> I mean, if you start building an auto-fixer pipeline for an auto-linted error... then is that error actually valid in the first place? Probably not.
Yeah that does sound like a waste of time for a relatively small project.
But I actually think this makes perfect sense once you factor in how massive the effective codebase of Debian is. It's also a much different beast; there are benefits and costs to moving more slowly and methodically. Making seemingly small architectural changes (like the switch from 'extra' to 'optional') is awkward just because of the structure of the project.
Anything to take tedium off the plates of devs who are committing upstream in preparation for the next release has to be a good thing, right?
I agree that it feels really confused but if I can get it running one day with the ability to save my sessions, I would gladly flip between this and X+i3 for my daily driver.
What I see offered here is a way of mapping a huge, non-software project more loosely than a strict classification-based directory/file structure. Specifically I've been slowly fleshing out my own fantasy world with lore and history. I tried the live demo and I can totally see this meshing really well with the part of my brain that likes fiction because it can be a little messy.
I also think the friction of learning a new UI would be a benefit here in reducing the amount of "laptop fatigue" which keeps me from writing less technical stuff after wrestling with a bug all day.
Has anybody here ever used something like XMPP as a sidechannel? Sounds interesting and I kind of want to try setting up something really silly just for fun.
As I said in the article, many years ago I played with using XMPP as the side channel for NAT traversal software. XMPP was handy for this because you can just define your own extension that chat programs will ignore, but XMPP itself will still carry those extensions end to end. The idea I had at the time was to have the p2p software signed into your XMPP account, and it would use that as a federated message bus between all your devices, and the devices of your friends.
Honestly, the idea only made sense back when Google Talk ruled the earth, because it gave XMPP a network effect I could utilize. Sadly, since then, chat has fallen into a dozen different silos, so the "piggybacking" benefits are zero. And if you're not piggybacking on an established network, you can build a side channel protocol that's much simpler than what you'd make with XMPP.
If I were trying this again today, I'd probably poke at what Matrix can do in terms of non-user-visible messages. It seems to be a successor to XMPP in terms of the communication model, so if it can do broadcast+unicast of non-visible messages, and supports sending to yourself as well as others, it might be a good modern replacement!
As far as I understand they are "partisan" not by design but as a result of representing their interests (which, in my opinion, should always represent the aggregate of the workers the union represents -- which is sadly not so)
Please do correct me if I'm wrong! That's my favorite way to learn. I've grown a lot from being the least-informed gal in the room.
I'd agree with that understanding, but it only makes it so much better, since it still means a union can end up supporting candidates or legislation that I oppose even though they might be bad for my career interests.
Whatever the cause may be, that counts as "partisan".
It infuriates many of the workers. They start off angry from being forced to pay an undesired membership fee, essentially a private income tax, and then the union pours salt in their wounds by lobbying to maintain the forced relationship and by supporting politicians that anger the workers.
Imagine being forced to fund your most hated politician. That is the reality for millions of American workers.
Unions represent the interests of unions. Workers would be better served by class-action lawsuits, which sadly are being suppressed due to a supreme court decision that allowed forced arbitration. That supreme court decision was not based on constitutionality, and thus could be undone with a simple ordinary act of congress. Unions could also be wiped out by congress. Doing both at the same time would make sense. Class action lawsuits are a far less corrupt way to address worker abuse.
There is no US industry so dominated by unions that you are forced to be a member of one, if a worker takes a union job they know what they're getting in to.
I don't understand why you're connecting forced arbitration to unions. Also, it's hard to see how unions aren't a form of free speech.
My preferred solution to this kind of problem would be more akin to worker ownership or at very least worker involvement in steering decisions (board positions, etc). But I also despise forced arbitration. Absolutely abhorrent.
It's funny that you lament the suppression of class-action lawsuits without considering why they are in decline. They are in decline because corporations want them to go away.
