flyos

The "it's my lab, so you follow my conventions" for a thing a silly as the space before % (and after you've used a rightful source to stand your point) is a very dumb power move IMO.

The Rust rewrite is done now, no?

Sure, if you want... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

At first, I wrote "Element/Matrix" and decided to not be too pedantic... But if you want to be complete: the messaging protocol is, of course, Matrix. You could say there is actually no such thing as a Matrix server either, because it's a protocol. The server must probably be Synapse-based, I guess. But there is an "Element-based server" in the sense that the web interface of Tchap (and phone apps) are very clearly forked from Element, which is what I meant.

Visio is based on LiveKit, which Element Call is also based on (as far as I understand). It lives outside of Tchap. The DINUM never mentioned it was based on Element Call. Do you have additional information? (Not that the difference matters much I think)

I guess. There must be a reason for them turning to something else than Jitsi given they already had that running (and the French service responsible for that, DINUM, is surprisingly extremely open-source friendly for a state service), but I don't know which one.

Tchap is the Element-based server. Visio is a different thing. Although you can trigger Visio from Tchap (like you can do it with Jitsi from Element).

Actually, there's also an official Jitsi server (called Webconf). And there's another Big Blue Button one. I think Visio has features not available in Jitsi though, like AI-produced transcript of the call.

Then it's probably a bug that should be reported.

Most likely, some web page is playing an ad, a video or some audio stream, but without sound activated.

That, or a bug where the block was not removed after being put in place for some stream.

I was merely jesting at the refusal we (the French) had of Darwinian evolution, because we chauvinistically preferred Lamarck. The text on the statue is basically this: the (childish) attempt of French biologists at making Lamarck rather than Darwin the true hero of the story.

But, yeah if I need to support my take, I don't think he can be called the "father of the doctrine of evolution". First, because "evolution" is a term strongly associated with Darwinism, rather than "transformism". The former is a radical version of the latter, whereby all species come from a common ancestor, which is not at all Larmack's view. Second, Lamarck wasn't the first transformist, many other people suggested species could (like Buffon, although he was very careful about it, or... Erasmus Darwin). What he was, certainly, was the first to provide an auto-cohesive transformist theory. The problem was, his theory was most just that, auto-cohesive. Lamarck lacked Darwin drive to anchor his theory firmly into biological facts, and Darwin actually had little consideration for Lamarck's work because of that. He certainly didn't "build" on Lamarck, this is has been made quite clear by historians. This would be my third point.

A last thing is that I see a lot Lamarck associated with inheritance of acquired characteristics, but he's not. Or, rather, it's nothing specific to Lamarck. It was a very common thing to assume at the time, and Darwin's theory of heredity (pangenesis) was compatible with inheritance of acquired characteristics. And Lamarck's theory bears little with modern epigenetics (or rather this idea of environmentally-induced epigenetic inheritance which we call "neo-lamarckism" for reasons beyond me), because it was not the environment that induces change for Lamarck, but an internal driving force akin to a habit.

But, but, but, the text under the statue says that Lamarck is the "father of the doctrine of evolution". Was I lied to? 😶

J'ai loupé le coche à un jour près, c'est possible de s'inscrire quand même à un moment ? Ils demandent un code d'invitation apparemment...