FishFace

So (unsurprisingly) I modified the image to make my point. I don’t know whether you will find it convincing with this revealed: I flipped the image because I too understand now (I did not when these switches were first introduced) that right = on. And I also desaturated the image to mimic colourblindness (achromatopsia). (Indeed, when they were first introduced I remember them being two shades of grey…)

I believe that, but… why should that be the case? It’s a convention without a reference or motivation. I remember when they were new and I really had nothing to refer to and just having no idea whether they were on or off. The fact that I’ve got used to them now isn’t really that forgivable. In contrast, checkboxes not only have convention behind them, but mimicked filling in paper forms which many people were and are familiar with anyway. The idea that “filled” is on and “empty” is off seems inherently more intuitive even if you’ve never filled in a form if you just know that the concept of forms that you fill in exists.

GNOME settings pages don’t have “apply” buttons. When do you think a selection from a drop-down or numerical selector takes effect?

Yes, most settings now take effect immediately, and that’s great. (I think KDE still prefers a separate “apply” step though). That is (still) separate from the decision of how to style something which turns something on and off, which is what I’m complaining about. I don’t take any issue with having things apply immediately.

You raise visual impairment, which is exactly why I’m complaining. Look at the image and tell me, which of the controls is on, and which is off?

Taking effect instantly is not really indicated by the control shape; it’s indicated by whether or not the form has a button equivalent to “apply”. Settings pages with checkboxes that applied immediately have been common for years; this distinction is not nearly as clear cut as you make out. I suspect what is going on is that both toggle switches and the removal of a separate apply step has gone on gradually at the same time.

But a good thing to think about is all the other controls: drop downs, text entry boxes, date pickers - these have no second version which might apply instantly or not! So it’s a mistake to think that information is conveyed by the look of the control.

Eh? What do radio buttons have to do with anything?

The styling of a UI element - whether it’s a box that gets an X or tick in it, versus a little thingy that moves left and right - is wholly unrelated to any aspects of implementation, including whether the effect happens immediately or not.

And what kind of service is gitlab, which we are discussing here, or github which was brought up in the comment, or codeberg?

Checkboxes that look like left/right toggle switches are the worst. And the only way to know whether left or right is on is colour?! Can you please get in the fucking sea?

And the open issues, tasks and pull requests?

Right.

Just like bluesky is centralised “for now” i.e. forever

I wouldn’t say that… at a maths conference there are far more talks (n-1) that you don’t understand than there are talks you do (1: your own. if you’re lucky).

You ask too much.

Sleep on Linux is never quite as reliable as it should be, and I end up with a laptop gently roasting itself to death in my bag more times than I’d prefer.

Analysis of the light from SN1987A suggests this has not happened. By observing light traversing two paths to reach earth, we can work out how far away the supernova is without relying on a particular value of c, and then work out what c must be out there.

This still makes some assumptions on the speed of light, but it would have to vary in a very specific way to give this same effect.

I think you misread

It’s fine, they’ll just be in queue position omega

Back when I was on IRC, I wrote a bash script to upload (via scp) a file to an uploads location on my server, which it knew the public URL for. It then (using xclip) put the resulting URL into the clipboard so I could paste it into IRC. Worked well

There is a philosophical distinction between the essence of science and the human application of scientific method. It’s not that important a distinction in practice, but I don’t refrain from pedantry when replying to people who for some reason can’t bring themselves to post in a political memes community.

Thanks for the correction - misremembered that.

A slight clarification in return: the constructible numbers are a strict subset of the algebraic (i.e. non-transcendental) real numbers.

(The constructible numbers are those numbers resulting from the closure of the rational numbers under square roots.)

This means that although the proof of pi’s transcendentality proved that squaring the circle is impossible, it could have been the case that pi was neither transcendental nor constructible. A simple example of such a number is the cube root of 2.

Science itself is not political, this is not a science meme, and having looked at your post history I won’t be missing anything by not seeing you again.

Removed by mod

Nope, the proof has been known since ancient times the 18th century!