It's not simply the breach. It's that after the breach, things just kept getting worse.
- Executives sold a bunch of stock between the breach and the report.
- The first "Am I affected?" site was horribly constructed from a security point of view, not to mention not being clear about the legalese regarding liability. There were also reports that it was acting like a simple random-response generator - putting in nonsense IDs gave specific answers - with both types of results.
- The "Freeze my credit" site set up to handle the volume, and the PIN they gave was a simple time-date stamp, easily guessed.
One of these days, I plan to write to my banking institutions saying that Equifax has failed miserably at their primary job - being secure, and my institutions should not be using such a shoddy business.
Let's pretend for the moment that you're right, and global warming IS a natural phenomenon. That doesn't immediately indicate that all of the "green" solutions are wrong - except in one respect - and that is if CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Except in that scenario, the "green" solutions are good ones, and are actually the least intervention.
I've read of scientists talking of "geoforming", with various proposals, notably aerosols to reflect more light. But universally they're afraid of trying that kind of thing, and want to try the lesser interventions of CO2 reduction first. They consider "active geoforming" to be a last-ditch measure.
Your assertion that "green solutions are wrong" is likely based on the assertion that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Most of the scientific community asserts that it is. Since you don't trust them, who are you trusting for your geoforming science, and why the heck should I trust them?
Or try something else... Since you say global warming is part of a natural cycle, then PREDICT! So far the global warming side is doing a decent job of predicting - each of at least the past four years has been the warmest year on record, each surpassing the last. On the global warming side, the prediction is that that will continue for some years, even with intervention.
At some level, one doesn't have to care if global warming is human-induced or natural. If a given area is too hot and too humid, like places in the Persian Gulf are now, people will die without air conditioning fed by electric power. If either the air conditioner or its power source fails, they're equally dead, whether the environmental conditions were caused by nature or man.
It doesn't matter the slightest whether the planet has survived the conditions we're now heading into. The fact is, our civilization hasn't been through this before, and it's not clear that we'll make it through now.
So what if warming is natural. It's going to be hard on us, and if there are things we can do to mitigate its effects, we should be doing so. Here's the issue - if we accept AGW, then we accept that we should be doing something about it. Then saying that because it's natural we don't have to do anything is like saying that you have to dodge a truck heading at you, but don't have to dodge a charging bear - because the charging bear is natural.
If the "natural warming" crowd were to propose mitigating actions, that might be one thing, but so far they haven't. Hot is hot, storms are storms, droughts are droughts, floods, are floods, whether AGW or natural.
So the rest of the thread goes off on chads, butterflies, and court decisions. What was missed was Florida having tens of thousands of voters thrown off the registry under sketchy circumstances. I don't have the demographics of those voters at my fingertips, nor do I have the eventual disposition of their eligibility, so I won't make anything up. But we can say that the number of disenfranchised voters swamps the number of votes under "mechanical question."
By the way, they eventually did finish the recount. Had it been done Gore's way, Bush would have won. Had it been done Bush's way, Gore would have won.
I think that if someone offered "tin cans" or trusses at a reasonable price, they would find buyers. Nice thing about either is that presuming you have a way to manufacture them, you're not limited by launcher or fairing size. I agree that there's a lot to be done to get on-orbit 3D printing of metal at that sort of physical scale. But I think if you had a product, if it looked good, if there was even a low-volume need, and if it were cheaper than launched, you could sell it.
No cloudy days on-orbit. Just a matter of how much power do you need and how much mirror do you need to grab that and focus it. There are of course probably one or two minor details with the idea of solar smelting... Sheffield/Pournelle did it in "Higher Education".
Who said a thing about getting mass down. It costs a lot of money to get mass off of the Earth. Making things for use off-Earth might most economically be done starting with raw materials from off-Earth. New 3D printing technologies might even make such manufacturing possible.
