instances where unironically doing so packed a punch.

A more reasonable answer would have been: “Sorry, no idea. For my own healthy boundaries I have to refrain from doing too much of this often-requested but time-consuming research.”
Not toxic, more effective. And as I mentioned in another reply, with AutoKey you could configure that typing the word “sigh” or phrase ''goddammit not again" automatically expands into the alternative answer suggested above. Being frustrated is fine, and venting is absolutely necessary, but there are ways to do it that are healthy for everyone involved, such as the autoreply and then going for a run. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Why do you conflate politeness and trustworthiness? Seems like a weird connection to make.

Is it really that weird? Imagine someone going to a store and the owner starts swearing at them because they asked a question. Would said visitor be more or less likely to trust the owner? I agree that being impolite doesn’t necessarily equate to being ignorant in one’s subject, but I wouldn’t be surprised that on average the most knowledgeable and wise tend to be more polite.

The simplest thing for Soatok to have done would be to ignore the message

Which also happens to be the simplest thing you could have done, even simpler as none of the toots you quote were addressed to you. Instead, you are dragging this one random exchange into this thread about something else entirely.

Does it really matter whether or not it is addressed to me? And, the simplest route is not necessarily the most virtuous one. To take an extreme example, if I see someone being bullied I will interfere to stop the bully and console the target. Here, I am simply arguing in favor of less toxicity for it improves credibility.

I’m not saying arguments necessarily become invalid because of impoliteness. But to me it doesn’t convey trustworthiness on first impression, especially when not knowing someone. The world / the Internet already contains so much toxicity, there’s no need for needless additional discord. Especially when encountering something frustrating on the Internet—as opposed to real life—it is trivial to just take a breath, go for a walk, and come back and respond peacefully. The simplest thing for Soatok to have done would be to ignore the message, or use AutoKey to paste a generic neutral response denying the request.

I would most definitely not recommend Matrix for private or sensitive communication, no.
https://soatok.blog/2024/07/31/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-signal-competitor/
https://soatok.blog/2024/08/14/security-issues-in-matrixs-olm-library/
Matrix is fine as IRC replacement, it might also be a decent replacement for Telegram’s channels thingy, sure. But I would not trust my family photos to it. Much less anything actually important.

Regarding Soatok, I am prone to completely ignore impolite individuals. As far as my experience goes, and for most of the general populace, Matrix is fine. And it is likely to continue improving. Compared to Signal and Telegram, who both incentivize crypto"currencies", a.k.a. tech bro multi-level marketing pyramid schemes, enshittification has already begun.

Roy says: August 6, 2024 at 4:28 pm
Interesting post! I would be really interested in knowing your opinion on SimpleX Chat.

Soatok says: August 6, 2024 at 4:55 pm
See, this is exactly the fucking problem. I never invited anyone to query me to look at YET ANOTHER fucking chat app. Yet this still keeps happening. Doing security reviews is labor. You’re asking me to work for free to satisfy your curiosity. This is annoying to do. I don’t have a fucking opinion about SimpleX. I don’t have an opinion about a lot of apps. If I want to share my opinion, I’ll blog about it WITHOUT being prompted. Until then, please stop asking.
By Post Author

Try Cinnamon, best of both worlds.

- -
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.

The stock market. Only when society collapses due to climate change and whatnot the Western hoi polloi will realize it had become a cancerous pyramid scheme that eventually runs out of tissue to metastasize in.

- -
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.

Look at that brave manly man arresting such a danger to the god-fearing, Jesus-loving, for-profit US society.

- -
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.

I don’t know whether I put too much weight on this, but the lack of English proficiency in a developer rubs me the wrong way. I had already stopped using Ventoy and reinstalled the machines where I used it on, and this makes me glad I did.

One cannot be sincere / ethical and be a billionaire simultaneously.

“Says who? You? Maybe they once were not that sincere and have since had a change of heart. BTW, the Gates Foundation has done a tremendous amount of good over the years.”

No. They might have done some good, but the harm of hoarding that much wealth outweighs their good contributions. Anyway, it’s not the billionaires fault per se, but our flawed systems that have allowed it to happen. If I or most other people were put in the position of Bill Gates in his heyday, we likely would succumb to our vices as well.

"“They are moving away from unfettered, no-strings-attached giving and toward increased donor control over organizations, and are blurring the lines between private investment and public benefit.” —Gilded Giving 2020, by Chuck Collins and Helen Flannery [17].

“Your “Giving Pledge” has a loophole that renders it practically worthless, namely permitting pledgees to simply name charities in their wills. I have found that most billionaires or near billionaires hate giving large sums of money away while alive and instead set up family-controlled foundations to do it for them after death. And these foundations become, more often than not, bureaucracy-ridden sluggards. These rich are delighted to toss off a few million a year in order to remain socially acceptable. But that’s it.” —Robert Wilson to Bill Gates, 2010 [18] […]" —What if I paid for all my free software? | arscyni.cc

I believe Gates and Buffet are sincere.

One cannot be sincere / ethical and be a billionaire simultaneously. If Gates were sincere Microsoft wouldn’t be the monopoly it is now.

Bollocks. If these rich assholes felt guilty and inclined towards altruism they’d have spent it already instead of “pledging”.

"[…] Furthermore, their supposed philanthropy isn’t just them giving money away no-questions-asked. More often than not they aim to benefit their coffers and/or virtue signal their “conscience”:

• “They are moving away from unfettered, no-strings-attached giving and toward increased donor control over organizations, and are blurring the lines between private investment and public benefit.” —Gilded Giving 2020, by Chuck Collins and Helen Flannery [17].

• “Your “Giving Pledge” has a loophole that renders it practically worthless, namely permitting pledgees to simply name charities in their wills. I have found that most billionaires or near billionaires hate giving large sums of money away while alive and instead set up family-controlled foundations to do it for them after death. And these foundations become, more often than not, bureaucracy-ridden sluggards. These rich are delighted to toss off a few million a year in order to remain socially acceptable. But that’s it.” —Robert Wilson to Bill Gates, 2010 [18] […]" —What if I paid for all my free software? | arscyni.cc