The scenario you advocate is:
1. Unions are outlawed.
2. Class-action lawsuits are fully restored.
3. Employees seek redress from their employer by filing a class-action lawsuit for every instance of abuse.
This is not a stable scenario. You can't just set it up and expect it to stay that way. Laws change. Corporations delight in changing laws for their own benefit. The inevitable and near-immediate result of this:
1. Corporations lobby the government to make class-action lawsuits (in general, or just specifically workers vs their employer) illegal, or to allow employment contracts to require forced arbitration.
2. Corporations rewrite their employment contracts to require forced arbitration, which always favors the corporation because it has more resources than a single person and is the one paying the arbitrator. I can guarantee you they will include a clause like this even if it's illegal, because who's going to stop them?
3. Corporations can now deal with workers one-on-one, which is a recipe for abuse.
4. Any worker who agitates to start a new class-action lawsuit is summarily dismissed for violating their employment contract.
5. In the interim period before class-action lawsuits by workers are neutered and made impossible, corporations will simply drag the cases through the court system slowly, accepting the ongoing lawsuits as a cost of doing business. They will always by definition have more resources and more ability to absorb this cost than the workers.
The only way workers can exert any power over their employer is by organizing and striking, because that's the only way to comprehensively disrupt the corporation's capital flow and bring them to the bargaining table before the workers run out their savings. The end result of this strike must always be the formation of a union, or the strike is ultimately pointless. A union must be formed so that the employer knows any attempt to abuse its workers will result in an immediate response which hurts their bottom line. A class-action lawsuit takes years to play out, and workers don't have that long!
The formation of a union requires the following:
1. The corporation recognizes the union and agrees to deal with it by signing a contract.
2. The corporation agrees not to retaliate against union members for union activities.
3. The union is allowed to conduct its activities and collect fees to pay administrative costs, legal fees, and for political activism (to defend its right to exist against corporate lobbying).
3. The contract must always stipulate that the corporation will not hire non-union workers. Allowing this would be a death knell for the union because the lack of such a clause means the corporation will just hire non-union workers in the future until the union has been starved of funds and collapses.
These are just basic facts and inference supported by the history of the labor movement. Your assertion that workers hate the fees and hate the politicians supported by the unions is in dire need of citations and references. Your entire post seems less like a logical, well-thought-out argument and more like blatant anti-union propaganda.
If you're developing in the right sector, MacOS has a market that's selected to be lucrative.
I don't think that's a particularly good thing, but it does explain how <10% market share can make such a big splash. Especially for more casual projects, IMO.
I think much like cybersecurity there is no "solution". Moderation is a posture, not a result. You have to just stay on top of it or everything will tend towards 4chan given the chance.
Nearly every woman I know who uses reddit doesn't announce their gender. Plenty of my chosen family won't touch it with a fifty-foot pole simply because they're way too likely to run into something that genuinely makes the rest of their day harder.
And, anecdotal as it may be, I think it's interesting to mention these aren't softies either... the thing they all share in common is that they work too long and too hard making ends meet to willfully spend time browsing a site that can go from fun to making them feel very unsafe in the blink of an eye. Sure you can "just get over it" when you read something nasty online. But if you've lived your life in relative fear, it takes a ton of energy to do so.
I really agree with this. An American Indian friend of mine once said, "It's not like we want another Trail of Tears." Folks who have been beat down know people don't deserve that just for being a certain way.
Now if you're advocating a worldview that carries implicit, targeted violence (looking at you, Neo-Nazis) I think it's a different story. At that point, it becomes a question of what is possible and practical to reduce the overall amount of violence.. even if it means punching someone who wants you dead or subjugated.
Wouldn't the difference there be between venting resulting in hurt feelings rather than targeted violence?
Reports of genuine, targeted violence against reactionaries are almost non-existent while just a few days ago three trans women were nearly killed while waiting for a cab. If banning r/dropthet (a transphobic subreddit) reduces the amount of eyeballs absorbing phobic talking points that has to be a good thing, no?