Back in the 80's Japan announced its Fifth Generation Computing initiative. They were planning to leapfrog the computing industry and usher in a new age - under Japanese leadership. One might wonder if this Chinese initiative is likely to lead to the same end.
Along that line, it's worth questioning why the Chinese want this, and depending on their reasoning, if their society is capable of creating it. For instance, what if a key underlying reason for wanting AI is to keep better control over their domestic population? In that case, it may require "unsanctioned thought" in order to create the AI. Loyal scientists and engineers may not be capable of the necessary concepts. Non-loyal scientists and engineers who are capable may realize that they're ultimately shooting themselves in the feet and elect to fail, over a long, convincing, (and comfortable) attempt.
At some point, Asimov explained that part of his three laws was to show something that seemed simple, yet offered nearly infinite opportunities for stories.
Consider the amount of knowledge and true AI it would take, simply to implement Asimov's Three Laws.
What is a human being? How do you tell a human being from a mannequin or a humanoid-form robot? What constitutes harm to a human being? What actions might eventually cause harm to a human being?
Really, the First Law is the toughest of the three, given a little thought.
Some people put in special effort as they get older not to get set in their ways, and for some getting to post-kids is a time to branch out a bit and do more adventuring. On the flip side, you're a bit less capable physically, but there's still a wide range of learning, new experiences, etc, available.
What's new is the MBA. It gives greed the tools to look under more rocks for coins to scrape into their own coffers. Or another way of looking at it, the MBA enhances the ability of the greedy to pull threads out of the fabric of society to feather their own already-opulent nests.
> Specifically I was asking about examples of piles of hate. It's okay if you want to retract that statement.
No, but I'm not sure I feel like retreading that ground at the moment. I may keep one of these links around, in case I do. In the meantime, I'm running my computer as I see fit, and am only mildly inconvenienced by the things that require systemd. Incidentally, as far as userspace goes, I never had packages that required sysv, upstart, or whatever. Usually once the system is up, applications have been init-system agnostic. That's another thing I don't particularly like about systemd.
You're right, the sky hasn't fallen - yet. But so far systemd doesn't really have a lot of penetration in the big server space, where rebooting really is a big deal. By the same token, there have been a few laughably bad bugs found in systemd, and other than mentioning them in this sentence, I'm not hammering on them. I'll simply say that nobody has yet started the real bug search - the subtle bugs, timing bugs, the nasty stuff that takes years to discover - and get hidden by TLAs, and that type of stuff.
Perhaps that's the most disturbing thing about sytemd. It came in and practically took over the Linux ecosystem in about a year or so, and it was only a few years old at the time. It takes many years for software to truly get wrung out, to get the subtle bugs out. Systemd is too young for that to have happened, so most of the Linux ecosystem is part of a big experiment and learning curve.
Note that I'm not hammering specifically on systemd for being immature, this is part of the curve for any software. It's just that I think systemd has become too ubiquitous, too soon, for all of our good. Time will tell.
> That's also not a pile of hate. You could say it's not polite, but the implied message that I pick up on here is that Gentoo will need to implement alternatives to systemd technologies if they > want to continue to benefit from other software projects that use systemd.
The you missed something in earlier lines in that post. Gentoo already maintains its own udev fork, eudev, so that's not the issue. He spoke of moving kernel event signalling from netlink to kdbus, which "breaks userspace" at a much more fundamental level, not just Gentoo's eudev.
I put "breaks userspace" in quotes, because the statement of simply changing interfaces like that breaks normal kernel practices, like keeping published APIs around for years of non-use before removing them. I've no problem with a kernel config switch that says something like "netlink or bus1 for event signalling", that's fine, breaking currently in-use and in-development software isn't. This betrays either a lack of familiarity or lack of regard for normal practices, neither of which belongs in a piece of infrastructure as important as systemd has become.
> That's great, but I didn't see any technical arguments from you. Maybe I missed them.
You didn't. I've mentioned technical or software philosophy several times, and this is the first time in this thread that anyone has picked up on it, or expressed any interest.
