secretfire's recent activity
-
Comment on What are you reading these days? in ~books
-
Comment on What are you reading these days? in ~books
secretfire LinkI own a ton of books and I keep wanting to read through them, but 75% of the time when I pick up an unread book from my shelf and start reading it, I find out that it's a depressing book, and I...I own a ton of books and I keep wanting to read through them, but 75% of the time when I pick up an unread book from my shelf and start reading it, I find out that it's a depressing book, and I don't like reading depressing books because the world's depressing enough and I'm trying to read to escape that depression reality. I'm sure Steinbeck's East of Eden is an excellent novel, I gave it a good go, but damn I just want to have a happy time, yknow? I keep thinking "okay, gonna read a comfort book, then after that I'll crack on reading that big allegory on the human condition or whatever", but then I finish the comfort book and need even more comfort and I pick up another comfort book and before I know it I've read half of the Discword novels and my twentieth LotR reread.
To that end I'm re-re-reading The Silmarillion, probably like the fifth time now. Tolkien just too good. Something about a world where there's actually light at the end of the tunnel and the tragedy exists to make the happy moments all the sweeter, rather than just, yknow, more tragedy piled up forever and ever.
-
Comment on Bear is now source-available in ~tech
secretfire Link ParentVery true, the Bear developer is free to do whatever they want with the software running on their server. If I were to host my own instance of their FOSS source code, however, they wouldn't have...But this code doesn't run on your computer, it runs on someone else's computer. It's a web service.
Very true, the Bear developer is free to do whatever they want with the software running on their server. If I were to host my own instance of their FOSS source code, however, they wouldn't have any say on what I could do with it either. My point is that by picking the MIT license (which was almost certainly a mistake on the developer's part, one that they chose to not fix for too long) they allowed people to do whatever they wished with that source code. But now that people are doing whatever they want with it, namely modifying and hosting their own instances, the developer is changing things to make sure that can't happen anymore in the future.
That is, of course, well within their right; nobody can force them to run their own code in a certain way. But the vibe being given off by this whole event is one where the dev chose to publish their code under a permissive FOSS license (as you said, FOSS is a spectrum, but the MIT is a very lax license) without understanding the ramifications of doing so, and when faced with those ramifications they got defensive and decided to ensure that nobody else could copy them in the future. There's nothing wrong with that really, it just comes off a bit, I don't know, disingenuous?
Anyways, I've written like 2000 words in this comments section already, over a piece of software I don't even use, so I'll leave it there. But I do agree with the points you've made here, absolutely.
-
Comment on Bear is now source-available in ~tech
secretfire Link ParentI have been conflating the two terms here; I figured it wasn't worth getting bogged down with semantics, but you are correct, I've been generally talking about Free Software rather than Open...You are confusing Free Software and Open Source.
I have been conflating the two terms here; I figured it wasn't worth getting bogged down with semantics, but you are correct, I've been generally talking about Free Software rather than Open Source software. Though in retrospect it's probably a safe bet that people on the Tech subforum of Tildes in a thread about code licensing would be able to discern the two terms.
-
Comment on Bear is now source-available in ~tech
secretfire Link ParentThis is an excellent point and one that I should have addressed. From an ideological point of view I fully agree: Herman has every right to restrict the usage of his software if he so chooses....If the FOSS philosophy is truly about freedom, it seems odd to deny the creator the freedom to correct what they see as a mistake in their licensing choice for their own future work. Being "stuck" with a poor choice forever doesn't sound like freedom to me.
This is an excellent point and one that I should have addressed. From an ideological point of view I fully agree: Herman has every right to restrict the usage of his software if he so chooses. Just like how nobody can force me to use my computer a certain way, nobody should be able to force him to manage his code in a certain way.
On a practical level however, it is an annoying thing to deal with as a user. It's unlikely that every Bear user will notice this change, and a lot of people who do probably won't bother moving their blog someplace else over it. For most this will be an annoying, but ultimately mild issue.
In a Stallman-approved GNU/Hurd ideal world, the whole Bear userbase would jump ship to a fork of the project with a free license, and Bear would be left to die in proprietary shame. In the real world, that obviously won't happen (and that's probably for the best). The practical outcome of this change is likely not going to amount to much. A few people will get mad and leave. Most won't though, because Bear is still a quality blogging platform at the end of the day, ran by someone who does seem to care about their site's users. But most importantly, people won't move because it's a pain in the ass to move to a new platform, and most won't care that much. Apathy is a powerful thing, unfortunately.