I always find these sorts of discussions sorely lacking an understanding of The Tolerance Paradox. Hopefully more folks will begin to see the implicit violence present in minority targeted hate speech. It really does lead to loss of life all too often.
>I always find these sorts of discussions sorely lacking an understanding of The Tolerance Paradox.
I can't possibly speak for Popper, but I suspect that he'd disapprove of intolerance from any group towards any other group. Let's not tolerate threats or double standards of any kind, whether it's a man defending that he said "kill all women" sarcastically or a woman defending that she said "kill all men" sarcastically. One can acknowledge that a man saying it should be taken more seriously (for a variety of reasons) while also acknowledging that the acceptance of generalized vitriol towards groups based on at-birth traits shouldn't have directional weighting. This is a blind spot and form of implicit bias I find many well-meaning progressives fall into.
Also, although it doesn't necessarily apply here (since most would agree talking about killing groups of people shouldn't be tolerated), I almost always find that people who bring up Popper's paradox of tolerance tend to wield it like a cudgel to draw arbitrary and absolute lines as they see fit.
Agreed that you shouldn't be using Popper as a cornerstone, but I really think it's a great tool for getting folks to step outside a limited perspective. A foot in the door when trying to introduce the difference between hate speech and retaliatory frustration.
I think it's also worth mentioning that you are very correct in a need for subtlety -- "kill all women" isn't something you're going to see very often any more. Rather, we get some nonsense about the moral arc of the universe and another endless discussion while people continue to be harmed. I knew (happily past tense) a couple guys who just couldn't kick their absolute vitriol for seeing women thrive while they were struggling. It's super nasty and, in my experience, a way more dangerous thing than someone going off about killing women verbatim.
Thanks for pointing out the blind spot though! I've found that way of thinking about morality to be really positive and forgiving -- to view something as a correctable omission rather than a character flaw.
Yeah I lurked for way too long. Spent like half of yesterday rate limited, which is understandable. :)
I actually have a few mutuals who have been on the ground in Portland and I'm in the southeast.
I had seen this stuff when it first happened but it's just hard to pay much attention with other deadly force being deployed IMO. If you google Skylor Jernigan, you get nothing but local articles. There's a strong false equivalency being deployed there.
e: almost forgot where I am! I rarely get to make this point but here we go: nitpicking out individualized acts of violence to discredit a large, decentralized movement is the exact same thing as FUD, IMO. It's a tactic for maintaining unequal power dynamics.
> nitpicking out individualized acts of violence to discredit a large, decentralized movement
That would forbid criticism of any violent decentralized movement.
> There's a strong false equivalency being deployed there.
I don't think there's any equivalency. There's no widespread looting and assault from the center or the right here.
Antifa specifically are willing to use violence to suppress disbelievers as part of their manifesto, and have handbooks re: playing to the invisible audience, goading people into fight responses, etc. However I suspect you know this already. And that you're doing that it now.
> and have handbooks re: playing to the invisible audience, goading people into fight responses, etc.
Who is antifa??? More FUD. This is, in my opinion, a very lazy and poorly researched argument against the anti-fascist movement. Especially in a country where crime reporting is run through an institution with ties to white supremacy and roots in crushing strikes and capturing escaped slaves. Show me the data. Show me the pattern of left wing terror.
All it takes is a few dudes with an iron cross tattoo to fudge the numbers here or there. It's really not uncommon, again, if you look at what happens often, not what happens loudest.
Yeah that does sound like a waste of time for a relatively small project.
But I actually think this makes perfect sense once you factor in how massive the effective codebase of Debian is. It's also a much different beast; there are benefits and costs to moving more slowly and methodically. Making seemingly small architectural changes (like the switch from 'extra' to 'optional') is awkward just because of the structure of the project.
Anything to take tedium off the plates of devs who are committing upstream in preparation for the next release has to be a good thing, right?