I feel like nasal sounds being associated with negation must be even older than PIE.

There's https://github.com/obdev/littlesnitch-linux, and https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch and probably many others.

The project in the very first link, which points to "Open Source components of Little Snitch for Linux", is what this article is about.

What do you mean by "also"?

The OP is coyling spraying half baked questions across discussion in an effort to do who knows what. It is an attack on the delivery, not the person.

No, nothing of the sort is happening. There is no reason to assume bad faith in those questions. The questions are not "half-baked".

I make such dismissals because if I merely expressed doubt, it appears that you would make the same accusations against me.

The burden of proof is on you; what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence; etc.

Just noting that I saw this, but I don't really see a point in replying outside of this comment at this time because I don't feel the need to prove myself to you, and I don't know how I could change what I'm writing to satisfy you personally anyways.

Have a nice evening!

> I think you're getting this type of response because many of us can't see any actual difference between those two groups besides your own politics and assumptions.

I think that is why, yes.

I also think the differences are really obvious, and I genuinely can't understand why so many people here can't see that.

This might be the most interesting insight I gained by commenting here today. I expected people to be on board with it; I didn't expect people to be so acclimated to it that they don't even see how others might notice it.

Onboard with what? Acclimatized to what? You reactionary types are always so damn cryptic and vague.

This does not address the substance of the comment you are replying to. In fact, that comment was itself replying to a comment making the same argument you are making, explicitly explaining why it is non-sequitur.

Part of the reason I follow all this is because the whole system is gloriously complex. I have no real reason to follow it and I'm by no means a subject matter expert but I do know enough to see a lot of reporting on all this is just objectively wrong.

There are a lot of components that go into gas prices and it's driven by sevearl supply-demand curves such as the price of crude, the demand for refined petroleum products (also called the "crack spread") and just the demand for gas in general.

But it gets more complicated because even though oil is a global commodity it's not entirely global. There are regional differences where some oil and gas can only go to some areas due to limited pipelines and limited pipeline capacity. So you can still end up with wildly varying regional crude prices.

Plus you have California that really has no pieplines so is largely disconnected from the national oil supply. As such ~75% of California's oil comes from foreign imports. And guess what? ~20% of those come from Iraq and, as such, California is impacted by the closing of the Strait of Hormuz when really no other lower 48 state is.

So we, as a country, both import oil and export oil, which makes a lot of conversations about "energy independence" just wrong.

Anyway, back to gas. Crude is only one component. There are a bunch of additives to create different gas blends used in the US. These are typically divided into winter and summer blends. The additives basically change how much gas (as in, the state of matter, not short for gasoline here) is in your gas tank. Why? Because more gas (state of matter) equals more smog so more additives are added to increase the boiling point in summer.

And on top of that some states, most notably California, have their own blends, which come from Californian refneries, which get their oil from the Gulf (in part).

There are a lot of seemingly unintended consequences in all of this too. So, for example, we're selling a bunch more LNG to Europe because of Ukraine but that's really raising domestic natural gas prices and that's having a huge impact on utility prices. And only going to get worse.

Oh and let's not forget that included in the price of gas are also taxes. Those typically don't scale with price (in the US at least).

I don't see how any of that disproves my reasoning. It just claims that things are complicated, while not establishing that the complicated system can produce the results you claim (you also haven't cited the physical prices in question).

Also: I'm in Toronto, Canada. Please don't say "we, as a country" etc. here. Gas price rises here were also congruent with oil price spikes being not quite as bad as in 2022.

And during 2022 I was paying close attention to both the pumps and the quoted oil prices on the tickers. I also made note of where the pump prices were in April 2020 when the oil futures went negative, and watched the recovery. I therefore have a mental model that accounts for taxes.

The xz step doesn't seem to be doing very much, though. It seems the decoded data is currently 278 bytes versus a 298-byte decompressed result.

On Linux at least, hard links can't be made to directories, except for the magic . and .. links. So this only allows for a DAG.

Symbolic links can form a graph, and you can process them as needed using readlink etc. to traverse the graph, but they'll still be considered broken if they form a cycle.

I guess technically you could do bind mounts but that's messy

Considered broken by what?

Historically, it made deletion rather difficult with some problematic edge-cases. You could unlink a directory and create an orphan cycle that would never be deleted. Combine that with race conditions on a multi-user systems, plus the indeterminate cost of cycle-detection, and it turns out to be a rather complex problem to solve properly, and banning hard-links is a very simple way to keep the problem tractable, and result in fast, robust and reliable filesystem operations.

GP was talking about symlink cycles though, which can't produce orphans during deletion.

True, I missed that. I suppose with symlinks you have the reverse problem: you can point to deleted filenames and then have broken links. The cycle detection is still an issue though--it has indeterminate complexity and the graph can be modified as you are traversing it!

This is true, but just about everyone has a symlink cycle on their system at `/proc/self/root`, and for the most part nobody notices. Having a max recursion depth is usually more useful than actively trying to detect cycles.

As in, they'll appear highlighted as broken symlinks when running `ls` with colour enabled (or at least it's so on my system).

That's not at all what it says; and a higher standard of rhetoric really should be expected from comments here.