Like you said, this change is not a retroactive one; people are free to fork the code and go about their business on another site. But a platform like Bear is not just a bundle of source code: It's a group of creators, a set of domains, a server running somewhere (which, of course, Herman is allowed to use in whatever way he wishes as well, since he owns the computer), an environment to create in. All of those things and more are why people choose to use it. Anyone who cares about this license change now has to contend with leaving all of that, or deciding it's not a huge deal and sticking put. In that sense I do think this is a bit of a "rug pull", so to speak. Not an intentional one by any means, I don't think the devs were planning all along to entrap a userbase by luring them in with the promise of FOSS and then trusting that apathy will keep them onboard once their intentions were revealed. But, well, that is the strategy that gets used by "the bad guys". Start with something great, garner an audience, then chip away at user freedoms bit by bit, enough that people never get enraged, just mildly angry before forgetting, and once they've forgotten, chip away again. We're seeing it play out with privacy laws, desktop/mobile operating systems, voter's rights, and far more.
Is Bear going from a permissive FOSS license to a slightly more restricted source-available one the same thing as Big Tech pushing mass surveillance? Absolutely not, it's nowhere even remotely close. I would still use Bear over an equivalent Google service in a hearbeat if I had to choose one or the other. But it's something where if I had to choose between one or the other (and of course, I don't have to in reality), I would be compromising something in either case. Again, it's an astronomical difference between the two. But as far as a "rigid, absolutist FOSS philosophy" goes, the zealots among us would have to say no to both. I'm not a Free Software fanatic, I'll connect to the wifi in other peoples' houses without inspecting their router, I'll watch Youtube videos occasionally. But I think that FOSS absolutism is something we should, at least, aspire toward when we can, and I think that in situations like this where a service that people use takes a step back from that ideal, they shouldn't simply let it happen.
-
Comment on Bear is now source-available in ~tech
secretfire Link ParentI worded that sentence quite poorly, I'll admit. Here's a (hopefully) better-worded elaboration from a reply I made:I worded that sentence quite poorly, I'll admit. Here's a (hopefully) better-worded elaboration from a reply I made:
I agree, and I should say that I think open source projects absolutely have a place in the commercial space, but even then it all comes back to making money at some stage. Big companies can release open source projects for a variety of reasons, but it's always because it works better from a business standpoint, either directly or indirectly. That isn't a problem in and of itself of course, it's just how the world works. But you can only make money in FOSS by having some form of paid product alongside the open source work, whether it be a proprietary application that works in tandem with it (e.g. Microsoft with .NET, VSCodium, etc), distributing the code via CDs or some other medium (which is basically how GNU kept afloat for a long time), or simply asking for donations.
I could have worded my point better here, I think. What I meant was, it's one thing to declare your work as free for all to use and modify how they want; it's another thing to see people actually using and modifying your work how they want. Especially if, as is often the case, people can take your work and make it better than you ever could. But that's just the nature of open source: You can't just own free (libre) software. It's not a product, it belongs to the people. If it doesn't belong to the people, it stops being truly free software.
-
Comment on Bear is now source-available in ~tech
secretfire Link ParentI agree, and I should say that I think open source projects absolutely have a place in the commercial space, but even then it all comes back to making money at some stage. Big companies can...Permissive open-source licenses like MIT are often very compatible with a "capitalist commercialism mindset". They allow anyone, this includes large companies, to profit from open-source work without any obligation to contribute back. That's the "free-riding" I believe Herman remarks to.
I agree, and I should say that I think open source projects absolutely have a place in the commercial space, but even then it all comes back to making money at some stage. Big companies can release open source projects for a variety of reasons, but it's always because it works better from a business standpoint, either directly or indirectly. That isn't a problem in and of itself of course, it's just how the world works. But you can only make money in FOSS by having some form of paid product alongside the open source work, whether it be a proprietary application that works in tandem with it (e.g. Microsoft with .NET, VSCodium, etc), distributing the code via CDs or some other medium (which is basically how GNU kept afloat for a long time), or simply asking for donations.
I could have worded my point better here, I think. What I meant was, it's one thing to declare your work as free for all to use and modify how they want; it's another thing to see people actually using and modifying your work how they want. Especially if, as is often the case, people can take your work and make it better than you ever could. But that's just the nature of open source: You can't just own free (libre) software. It's not a product, it belongs to the people. If it doesn't belong to the people, it stops being truly free software.
The problem he described is others taking the code with minimal changes to launch a paid, competing service. That's not community improvement at all. It is just plain commercialization without collaboration.
