imsodin

Also from seemingly reasonable commenters there are many arguments around security coming up. I don't get how one can jump to that idea? This obviously has nothing to do with security, it's about sanction compliance. And yes, likely a pretty pointless sanction compliance in this instance, as the sanctioned entities don't have a direct benefit from having an employee name mentioned in the kernel. However that's not how sanctions work, both just because, and also intuitively it makes sense: Sanctions wouldn't be enforcable at scale if every single case would have to be judged on merit - it's hard enough to enforce them as is.

And btw I so hope most of the comments on here are Russian trolls, but I fear many are people that fully drunk the Russian trolls' cool-aid and are now fully brainwashed...

What?! All that noise about Switzerland mandating usage of open sourced software in gov (there was a great step, but it's far from mandating anything) was already weird, now we are switching to linux? And caring about security and fiscal responsibility? There has to be another country called Switzerland than the one I live in.

Oh dang, I got excited about a new update. Then I started getting deja-vus. And finally I checked the date: This is from early May. Still a good read, unless you already did read it before :P

Technically that wasn't the initial entrypoint, paraphrasing from https://mastodon.social/@AndresFreundTec/112180406142695845 :

It started with ssh using unreasonably much cpu which interfered with benchmarks. Then profiling showed that cpu time being spent in lzma, without being attributable to anything. And he remembered earlier valgrind issues. These valgrind issues only came up because he set some build flag he doesn't even remember anymore why it is set. On top he ran all of this on debian unstable to catch (unrelated) issues early. Any of these factors missing, he wouldn't have caught it. All of this is so nuts.

Outlook (no I don't want it) (still) (really not) (WTF I SAID NO)

Also wenn ich die Änderung beim Care amendment (Rolle der Frau) lese, und meine link-sozial Biases spielen lasse, kann ich schon sehen warum man da Nein sagen würde: Da wird eine sinnvolle Änderung (Streichen der Reduktion der Frau als Mutter, und alleinige Verantwortliche für unbezahlte Care-Arbeit) mit einer starken Abschwächung des Schutzes eben dieser unbezahlten Care-Arbeit verbunden.

Vorher (emphasis mine):

[...] ensure that woman shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Nachher:

[...] shall strive to support such provision [of care within the family].

Gut: Der Artikel betrifft jetzt Care in der Familie allgemein, ohne das auf Frauen/Mütter zu reduzieren. Schlecht: Vorher hat der Staat zu sichern, dass diese Care möglich ist ohne ökonomische Zwänge. Jetzt hat der Staat nur zu versuchen diese Care zu unterstützen. Das ist extrem viel schwächer, und löst bei mir alle Alarmglocken aus für eine neoliberale Abbau von sozialen Massnahmen. Persönlich bin ich ja dafür und halte es für gut für alle involvierten, wenn Elternteile arbeiten und Kinder in die Kita gehen, aber warum sollte das die einzige Variante sein: Viele möchten zu Hause sein und das finde ich auch ok. Und ich habe das Gefühl diese Haltung ist weit verbreitet hier, und in einer (ehemals?) sehr traditionell, katholischen Gesellschaft wie Irland kann ich mir gut vorstellen dass das auch so ist.

Allerdings sehe ich nichts dergleichen beim Family Amendment, also liege ich wohl eher völlig daneben mit obigen xD

Ähnliches nervt mich auch in der Schweiz bei Initiativen so häufig: Da werden extrem wichtige und gute Änderung häufig überladen. Manchmal ideologisch/absichtlich, aber manchmal scheint es mir auch einfach aus einer Übereifer hinaus: Aka "Wenn wir schon den Aufwand machen, dann doch gleich richtig". Und dann kommen halt auch Nebensächlichkeiten in die Änderung, die im besten Falle die Angriffsfläche erhöhen und im schlechtesten Fall ein Grund sind für viele abzulehnen, obwohl sie die Kernforderung eigentlich unterstützen.

Please look at past trends in fertility, and predictions of reputable, independent sources. The growth rate is already sinking fast (just in case: the rate is sinking, population is still growing). With the current/recent situation, in the short term the growth continues, but slows and mid-term there will be a reduction in population. And already today we do have the means to support this population much more sustainably, we just choose not to (we even produce food to turn it into gasoline o.O ): It would require a massive wealth/standards re-distribution, and re-distribution is socialist and thus bad (/s in case that's necessary). A possible starting point: https://ourworldindata.org/population-growth-over-time

Not Australian or American, but hey it's the internet so why not voice second hand knowledge: I heard Aussies pride themselves on being (relatively) egaliatarian, despising individuals elevating themselves above others. Seems to me about as antithetical to US mentalitity as it goes :)

I hope it costs those companies a ton of money to walk away from the auctioned contracts. Sounds like a typical problem of many public construction projects: They get evaluated on cost only, many companies (in bad faith or not) bid at too low prices and thus get the contract over other companies which might be much better set up to get the project to completion in time/in budget/on good standards. And as they are better set up, they likely have a better handle on real costs - as in actual subject experts evaluate costs, not just some sales/business people making optimistic estimates ("guesstimates"). And maybe even finance people thinking about stuff like possible higher inflation ahead of time and counting that in/hedging against that (not sure if hedging on inflation is a thing, but then again almost everything seems to be a thing in finance so I assume it is :P ).

It's working for me now, so likely resolved in the meantime or a local issue.

Looks like the client isn't, but they do offer a simple-way to self-host the backend (looks like it's "just" a matrix server and a bunch of bridges) and then you can use any open-source matrix client to connect to that. Seems like a pretty good balance of a way to make money and the guts being open enough that one could move if the client/company goes side-ways, while contributing a lot to the open-source community.