Jajcus

We have the same about a shit whip – „z gówna bata nie ukręcisz”

In Poland it is „nosić drewno do lasu” (bring wood to the forest). Similar, but a bit different (pointless not just by being pointless, but by being impossible): „nie zawrócisz kijem Wisły” – ‘you won’t turn Vistula (our biggest river) with a stick’.

Non-toxic glue would be starch or gelatine - both used as base of some ‘real glues’, both with valid culinary use, including exactly this use case. We just don’t call those ‘glue’ in this context.

I like our European rules, when we are guaranteed PTO by law and employers would often force you to take it when you accumulated too much unused off days. The system cares even for those who would not care for themselves.

Those would be different kind of regulations. Not just ‘you need functioning brakes’ kind, but also ‘you must serve this route that hardly anyone uses and and you cannot make any extra money from’. Or ‘no extra fees, even where some people would pay them’.

If that means proper regulations (as it should) I bet they would hate it.

And that is the problem with this idea.

Subscription to a software is not mutually exclusive with self-hosting. Developers deserve to earn money, especially those who do not rely on collecting data, showing ads and enshittification of their cloud platform.

Understood: the debts can get higher now, as the government will pay it…

I don’t think this is the way to go. Not while getting into medical debt like that is still a possibility.

Also not a fan of #16 since it sounds to me like forced labour for the poor

That is how actually that worked in some (if not all) communist countries. No unemployment, but people (mostly those ‘undesirable’ for various reasons) would be sent to hard work in bad conditions, which would often cost their health or life. The other side of the coin was: everybody had a job and little fear of losing it, so people rarely treated the work seriously enough. There were factories full of workers, but so inefficient, that nothing was produced in sufficient demand. People had money, but little to buy with it.

It would be like click-baiting, bur worse, as the titles / leads would be crafted even before there is any article.

‘Pay to show a link’ is the way Google wants us to see this legislation. But linki are not what the news sources are fighting. The problem is Google presents the news and other information in the search result in the way that users often do not need to leave Google and foll9w the link.
Someone produces content so people visit their się and make them money, but those users get the information they want (sometimes incomplete or broken) straight from Google and only Google gets the money. That is not fair and that is what laws like this try to fix (better or worse). But Google and such have powerful propaganda and here we are.

Another thing is: users of services like Reddit or Lemmy also do similar thing (posting content in a way that preventing monetization at its source), so they have extra reason to take Google side.

…and if you are interested in the sound of static rather than the image, then the Polish word is: „szumi”. This can be approximated in English as: ‘shoomy’. The ‘sz’ sound does sound like static.

The funny thing is that our ‘sz’ (in „szumi”) and ‘ś’ (in „śnieży”) usually sound exactly the same to English or French speakers, while for us they are quite distinct sounds.

I am not even able to write it phonetically in English. Ask Google Translate - its pronunciation is close-enough.

In IPA it is: /ɕɲɛʑɨ/

In Poland it was „śnieży” (snowing).

As long as we are not paying for the services the service providers will do what they can to show us ads and frankly… rightly so.

The problem is there is no other established way for paying for services. One that would be widely use and fair. Current state of things is ‘we say it is free, but we will get the money from advertisers or by selling your data’. Yes, some people are often able to avoid some of the ads and privacy loss, but that means the service gets no money from those people, so the service is built and being run for the rest of users – those who cannot install ad-blockers or who don’t care or don’t know how to care about their privacy. This is one of the reasons of enshitification – any ‘free’ service needs to be only as good as required to keep the users who watch ads and give away their data. Catering any more conscious user is just a cost.

When enough of people will be using ad-block then the ad-block will stop working on many sites or the sites will disappear or become paid service. No one will provide commercial services for free and not everything can be a public service founded by a government or a community. I am not even talking about ‘corporate profits’ – even in the worst corporations there are normal people working and they should be paid for their work. Whether they are paid fairly and whether the corporate profits aren’t too big is another topic…

Well behaving programs give control back to the kernel as soon as they are done with what they are doing. If they don’t the control is forcefully taken away after some assigned time.

It looks something like this:

Something happens – e.g. a key is pressed – a process waiting for this event is woken up and gets e.g. 100ms to do it stuff. If it can handle the key press in 50ms, kernel notes it used 50 ms of CPU time and can give control to another process waiting for an event or busy with other work. If the key press triggered long computation the process won’t be done in 100ms, the kernel notes it used 100ms of CPU time and gives control to other processes with pending events or busy with other work.
After one second the kernel may have noted:

Process A: used 50ms, then nothing, then 100ms, another 100ms and another 100ms
Process B: was constantly busy doing something, so it got allocated 6 * 100ms in that one second
Process C: just got one event and handled it in 50ms
Process D: was not waken at all

So total of 1000ms was used – the CPU was 100% busy
Of that 60% was process B, 35% process A and 5% process C.

And then that information is read from the kernel by top and displayed.

How does the OS even yank the CPU away from the currently running process?

Interrupts. CPU has means triggering and interrupt at a specific time. Interrupt means that CPU stops what it is doing and runs selected piece of kernel code. This piece of kernel code can save the current state of user process execution and do something else or restore saved execution of another process.

…and not even ‘because I am never happy’. It is the melody that is nothing like happy and hearing it makes me unhappy.

Yeah ‘make a better tea by making it taste less like a tea’. I have seen a lot of that from people who just don’t like tea.

Though, for me that also include Brits, who spoil a good tea by adding milk ;-)

Isn’t that their long national tradition? Like with paper technology, silk technology or porcelain technology?