Like you said I think the big issue here is that they should never have picked the MIT license if they didn't want people to repackage and commercialise their software in this manner. The MIT license allows this sort of thing by design. It's a feature, not a bug. The implication in their blog post is that they feel their code is being stolen by people who want to make a competing service but don't want to put the effort in to make their service good, so they're just hijacking the Bear codebase ("free-riding", as they say). I disagree with the notion that they are being stolen from in any way, or that their work is being exploited. In their own blog post the developer says:
While Bear's code is good, what makes the platform special is the people who use it, and the commitment to longevity.
And I think that this line encapsulates the dissonance in this entire annoucement. The code is only one part of the service. There's no reason why bearblog.dev shouldn't have been able to run perfectly well with the code licensed the way it was, no matter what other sites did with it.
It seems to me that Herman made a site, and the site did well. It was open source and free to use, and he was proud of his work. He wanted open source from the start for its transparency and, presumably, because a lot of people will hold open source projects in higher regard than closed source ones. They didn't consider that their project being open source meant that it stops being their project, one that they alone are in control of. And once people started forking the project and deciding to host their own versions of the site, rather than seeing it as a net positive for the community, where his work was allowing for others to achieve their goals easier, he saw it as people ripping off his work. That, I think, is the sticking point. Whether intentionally or not, they advertised their code as being something that anyone can view, modify, and distribute themselves, and now they're going back on that promise.
In the end this whole thing comes down to the initial choice of license. Licenses are complicated, and I can't entirely fault the developer for picking one at the start without fully understanding the ramifications of it. That being said, the MIT license is short, and they had a long time to figure this stuff out.
But I also feel like we shouldn't put projects like this in the same category as actual open-source rug pulls. Pretending we are living in such a binary reality, I believe strongly to be more hurtful to discourse about open-source.
I don't think the motive matters, whether it's a sole developer feeling overly protective of code they've written, or a big company deciding to lock down a major project once they've cultivated a community that can't easily break out of the ecosystem. In both cases it's a restriction of freedom for the consumer. And perhaps I'm just a FOSS zealot (well, no, I most definitely am, and I imagine we'll have to simply agree to disagree on this point), but I think it matters now more than ever that user freedom is respected to the highest extent, no half measures. We're witnessing everyone in power, governments, corporations, billionaires, all trying to control more and more of our lives, and our computer usage especially. I think it's more important than ever that we fight for our digital freedom, in all its forms.
-
Comment on Bear is now source-available in ~tech
secretfire LinkIt sounds like the developer wanted all the benefits they get by saying their project is open source, but didn't actually want to deal with the reality of what it means for a project to be open...- Exemplary
It sounds like the developer wanted all the benefits they get by saying their project is open source, but didn't actually want to deal with the reality of what it means for a project to be open source.
Other people being able to modify and distribute your code is the entire point.
They claim they "believe in open source" and then got "bitten by it". In actuality it seems like they never believed in open source in the first place. Open source is a philosophy. It's based on the belief that I should be allowed to know what runs on my computer, and I should be allowed to freely modify the behaviour of code running on my computer, because it's MY computer. If there are restrictions on my ability to modify code on my computer, then it stops really being my computer: I am giving the developers of whatever program I'm running power over my computer.
I think what happened here is that the developer realised that the open source philosophy at its core is incompatible with the capitalist commercialism mindset. The notion of writing code, freely sharing it, and letting others modify and contribute so that everyone can benefit, is too socialist. Everyone benefits, but no one person profits. If you see other people improving upon your code as a threat to your status rather than a mutually beneficial development, then you shouldn't make your code open source. It's as simple as that.
-
Comment on Germany legal case alleging adblockers violate copyright in ~tech
secretfire Link ParentI'd put that in the realm of political revolution; the culture of the US had changed enough over the decades and generations that it was allowed to happen. Broadly speaking (I'm not a political...I'd put that in the realm of political revolution; the culture of the US had changed enough over the decades and generations that it was allowed to happen. Broadly speaking (I'm not a political scientist, someone smarter than me can probably put this into better words), culture shifts happen between generations, with big changes happening as older generations die out and newer ones come in. Politics follows culture, so as one generation comes in with their beliefs, whether they be more or less progressive than those before, things eventually change. These changes are often, well, generational as a result. I certainly don't think that the west's only way out of anti-surveillance laws is blowing people up or anything, but I also don't think it's something that will realistically change in the coming political cycles without a serious shake-up. And perhaps I'm just pessimistic but I don't see that happening any time soon. Governments around the world are welcoming the Chinese system of authoritarianism with open arms, and the public are broadly ambivalent, unable to see the steady shift, or supportive, seeing how it makes the lives of the woke liberals and trans people that much harder.
