throw_a_grenade

13 is no less problematic, because there's no explantion who decides what activity is authorized and harmless.

It was supposed to be User's Agent, dammit.

systemd (with the constellation of its assorted tooling like udev, logind etc.) is the only system that correctly models stuff that happens around kernel (like hotplugging stuff, on top of starting services). It's a compelling choice for general-purpose distros (those that span both servers and desktop), who don't want to maintain more stuff than they absolutely must (like two different init systems), and almost inescapable for today's DE's.

Unfortunately that's about the only good thing that can be said about it. The community is perceived as toxic, because of the way it was adopted (by vote, not by consensus, i.e. pushed down the throats over the reasonable objections of large body of developers) (though it's false: it's not toxic at all, if you just approach them from outside with well founded feature request, they'll be far more accomodating than many FOSS projects). Conduct of lead developers was criticised (cf. kdbus). The stability and code quality has much improved, but at the time of discussion it was questioned. Last but not least, it comes with it's own load of complexity: you need to learn new concepts (e.g. something called "job") that are simply not there in inittab-derived systems like openrc, so it comes across as "undebuggable" if you're before the learning curve.

This is the "defend" part, right?

“The Democrats”, maybe not. “Leftists”, however defined, certainly did, and the difference might not be apparent, nor important, to the typical voter.

“Nazi” is used as a rhetorical device, a label to assign to anyone not conforming to a certain set of beliefs typically described as “woke” (see fediverse, especcially #FediBlock hashtag if you don't believe me). I took liberty to parrot that rhetoric, not to use it in the real meaning.

As long as this is dismissed as “ghost stories”, HN is still in denial phase. While the decision to censor the data is wrong, whatever we think about labels (people not agreeing with a set of categories can probably filter/tranform on their own), I think is important to realise, what moves the people who do such things, to get at least basic understanding.

People lost their jobs because of this. The first widely published incident was “Donglegate”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donglegate, but I'm sure there were earlier cases. Some other were not considered for the positions, because their DEI statement was not sufficiently affirming or whatever.

Those are not "few celebrities", and not a propaganda. This really happened, and understanding that this is a real issue might be the first step to understand why the pendulum is in full swing.

Every tit for that is terrible I think. Whether funny or not, I think recognising the pattern and admitting "the other side" also was suppressed (wchichever way is the other side) would be the first step to deescalation.

Otherwise, right now DEI went through denial and is in anger.

Certainly the most important EO of the series.

Oh, wait: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=whitehouse.gov

My prediction is, this and other orders in series will be contested/ignored/sabotaged, and this will fuel allegations of "deep state", further orders, and will wind the spiral. Until something gives.

This is not the case though, Jeff Geerling is not a no-name influencer. He actually does stuff, contributes to Fedora and AlmaLinux (IIRC). The most influencer-y stuff would be his playing with funny Raspberry Pi setups, but calling that "influencing" would be uncharitable. That's a hobby.

My guess is that no-one knows, incl. the journalist/mediaworker who was shown the draft (if even was shown, not just told in vague words).

TFA even specifically says that military doesn't know.

EDIT: Here's a bit more specific article, though I don't know how reliable it is. I believe it's all speculation: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5095167-trump-ex...

Unia Europejska in Polish?

> The function of the word "wokeness" in conservative and technology executive circles (quickly becoming the same circle) is to [...]

That's precisely the point: the function of the word "inclusive" mentioned in TFA, or several related like "diversity" was twisted for the purpose of waging culture war. (E.g. Biden had some "most diverse" team somewere, and it meant 0% men, didn't it.) The purpose of the culture war was to drop entire chain of thought not aligned with current heresy.

How exactly do you propose to prove something (planting evidence) didn't happen?

Maybe I have too low expectation about USA interface between law enforcement and judiciary, but here in Poland there were many high-profile cases of misconduct of public prosecutors that colluded with the police. The only "proven" cases were about purposefuly destroying evidence: breaking CDs that held incriminating recordings, wiping weapons to remove fingerprints, agreeing to single version of testimony etc. They used procedural quirks to prevent defence from challenging those "mishaps" (like in one high-profile case with broken CD, they argued defence-held copy cannot be submitted, because of continuous custody requirements). Cases with planted evidence were always he-said-she-said, because when police writes a search report where they said you had something, then you have no way to challenge that.

May I add, fraud around those arrest/search reports (however they're called it English) is rampant. It starts with simple things, like notifying the subject about right to attorney. They just tick a box that you declined to summon attorney, and you have no way to challenge that, other than refusing to sign the paper, act of which carries no value.

Not familiar with UK either, but in PL, you're mostly right, with the addition that you can also use this account for simple business, aka "one person company" for which you don't need to have a separate account.

Non-joke answer for Europe is at least Latin, Greek or Cyrillic (български is already one of the official EU languages!). No reason to treat them differently, just don't allow for mixing them so you won't get homoglyphs. EURid (.eu-NIC) gets it mostly right I believe.

