kennysoona

It is when it's based purely on physical appearance in the context of evaluating job applicants.

> We shall not copy everything from America.

You should copy not needing photos on CVs. Doing so introduces an unacceptable risk of bias.

> It's like if a car manufacturer could decide exactly the date at which will stop using the car, no matter how many miles you put on it or how useful it is to you in the current situation.

That's why I think it should be regulated, and don't find the arguments about stifling innovation to ever be convincing.

My approach is to have a hidden OS. Either via a hidden bootmenu, or better yet transparently boot into a virtualized guest by default. With secure boot and encryption, things can be made hard for anyone to actually examine the drive out of the limited context provided. Requests for more access can be met with confusion and feigning technical ignorance.

> Also, it's weird that the former lead developer has a VTuber sockpuppet that he pretends is a separate project member

What is the actual proof of that?

> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=linux%20radeon%20audio...

This supports that it seems to be an edge case.

> Because despite what you might assume from reading what I've written here today, I'm not against or opposed to open source and open protocol stuff.

And the point of asking what I did was to point out maybe you wouldn't be able to get as far as you did without linux; certainly macos wasn't an option, right? Not a modern version at least. Why criticize an area linux is falling short when you're preferred OS isn't even an option? It just doesn't make sense in this context.

> And so as I've asked before in other places, what monopoly are they regulating here?

Are you the same type of person who would argue never had a monopoly because Apple and Netscape were available?

> Apple in its infinite wisdom does not let you change the default epub reader on iOS/iPadOS.

Stuff like that is why I can never use Apple products. It's my device, not theirs; I own it, I'm not renting it. Let me do what I want with it. Or be honest and rent it out to people instead.

> all Apple really has going for their products these days is being very stable and dependable,

That's not Apple that's everyone. Computers randomly crashing hasn't been a thing for a long time.

> I still spent weeks this year trying to sort out what magic combination of alsa, and pipewire and pulse-audio and wireplumber setting, configs and launch timings would get HDMI audio to not come up muted on a mini PC with integrated Radeon graphics in Ubuntu.

This sounds very much like an edge case. Why didn't you use Windows or MacOS on the mini PC instead? Was it because you were unable to do so?

> Or how about the huge fight that systemd has been (and continues to be).

That fight was over pretty much when Devuan and Artix formed.

> If we imagine a world where os init was regulated by the EU,

The EU would only be interested in regulating this if it were an OS init controlled by a monopoly abusing their position.

> What you can't do is having a Musk style temper tantrum and fire someone at will because you feel like that.

What about if you just don't feel they are a good fit anymore, even if you can't show why based purely on numbers.

Is any amount of advance notice sufficient to allow that?

It's about not putting your data in the hands of a US company.

Collaboration can be managed by offline servers that facilitate that. Not everything needs to be in a web page.

I think dogs like Chaser show in general the upper limit for dogs, at least demonstrated so far, is much higher than that of pigs.

It can be hard to compare the two since we can't compare their intelligence overall as one thing, but have to compare specific subsets, showing dogs and pigs are intelligent in different ways.

I think any claim that one is outright more intelligent than the other is dubious.

That's very fair, I've certainly tinkered with stuff for the fun of it when there were easier or more suitable alternatives.

> I'm not sure how many pigs have had their intelligence evaluated.

The point is when intelligence of animals is evaluated like this, it's evaluated in very limited scopes, e.g. arithmetic abilities, mental time travel capabilities, abstract thinking capabilities, etc.

To generalize the results from one limited scope test to intelligence in general is flawed and wrong.

> The experimental evidence seems to indicate that pigs are probably smarter than dogs.

It indicates nothing of the sort.

> Pigs are thought to be closer to toddlers in intelligence

You're making a common mistake here, in conflating pigs being compatible with toddlers based on a very limited scope test, with being comparable to toddlers in general, which they are not remotely close to being.

Pigs are comparable to dogs, but dogs are much more impressive overall. Lookup dogs like Chaser, for example, and show me a pig that has ever come close.

> I am a computational person, not a scientist, and I think science people find him to be speaking total garbage. That seems a correct assessment to me. His model of the world from physics perspective seems wrong.

I don't think it's that he is speaking garbage, he is basically talking about digital physics which is a real theory being considered and researched, not pseudoscience.

But he doesn't work with the scientific community at all, he just writes his long essays and uses his own terms and ignores anyone else doing similar work. He then gets upset when scientists don't just defer to him.

It really isn't, because Lite is practically as effective, just less efficient.

> Those things have not been achieved. If those were the aims, the US lost and the Teliban won.

That's one way to look at it sure. From a purely force against force perspective though, they didn't come anywhere close to losing.

> A voluntary retreat is not a victory. You are arguing it is, which is extremely odd.

If I come in to your country, invade it, and have complete dominion for 20 years, than I've successfully invaded your country. Victoriously.

If I then change my mind and decide to leave, after 20 years of having a provisional government because I got bored, then yeah, my victory still stands, and the rest is details and semantics.

> It would be like claiming victory against the Nazis if after some years both the US and USSR left Germany, and in the following day the Nazis were setting up concentration camps again.

If they had held dominion over the Nazis for the entire time they were there and left voluntarily because they felt all of a sudden it wasn't there fight, it wouldn't be wrong to do so.

> What did the US get?

It improved the quality of life and security for the people their immeasurably positively. If the withdrawal had not happened, and better leadership was displayed, the would have been completely wiped out.

What they were trying to get, was another ally in the region. They could have to, if it weren't for poor leadership.

This is such a silly argument. They held the place for 20 years uncontested.

Retreating voluntarily because of nothing to do with their opposition, sure as hell isn't losing.

Instead of going back and forth constantly with this semantic bullshit, can we just agree at the least the US didn't retreat because the taliban forced and pressured them to?

For building specific packages with particular flags, wouldn't slackbuilds have been sufficient?

They did more so than they did as losers.

If it wasn't for performance, what was gained in using it over something like Slackware and building only the packages you needed to?

> A nation , democracy included, has a right to protect itself.

They were not doing that when they committed an assassination and violated a nations sovereignty to do so.

> Born in the country lessens the likelihood that you are beholden to more than one master.

Not in the modern world it doesn't.

I think you're taking the analogy too far with that, although it's my fault for using an analogy that makes it so easy.

My point was simply that the US had complete dominion over the area for 20 years and left voluntarily, not due to any pressure from the enemy. If you don't want to call that a victory, fine, whatever, but it doesn't seem like a surrender or loss to me.

> They control the territory.

Only after a voluntary retreat, so that is irrelevant since they didn't have power at the time of the treat, and were not a factor in the decision to retreat.

> It is a weird definition of "victory", when the end of the war was a hasty and poorly executed retreat.

Of course it was a victory. The Taliban were ousted within weeks and then the place was under US control for 20 years. If it wasn't a victory, the last 20 years would have been like the last year instead of what they were like.

> Yes, it is.

No, it isn't. Wow, that was easy!

> Yes, Trump’s release of Taliban priosners and subsequent surrender of Afghanistan to them was a surrender.

No, it was a retreat. For it to be a surrender, the Taliban would have had to be in a position of power. They were not.

> Yes, the decision to abandon a war is always a political decision.

Except for the times it is solely a military position.

That isn't what happened and there was no surrender. The commander in chief made primarily a political decision, and politics was the only motivation for the withdrawal.