I inherited similar boxes of thousands of unorganized photos when my mom died. I threw them all away. They weren’t meaningful enough to her to organize, and they meant even less to me.
My lesson is I don’t take photos. I realized long ago that I never look at them again.
Not OP, but I also don't like taking pictures nor do I ever keep any.
I just don't like thinking about the past and the feelings they often bring up. Whether that's guilt over not talking to relatives that have passed, or the sadness from remembering how a good relationship ended badly, or even the good times that my current life doesn't allow to continue because people have gone their separate ways.
I don't know if it's healthy, maybe, maybe not. But it lets me go through the days a bit easier.
There’s nothing to argue about. If you like taking pictures and enjoy looking at them later that’s great. I don’t. I have maybe 10 photos saved on my phone over several years. I never look at old photos or albums. Certainly not going to spend tons of time organizing thousands of old photos that I didn’t even know about and that had just been sitting in boxes for 30 years.
There's nothing wrong with not wanting to take photos (or keep other people's photos around) if that's not your thing. Other relatives and descendants who are into family history and genealogy might find those photos very interesting, possibly even priceless, so instead of doing it for yourself you might want to consider doing it for them.
I love taking photos and realised I had this problem so I spent some effort setting up a server that delivers a random (biased in various ways), labelled photo from my (huge) collection on demand via http, with parameters for size etc, and then set up some rpi based photo frames (using old monitors) that show a random photo every 30s, and similar for desktop background on all the computers in the house. Now I feel like I'm familiar with all my photos. I also have a simple web-based UI that shows the history of the last few dozen photos fetched so if one catches my eye I can find it easily, and a way to tag photos to include them in the "random" rotation more frequently.
I bought Google Photos for my dad, and so often he'd point out a picture that it showed him. That encouraged me to get it - it's such a simple thing, but getting a 'memory' every day is really so sweet.
The obvious answer is to build on the Linux kernel. That means more extensive desktop hardware support. That means better desktop software compatibility. That means robust support for OCI containers.
But Chimera goes beyond the BSD model in several ways. For example, it aims to bring the Systemd feature-set while avoiding Systemd.
It also uses pipewire and Wayland.
As mentioned elsewhere, the Chimera Linux founder also found the FreeBSD packaging system to be lacking.
Chimera Linux also aims for stateless /etc and /var.
There is a lot more to Chimera Linux than the userland.
Is this a real question? Instead of justifying the choice to use something good without taking the bad bits too, let me pretend you asked “what are the advantages of using the BSD userland”.
I am not a Chimera dev and they have answered this but here is what I understand….
You could argue that the GNU utils are bloated and over engineered. But that is just an opinion. As the Chimera devs point out, there is a “chicken and egg” dependency problem with the GNU utils when trying to build from source and / or in a container. The BSD utils solve this problem.
At the same time, the BSD utils are more complete and powerful than, for example, Busybox or other alternatives to the problem above.
The BSD userland solves one of the problems that Chimera Linux is trying to solve. The BSDs do not solve many of the other problems and so using everything from BSD is not an option.
I will point out that Chimera Linux and FreeBSD both use Clang/LLVM as the system compiler. Chimera uses it for LTO and certain security features.
It has always pissed me off that the media industry plays it both ways. Out of one side of their mouths, they'll say you only own a license to watch whatever content, not the content itself. Then when a new media format comes out, they say out the other side that you only own that piece of physical media - you need to buy a new copy to keep up. It's a tangible good when it suits them and a digital one when it suits them.
I was in film school in the 00s. At the same time that kids were getting sued into oblivion over piracy, media executives would come be guest speakers at our class and would be gushing about how cool it was to watch a movie on their iPod on the way there. They were participating in the same piracy they were trying to ruin other people's lives over, and they were completely oblivious to the hypocrisy.
I thought about this in the case where someone scratches their media. They own the IP, remember? All publishers should have been required to replace damaged media for the material cost plus shipping.
Nothing's stopping you from playing the media you already own, so no.
Even when studios stop publishing Blu-Rays, I'm pretty sure you're still gonna be able to buy used (and dirt-cheap) Blu-Ray players for a long, long time.
I don't think this is part of any larger plan at all, except to discontinue products that consumers have basically stopped buying, which is what any business does.
A lot of people rip their Blu-rays, there are many hoarders with NASes full of rips and exchanging them via torrents. Preservation is being taken care of in that sense, as long as there are people with that hobby. The problem is for other people to get access to that.
Sure, but with bit rot you would have had to buy a new disc anyways.
Preservation is a totally different subject. It's an ongoing challenge that is nothing new, and something librarians and archivists have made an entire profession out of.
Although these days, preservation is actually astonishingly easy for end users who store media in major clouds like AWS, since the cloud providers take care of eternally ensuring redundancy and re-copying data to new hard drives as soon as old ones fail.
Bro, we're all part of the tech world, especially the web, where the goal is often to get users to make recurring purchases (like in SaaS). Isn't it hypocritical of us to expect others not to do the same when the software industry is driving this whole trend?
You're arguing that banks should subsidize their payment department with the profits from their investment department when safe investments like treasuries no longer yield interest. Basically, asking that banks should take ever larger risks to subsidize your bank account, simultaneously risking your bank account in the process.
That's how you get an economy in which banks are too systematically important to fail and therefore must always be bailed out, no matter what.
I'm no friend of the banks. What you've said is true but also the wrong conclusion. A huge percent of "account" customers lose the bank money because they are poor and never leave much in the account. How are they supposed to remain a customer rather than a product? There are 100 answers for all of this I'm just bringing up that fractional reserve doesn't necessarily mean the bank doesn't need a fee ever. The entire system needs changed though.
Even for business accounts. I have a "business" account, opened for some contract work I did years ago, it has very little activity, but I pay no fees and have a debit card. I keep it open "just in case I need it" because it doesn't cost me anything.
Yeah, like single moms and people who experience unexpected deaths or job losses. How irresponsible! Maybe if they were rich app developers like Hacker News, they wouldn't have to be punished so much.
Most city police and sheriffs officers have jurisdiction anywhere in their state, AFAIK. They typically stay in their area, but if they’re pursuing a suspect they don’t break off if they cross the city limits.
reply