Sorry to nitpick, but you underestimated: "many cases" is really "all cases", no exception, because under GDPR you have right to correct your data (this is about legal name, so obviously covered). So if user requests under GDPR art. 16 that his/her name is to be represented in a way that matches ID card or whatever legal document, then you either do it, or you pay a fine and then you do it.

That a particular technical solution is incapable of storing it in the preferred way is not an excuse. EBCDIC is incompatible with GDPR: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28986735

If you're in Europe, consider filing GDPR complaint to your local data protection authority. One of the rights recognised in GDPR is right to rectify information about you, and it was clearly not afforded by the provider here.

TFA argues developers add it left and right, unless someone memorised all the rules. Since reportedly it's not possible to memorise all the rules by a single human, then you either "simply add undefined behaviour", or limit yourself to a subset of C++ that programmers do actually understand. Which is a solution I see in many codebases: to limit a set of permissible constructs by a style manual.

The quote is incomplete without its continuation:

> This means that in order to write C++, you effectively have to memorize the undefined behavior rules, which sucks. Sound familiar?

Which is the point TFA is making. I believe you expended the attention span a bit too early.

I'd say "projects that you personaly use". If you use a piece of software or a linux distro, please contribute back, "pay" for it forward.

So I shall not suggest any particular piece, everyone uses different set of Free Software, and that's how we all like it.

Next biggest humanity-wide problem in this area will be 32/64 bit time I believe. We store timestamps as seconds since 1.01.1970 00:00 UTC, and it turns out someone thought 32 bits will be enough for everybody, so the counter will wrap some time in 2038 year, which is less than 14 years in the future. How do you fix the fact that, on 32-bit systems (in x86 it's limited to i386/i686, which is less and less common, but the world is not only x86) time-related functions return 32-bit wide variables? You either return wrong values or you break the ABI.

Debian chose to do both: https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/64bit-time . Wherever they could, they recompiled much of the stuff changing package names from libsomething to libsomethingt64, so where they couldn't recompile, the app still "works" (does not segfault), but links with 32-bit library that just gets wrong values. Other distros had flag day, essentially recompiled everything and didn't bother with non-packaged stuff that was compiled against old 32-bit libs, thus breaking ABI.

Nope, API compatibility is when you write the code, and ABI compatibility is what happens to already compiled code, but still between app and library. Say you compiled your app against libcurl.so.4 file taken from curl 7.88 packaged by Debian. What happens when, far in the future, you will move your executable file, without recompiling, to a system which has curl 12345.67, but the file will still be libcurl.so.4? It should work fine, that is, the library should export the same symbols (maybe some more added), with more or less the same functionality. Possibly implemented differently, maybe accepting more flags, but the stuff that is there, will be there.

To parent's downvoters: would you kindly cut him some slack? It's OK to ask if you don't know. https://xkcd.com/1053/

Those were fun times, but torrent fits this use case now. You seed the chunk a single time and it magically gets distributed, like you said, without being slowed down by your home internet...

That's progress I believe.

Yes, but also No.

So there's this thing called "Threat model" and it includes some assumptions about some moving parts of the infra, and it very often includes assertion that a particular environment (like IDS log, signing infra surrounding HSM etc.) is "secure" (they mean outside of the scope of that particular threat model). So it often gets papered over, and it takes some reflex to say "hey, how we will secure that other part". There needs to be some conciousnes about it, because it's not part of this model under discussuon, so not part of the agenda of this meeting...

And it gets lost.

That's how shit happens in compliance-oriented security.

Some of that looks incorrect

> all returns True if all elements in something list-like (such as a list or tuple) are “truthy.” If any element is false or if the list is empty, it returns False.

  Python 3.11.2 (main, Aug 26 2024, 07:20:54) [GCC 12.2.0] on linux
  Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
  >>> all([])
  True

I could be seen the other way around: theoretically he gould have known that the ruling would make the price drop so selling before ruling (which he did) would be better for his wealth than selling after the ruling. I have no idea if that is meaningful if done a year before actual ruling and in the amount he held.

This system is already in use for lorries, which are hard limited (like the last option described in TFA — engine loses power if driver attepts to accelerate beyond the limit). It's an absolute hell for other users of the road, because they're hard limited to 100 km/h, even on roads where the legal limit is higher. Now the problem is, no two vehicles have exactly the same limit, it varies a noticeable amount, so inevitably one lorry driver will attempt to overtake another one — with speed difference below 1 km/h, at about 100 km/h where legal limit is 140 km/h. It takes about 2 min and usually causes 2-3 km "jams" on motorways.

From TFA: “The EU regulations permit a system that can use [...], or a speed control function in which the speed of the vehicle will be gradually reduced.”

Sounds a hell lot like an actual limiter.