I’ve noticed that South Koreans often use the term “Korea” to refer to their country, and I’ve always been curious: are they referring to all of Korea, or only the south?
For example, which of these statements would you be more likely to use colloquially?
(a) Korea’s population is about 80 million, or
(b) Korea’s population is about 50 million.
The term could refer to either South Korea or Korea as a whole, depending on the context. As for your example, I think people would agree with (b) because when you're talking about populations people implicitly assume we're talking about a country.
On the other hand, people say "Korea's history reaches back thousands of years," and obviously here "Korea" means Korea as a whole (the country of South Korea wasn't founded until 1948!).
It gets extra confusing for Koreans because North Koreans use a different Korean word for "Korea" (either North Korea or Korea as a whole) - they are from two different historical names. So we can't even agree on how to call ourselves. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> I think people would agree with (b) because when you're talking about populations people implicitly assume we're talking about a country.
Yeah, that makes sense, but the confusing part for me is that, at least if my understanding is correct, the South Korean government doesn’t legally recognize the partition of Korea. So they think all those 80 million people are rightfully citizens of their country (that is, the Republic of Korea), even though 30 million are temporarily subject to an illegitimate regime. But I’m not sure if people actually think like this in practice.
Well, yeah, constitutionally speaking, Republic of Korea is the only rightful government with sovereignty over the whole Korean peninsula (and if you go across the border, you will here the same in reverse, except they recently decided to change their stance to "there are two countries and we're not related at all!").
But everyone understands that this is a legal fiction. Despite mutual hostility, the two Koreas are somewhat relaxed about interpretation: for example SK doesn't object to other nations establishing diplomatic relations with NK, and vice versa.
Depending on who you ask, you'll hear different views on how to reconcile the law with reality, ranging from "there is only one rightful government, and a group of commie rebels we should destroy" to "we should accept that there are two different nations" to "South Korea is but a colony of American Imperialists!" But anyway, everyone accepts that practically there are two countries, so when we're talking about any contemporary matters, we're usually just talking about South Korea. (Unless we're specifically interested in North Korea.)
Technically, Big Ben is the bell, not the clock, from the article as well:
> A common misconception is referring to the entire tower as Big Ben, when in fact, that's just the name of the bell. Andrew clarified: "So it's The Great Clock inside the Elizabeth Tower that rings Big Ben."
> Technically, Big Ben is the bell, not the clock, from the article as well:
Technically I guess yeah. The tower that used to be called the "Clock Tower", is now called "Elizabeth Tower" yet it's also true that the de facto nickname for the entire tower is "Big Ben", even though technically that is the name of the bell, not the tower itself.
Probably because it’s unclear what this pedantry about synecdoche contributes to the discussion. Many people (including journalists at the state broadcaster) happily refer to the whole tower as Big Ben, so that is functionally one of its names.
Is the fact that the name originates from a bell, and that the official name for the tower is different, interesting? Maybe. Is it worth “correcting”? No, for the same reason it’s not worth policing people’s use of “Google” to mean “Alphabet”.
While I'd typically agree that pedantry is normally rather boring, the pedantry in this case is actually interesting in that the individual properties of the object have their own name and are addressable uniquely. It sounds like they are public as well.
I also reject your premise this is anything similar to referring to Google/Alphabet as interchangeable.
Don't know if/how this works in the US, but the EU emergency number can always be called without a simcard/subscription, so no need to swap simcards. (And sometimes even from a locked phone)
Top on linux shows kernel threads (all the processes in square brackets), on BSD it doesn't show these afaik. A fresh debian install only lists a handfull of processes (all the expected ones, ssh, systemd, ntp, gettys etc) besides the 200+ kernel-threads.
Uh, ok then. I always thought that those were actually real kernel processes. What's the use of having top report those kernel threads? Is it possible to renice them?
As someone who logs into hundreds of servers in various networks, from various customers/clients, there is so little value in using custom tooling, as they will not be available on 90% of the systems.
I have a very limited set of additional tools I tend to install on systems, and they are in my default ansible-config, so will end up on systems quickly, but I try to keep this list short and sweet.
95% of the systems I manage are debian or ubuntu, so they will use mostly the same baseline, and I then add stuff like ack, etckeeper, vim, pv, dstat.
Another reason emacs as an OS (not fully, but you know) is such a great way to get used to things you have on systems. Hence the quote: "GNU is my operating system, linux is just the current kernel".
As a greybeard linux admin, I agree with you though. This is why when someone tells me they are learning linux the first thing I tell them is to just type "info" into the terminal and read the whole thing, and that will put them ahead of 90% of admins. What I don't say is why: Because knowing what tooling is available as a built-in you can modularly script around that already has good docs is basically the linux philosophy in practice.
Of course, we remember the days where systems only had vi and not even nano was a default, but since these days we do idempotent ci/cd configs, adding a tui-editor of choice should be trivial.
"servers" is the key word here. Some of the tools listed on that page are just slightly "improved" versions of common sysadmin utilities, and indeed, those are probably not worth it. But some are really development tools, things that you'd install on the small number of machines where you do programming. Those might be.
The ones that leap out at me are ripgrep (a genuinely excellent recursive grepper), jq (a JSON processor - there is no alternative to this in the standard unix toolkit), and hyperfine (benchmarking).
In my last role rg and jq were included as part of our standard AMI as well as our base container images. It broadens our CVE exposure but it was undoubtably worth it.
Is there any tool or ssh extension that would bring these apps into the remote session?
Is something like that possible? Seems like you could conceivablely dump these small file size tools into a temp folder and and use them and that could be automated.
Is there a security issue with that? Do any of these tools need more permission than the remote session would have?
Maybe the main issue is portability of these apps?
This is certainly a common sentiment (I've felt it myself) so is it at all possible?
If you have enough privileges to mount a filesystem on login, that would be one way to do it. If that process requires significant time or extra steps then you probably ought to make that a manual step. I don't think there is a security issue with this approach from the user's perspective, since it is their tools being executed. But if you are an administrator you might have grave objections to allowing random binaries and scripts to be imported into the environment with no audit trail.
What's the relevance of these "as someone who ..." posts? Nobody cares that these tools don't happen to fit into your carefully curated list of tools that you install on remote computers. You can install these on your local computer to reap some benefits.
You're again confusing this website with your personal email inbox. This is a public message board, all messages you see haven't been written for you specifically - including this blog post.
The reduction in warranty from 5 years to 1 when buying these doesn't weigh up to the quite limited reduction in price. This would only cover failures during the first few months of runtime, and while most drive-failures will be in the beginning, or after 5+ years, i've seen enough drives die in year 2-5 to prefer some warranty cover, especially on the $200 drives.
