https://www.2ndquadrant.com/en/blog/on-rocks-and-sand/

For the SSH certificate to be accepted, the unix user must first be present on the system. As far as I can understand, FreeIPA(or similar LDAP systems) cannot be used in conjunction with SSH certs. Whereas SSH keys are supported by these systems.

Can anyone provide any insight/experience with this?

The illusion that your mind escapes your body and/or visits other planes of existence etc. It has been replicated successfully in lab conditions many times over and is proven to be just an illusion.

:O

Aren't tablespaces (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/manage-ag-tablespaces.htm...) supposed to help with that?

Haven't used them, I'm honestly curious

But do they build bridges by themselves? Are bridges built by a one man show?

And they don't have rules? And how do they get anything done?

Not really. I see quite the opposite; during the design phase the team sets the rules in order to guarantee consistency and cohesiveness and avoid any deviation from what has been agreed upon. This rules out personal or whimsical contributions, because by definition it would ruin the process.

> Anyway, it's not like you can avoid giving your software a personality. You can't.

I alluded to that, if you re-read my comment, but a software having its unintended whims, compared to intentionally trying to give it some "personality" is not the same thing at all.

Imagine if construction/aviation/etc engineers wanted their building/bridge/airplane to be whimsical and have its own personality. Are you scared yet?

Imagine if your out-of-band(not in the initial requirements/spec) and whimsical software contribution was responsible for a bug that brought down an airplane, or killed a patient. How whimsical would you be then? Well at least you wouldn't feel bored at your day job right? Anyway, I think you get my point.

Not it isn't and it shouldn't. The process of creating the software is; huge distinction.

The product of your efforts should not have a personality or feel personal, it should just work as intended. Software is hard as it is and we don't need to make it more whimsical. A little experience can teach us, that whether we like or not, it will ultimately exhibit its own whims anyway.

But realism in the science aspects of a movie shouldn't be an excuse for a lack of a coherent story or bad character development.

I respect your take and what that movie means to you, but don't think that I didn't want to immerse myself in it or anything like that. I was highly anticipating this movie for years. It just didn't do it for me.

We're not talking about experimenting on people (thus causing accidents/deaths/etc) but about withholding new knowledge.

The motives behind the characters (Anne Hathaway's character deciding to sacrifice humanity to see her boyfriend, Caine's character withholding physics advancements for years, Murph's whole behavior... and so numerous others) was, objectively, bad writing. Of the kind that you really wonder how it got out in the public and into such a high profile movie. I can't think of a single person in that movie that acts realistically. To the point that I kind of believe that the "plot" was just a pretext for Kip Thornes awesome work on the visualizations of the wormholes.

The plotholes... well way too many. That was the movie that ruined Nolan for me. Up to that point I was a very big fan.

Had you chosen Fedora with KDE you'd probably have 0 problems. I'm using it without any drama for 11 years and I keep suggesting it to co-workers and friends.

Wayland has done so much harm in the Linux ecosystem and that gives me a lot of grief :(