The wanting it makes it normal and dull.

Maybe the Brit’s can step in

Aaaannd… that’s the mistake people keep making.

Peter Mandelson still a human being

Debatable.

Activity took place across the country between 2 and 8 March as part of a co-ordinated effort to disrupt organised crime groups and county lines drug dealing.

Which will make no dent whatsoever in the availability of drugs while costing the tax payer plenty. Why not legalise and regulate all drugs and remove the funding stream for the gangs.

It’s great that you encountered a bat but FYI it looks like you might have broken the law by taking that photo:

https://www.bats.org.uk/advice/bats-and-the-law

They cannot derive any happiness or life satisfaction if it is not framed in contrast to the suffering of people they deem lesser than themselves.

You sound very much like Spinoza :-)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8p5Z-ZO0QPY

This comment thread is about your opinion on the developers wanting to gain renumeration for their efforts.

No it’s about the Home Assistant developers valuing profit over well engineered software.

I’d say they are focussed on making well engineered software over making money.

I think you must have a different idea of what “well engineered software” means because to me, nothing you’ve said implies a focus on making well engineered software.

Writing software without remuneration doesn’t imply a focus on well engineered software. A person can write software without remuneration with a focus on anything, not necessarily good engineering. For example, one can write software without remuneration with a focus on financial reward in future. Which is exactly what appears to have happened. Working without pay to build a business with the expectation that the business will be profitable in future doesn’t imply that the business will be built on good engineering.

Helping secure remote access for those who don’t know how to do it themselves doesn’t imply a focus on well engineered software. Educating people isn’t the same thing as engineering software, let alone engineering software well. Ease of use isn’t the same thing as good engineering; one can engineer easy to use software well and one can engineer easy to use software poorly. Nabu Casa Inc. have done the latter.

Eh?

The software is free, but no dev works for free.

It’s possible to engineer software well and still earn a living.

That said, engineering software poorly is often a choice, usually made by people who are poor engineers. In some cases, and I suspect this may be the case for Nabu Casa Inc., the people are such poor engineers that they aren’t even aware that their software is poorly engineered. Many technology companies are better at business than they are engineering.

Edit: actually no, I don’t think Nabu Casa Inc. are unaware of their poor engineering, I think they just don’t care. They’re far more concerned with maintaining their company’s profits.

Why so negative?

It’s clear that the Nabu Casa Inc. people, who also happen to be the Home Assistant project leaders, are focussed on making money over making well engineered software.

For example, Home Assistant’s settings page includes an entry for Nabu Casa Inc.'s cloud services product as the first entry in the list and there’s no option to switch it off.

Home Assistant is engineered in such a way as to make it difficult to install on operating systems that aren’t under control of Nabu Casa Inc., like Home Assistant OS or Home Assistant Container. If Home Assistant were engineered well, it would be simple to take individual Home Assistant packages and build and install them on any distribution, as has been customary in the free software community for decades. As far as I know, there’s no reason Home Assistant must be an operating system rather than simply individual packages. See https://feddit.uk/post/17543373 and especially https://feddit.uk/post/17543373/12207671 .

Bands also makes merch to increase their income, should we hate on them as well?

If a band makes selling merch their purpose, over and above making decent music, then I would likewise scorn them.

Oh, and before I forget: have you seen our brand new merch store?

🤮

https://archive.is/lZMT8

“It’s my data centre!”

“No it’s MINE!!”

Nah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Charles_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution

Is parliament rotten?

To the fucking core.

Downvoters, why are you downvoting? Explain yourselves or be branded spineless, dirty monarchists!

I’d recommend this excellent series if you want a good grounding:

https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/video/arrows-time-back-future-1999

And I also found this video which I haven’t watched but I expect will be good and probably attacks your pondering more directly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_0o2fJhtSc

Hence, the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.

One paper claiming that the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness does not mean that the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.

it seems my memory is better than yours

I’m not sure why you think my memory is in any way relevant.

Published 13 August, 2009

There’s a significant journey from being published in a paper to being taught in classes. I was taught Orch OR somewhere between 2008 and 2010 so there’s no reason to think memory comes into it.

Then you were also taught that there was no way the brain could maintain sustained quantum entanglement

No. I’ve no idea what could have possibly brought you to that conclusion.

Please don’t try to tell me what brought you to that conclusion while multitasking. For that matter, please don’t try to tell me at all.