But I'll concede that perhaps superlatives like 'always' and 'never' might not be entirely accurate. The world is a big place, after all. But instead of 'never' I might say 'basically never, and if it does eventually happen, it'll only be a generation later'. On a practical lever, they may as well be the same though. Once I give up my privacy to a government, I'm not getting it back. My kids might, or maybe some huge government shakeup might grant it back. But me voting for a politician won't do it, and it's basically impossible to make most people give enough of a shit for something like that to vote specifically for it. 90% of people cast their vote exclusively for reasons of taxes, healthcare, or hatred. Anything beyond those is an afterthought for most, and they only remember what they've lost during the next election season when the politician's promises start coming out.
-
Comment on Germany legal case alleging adblockers violate copyright in ~tech
secretfire LinkIt really seems like we've been nosediving towards the cyberpunk ethos in recent months, just without the cool technology. The surveillance state is in and internet freedom is out, we'll watch our...It really seems like we've been nosediving towards the cyberpunk ethos in recent months, just without the cool technology. The surveillance state is in and internet freedom is out, we'll watch our ads and brainrot and nothing else and we'll be happy. It's depressing as hell and I can't see a way out. It's all well and good to vote and contact representatives (things I do and tell my friends to do also) but the strategy seems to be pushing these anti-privacy laws over and over and over again until one day they inevitably succeed, moving the line further and further towards authoritarianism.
Once we give up a freedom to a government, we never, ever get it back without revolution, political or otherwise. Once a law is passed that, say, allows the government to backdoor any and all encryption, there is absolutely no way of convincing any future government to give up that power over us. So the strategy is to strip a little freedom away, wait until people stop caring, then strip another, and another, until they have everything. That's what all of this is. Porn bans, anti-encryption laws, adblock bans. Each thing is a small but permanent step toward authoritarianism. They only have to win once; we have to win every time.
-
Comment on How are you planning for a potentially bleaker future? in ~life
secretfire LinkI'm not, I've just given up. Don't see the point in trying when every single aspect of my existence is going to get worse and worse and worse until I die. If you're motivated to live through the...I'm not, I've just given up. Don't see the point in trying when every single aspect of my existence is going to get worse and worse and worse until I die. If you're motivated to live through the climate apocalypse then that's great but the moment we have to start fighting to secure food and water I'm out, the rest of you can have fun with that.
-
Comment on What programming/technical projects have you been working on? in ~comp
secretfire LinkI've been trying to get into ricing Arch ("ricing": The process of heavily customising your Linux desktop and general aesthetic, see /r/unixporn for examples). Looking at various tiling/dynamic...I've been trying to get into ricing Arch ("ricing": The process of heavily customising your Linux desktop and general aesthetic, see /r/unixporn for examples). Looking at various tiling/dynamic window managers (technically called "compositors" in Wayland) and am a bit dismayed by the options.
Hyprland is the big trendy one these days because it has loads of fancy features and is super smooth, but IMO it's super bloated and is far more CPU intensive than other options. Also the lead dev is a huge bigot and I don't want to support that in any way.
On the other end of the spectrum is dwl, a Wayland fork of dwm, part of the Suckless collection of software that aims to be aggressively minimal and lightweight to near absurd levels. The whole thing is less than 2000 lines of C code, super lightweight, flexible, a bitch and a half to configure (you literally have to edit the C source file and recompile every time you want a change), but really cool overall. Unfortunately, the Suckless people are straight up Nazis, so, yknow. Really loving the Linux experience so far.
There are other WM options but they're all kinda, idk, mediocre. I might honestly look into writing my own Wayland compositor because 1. I've spent ages learning C for basically no reason, might as well attempt to put it to use, and 2. the nazi guys did it in 2000 lines of code while having room temp iq how hard could it be yknow. Plus, could be a fun project to help me learn more about Linux.
-
Comment on What have you been listening to this week? in ~music
secretfire LinkBill Evans - You Must Believe in Spring (name of the track and the album). One of my favourite jazz albums ever, criminally underrated.Bill Evans - You Must Believe in Spring (name of the track and the album). One of my favourite jazz albums ever, criminally underrated.
-
Comment on Xbox Series X and S: Microsoft has reportedly sold less than 30 million consoles this generation in ~games
secretfire Link ParentI'm referring more to the backlog of games on the PS4. Again, I'm definitely not representative of the masses, but I care more about playing games that are good than games that are brand new, and...I'm referring more to the backlog of games on the PS4. Again, I'm definitely not representative of the masses, but I care more about playing games that are good than games that are brand new, and I can still have fun on the PS4 with all the games available. I can buy a half dozen triple-A titles for $40 in my local second-hand games store, and that will get me easily several month's worth of entertainment or more.
Of course (and this is the kicker), I do have a PC that's capable of running most new releases, and that is certainly not something the average gamer will have. I don't really play games on it, but in the event that I wanted to play a brand-new release, I have the easy option of getting it on Steam, rather than having to buy a brand-new system. I get how others without the option would gravitate toward buying a new-gen console, but personally, I'm always happy to wait for a game to become available rather than needing to play it as soon as it releases.
-
Comment on Xbox Series X and S: Microsoft has reportedly sold less than 30 million consoles this generation in ~games
secretfire LinkI've definitely fallen out of the target demographics of the gaming industry so perhaps my opinion doesn't have much weight, but it seems like these days there really isn't any good reason to buy...I've definitely fallen out of the target demographics of the gaming industry so perhaps my opinion doesn't have much weight, but it seems like these days there really isn't any good reason to buy the new consoles as they come out. They don't offer any particularly amazing exclusives to hook you in, they aren't that much better than their predecessors in performance or graphics, and the improvements they do provide are dwarfed by the ridiculous price tags of the consoles themselves and the games. The only reasons to buy a new gen console these days are 1. You aren't struggling with money and can afford it because why not, or 2. There is a particular game you really, really want to play (and also you can afford it). It doesn't feel like you get your money's worth with them at all. The base PS4 still holds up extremely well these days, has a great library of games, and more importantly, doesn't cost the same as a second-hand car.
And again, maybe this is just me being really out of touch with the gaming masses (keeping in mind I've never played a CoD game), but the new big triple-A games very rarely seem worth it these days in the way they were only 5 years ago; indie games are the way to go now, and they can often run on just about anything. At least that's how it feels sometimes. Then again, the new iPhones always sell like fire and I don't get that either. Am I out of touch? No, it's the consumers who are wrong.
-
Comment on What have you been watching / reading this week? (Anime/Manga) in ~anime
secretfire LinkWatched Bocchi the Rock. As a musician with real bad social anxiety, it hit different. Very funny, really well animated, great characters, I highly recommend!Watched Bocchi the Rock. As a musician with real bad social anxiety, it hit different. Very funny, really well animated, great characters, I highly recommend!
-
Comment on I am new to Mac OS, give me your favorite or preferred settings/ tools! in ~tech
secretfire Link ParentI think Linux users are generally more receptive to MacOS than they would be to Windows. MacOS is based on Unix (simplification, don't let the BSD people hear) and as a result it shares a lot in...I think Linux users are generally more receptive to MacOS than they would be to Windows. MacOS is based on Unix (simplification, don't let the BSD people hear) and as a result it shares a lot in common with Linux in the technical backend, whereas Windows is off just doing its own thing most of the time. MacOS is much more locked down than Windows of course, but if you have to use one or the other then MacOS is probably better for just getting work done. It's a surprisingly good ecosystem for software development, actually.
Anecdotally, a lot of Linux people I've spoken to seem to have a frothing hatred for Microsoft, and a mere passing hatred for Apple, so take from that what you will. I think Apple are generally happy to stay in their own lane, you buy their overpriced stuff, no you can't run that application that's worked flawlessly for 10 years after the new firmware update because you need to wait until the 75-year old maintainer hits the "works on the new update" button, you'll use the tools they provided in your fancy box, you'll buy another box in three years, and you'll be happy. Microsoft are a bit more insidious in their approach, constantly trying to subvert the user and hope they don't notice when the random security update accidentally reinstalls Gemini and flicks a privacy setting you've turned off five times already back on. And at the end of the day the product still ends up being shit. I mean, advertisements built into the OS alone is fucking insane. At least MacOS does the things it says it will do. Not to mention Microsoft's history of repeatedly trying to kill FOSS and Linux specifically over the years, which paints their more recent adoption of Linux via WSL in a less pure light IMO. Sorta feels like they're trying to make using GNU/Linux unnecessary because hey, Windows has Linux built in now!
Personally I use all three of them (as a non-programmer). I started out on Windows, grew tired of all the privacy invasion and the OS treating you like an idiot, and I started dual-booting Arch Linux. I still need to use Windows for some work stuff but most stuff that I do is on Arch these days. Along with my desktop I also own a second-hand Macbook Air, which acts as a fairly happy medium between Windows and Linux, having all the applications I need from Windows along with a lot of the technical vocabulary of Linux. The main thing for me is Emacs, which runs excellently on Linux, pretty well on MacOS, and is nearly unusable on Windows even with WSL/2.
-
Comment on Double pendulums are not chaotic in ~science
secretfire (edited )LinkReally interesting video! The musician part of me noticed something in his sonification of the angle-tracing data (at 4:35): The "islands of stability" that he points out all form the consonant...Really interesting video! The musician part of me noticed something in his sonification of the angle-tracing data (at 4:35): The "islands of stability" that he points out all form the consonant musical interval of a perfect twelfth, which in corresponds to a 1:3 ratio between the lower and higher notes' frequencies. I wonder what the mathematical reason for that is? Maybe some relation between the three nodes of the pendulum? Maybe it's π? 1:3 and 1:π are pretty close. If anyone smarter than me knows the reason I'd be very curious to find out!
-
Comment on What are you reading these days? in ~books
secretfire LinkFinished Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy (the first one at least, there are apparently 2), really liked it. The first book was really solid and I think it kept getting better from there. The...Finished Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy (the first one at least, there are apparently 2), really liked it. The first book was really solid and I think it kept getting better from there. The second book dragged a bit during the big political game-playing sections because none of the politics taking place were, well, smart, but I liked what they were going for. The third book blew my socks off every chapter; I think a more observant reader than I could have spotted a lot of the twists long before they happened (and in my defense I definitely thought of a few and wrote them off too soon) but I was got by them all.
Currently taking a Discworld detour in between the "big reads" - Nearly finished Going Postal, it may be my favourite Discworld book thus far. It's a weird niche but I absolutely love books about the postal service and other big logistical operations. There's something I find just fascinating about that sort of thing. Recommend more postal service fantasy please. Writers, write more postal service fantasy please.
I keep trying to read from my ever-growing collection of classics, but I just... Don't want to, yknow? On one hand, I want to be able to say I've read The Iliad, but on the other hand, that means sitting down in the evening after a long day's work, and reading The Iliad. I keep bouncing off them. I got a good way through Moby Dick a few months back before the whaling facts broke me. Now it sits on the embarassingly large pile of Books I Will Definitely Pick Back Up Soon on my bedside table. I think that classics are good, but they're not really "read before bed" kinda books, which is unfortunate because that's when I get 90% of my reading done.
-
Comment on Do you like being thrifty? in ~talk
secretfire LinkI don't buy things very often other than groceries, and I find that it really depends on the type of item I'm buying. For things I know I'm going to use a lot like phones, computer parts,...I don't buy things very often other than groceries, and I find that it really depends on the type of item I'm buying. For things I know I'm going to use a lot like phones, computer parts, cookware, etc., I'll generally buy them new and I'll tend to buy a fairly high-end product, with the goal being longetivity. I only buy a new phone every 4-5 years or so, but I'm happy to spend $600 on it when I do. I only have 4-5 bits of cookware in my kitchen as I cook nearly everything in my fancy wok and cast iron pan, and chop everything with the one quality chef's knife. I eat rice 4-5 times a week so my $300 Zojirushi rice cooker was incredibly worth it for me.
In general, for things I'm going to rely on for a while, I'll buy a more expensive new product over a cheaper or used one. For things where quality doesn't matter so much though, or where I'll not be using it for all that long, I'll buy it cheap or second-hand. Basically every book I own is second hand as I see very little reason to buy a book new unless it's a very new release.
Is this your first time reading LotR? If so, welcome to the nerd club! The first 7 or so chapters of Fellowship are tonally much more similar to The Hobbit than to general high fantasy, and to that end they can be fairly tedious to read through if you're not up for simply accompanying some hobbits on a jaunt through the countryside. It's slow going, because the hobbits themselves are going at a leisurly hobbit pace,
(very mild spoiler for the first half of the book)
in stark contrast to the overwhelming danger they are really in, a danger that we (and the hobbits) are only given small, unsettling glimpses of throughout their initial journey.
Chapters 6 and 7 are the most emblematic of this difference, and honestly there's no shame in skimming them or outright skipping them if you find yourself losing interest. Better to skip them than to miss out on the rest of the book, which is, of course, stellar.