1 - PID1 is critical. If it crashes, the whole system crashes. I know that everything in systemd is not PID1, but it's still got a big one. Every line of code may someday translate into a bug or a crash. Proof, look at the bug history of IEFBR14 some time - that really is quite literally a one-liner, that managed to accumulate multiple bugs. My hair is grey, I used to use IEFBR14 all the time.
From what I've seen the functionality of systemd's PID1 could have readily been separated into a much smaller PID1 that did less, and one or more helpers that PID1 could restart as needed. That would have also allowed updating systemd without rebooting the system, as long as the PID1 portion hadn't changed, and being much smaller, that would have been more likely.
2 - Unix philosophy - small pieces each of which does one job and does it well. Then tie them together to do bigger things. In other discussions on this topic, I've been told that the Unix philosophy is obsolete, but I disagree. It has kept Unix running for some 40 years, through orders of magnitude of change in every aspect of computing. I'd be hesitant about throwing it out that quickly.
3 - I like initscripts written in a Turing-complete shell script language. You don't always need it, but when you do, you've got it. I've never written an initscript from scratch, but I have so heavily modified some that they practically end up from-scratch. From what I've ready, systemd has a decent configuration language for service units, but it's not Turing complete, and if they did, why not just use something that already exists and is well-debugged - shell script?
4 - Right now systemd is one package, even though it has many parts. That means that a bug in its logger requires a complete sytemd update... Or a bug in its new resolver subsystem, etc, etc. If the packaging were split, kind of the way the old functions that systemd has been subsuming were, then such updates would be simpler. Don't forget that a systemd update requires rebooting.
I could go on, but that's a few.
By the way, when attempting to make technical arguments like this, I've been called quite a few names, along the names I've been called when calling for network transparency out of Wayland. I try to let it roll off my back, but it can get to you after a while, especially when technical arguments are answered with insults and name-calling, rather than counter technical arguments.
No, you keyed off of the wrong sentence. Look at, "Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call." Up until the Devuan fork, Gentoo and Slackware were the only Linux distributions not converting to systemd. There was context surrounding this quote, implying the inexorable forcing of systemd into Gentoo.
I will add that you've got a bit of the attitude here, too. Note your words, "fact resistant, knee-jerk reaction against progress". There are certainly interesting ideas in systemd, I'll grant that. However overall I don't consider it progress, so in wishing to not adopt it I don't consider myself anti-progress.
If you really wished to engage in a technical discussion about this, what I like and what I don't like about systemd, I'd be happy to. However your last paragraph has lumped me as a systemd-hater, and therefore I cannot possibly have technical arguments to make. That is not true, I (and others) have technical and software-philosophical arguments, its just that nobody from the systemd camp (There, how's that for polarizing?) wants to hear them.
As opposed to a simple carbon tax, there is another proposal which I rather like, though I've sadly forgotten the details. Maybe knowing a little about it would enable you to learn more. It was also proposed by someone conservative-leaning, but that doesn't stop me from liking it.
He proposes something like a carbon tax, but really more of a carbon transfer. As I said, I don't remember the details, but essentially high-carbon-emitting parties put money into a fund that is QUICKLY transferred to low-carbon-emitting parties. That's a poor choice of words, but as an example carbon-emission-proportional funds are transferred from coal-fired power plants to solar, wind, and tidal power plants. That transfer is then reflected in the cost of the power they sell. Cost for coal power goes up, cost for solar, wind, and tidal power goes down.
The real issue there is "QUICKLY", and this is what I like about the idea. Any time you create a pot of money, there is a class of people who work hard and craftily to get their hands into that pot, frequently through government / regulatory capture. While this is vulnerable in that it creates a flow of money, at least it specifically avoids creating a pot of it.
Star Trek, or any post-scarcity economic model depends on a generally conservative populace. And by "conservative" I mean as in "conservation", not right-leaning. Peoples' ability to waste is probably limitless, so you need people who reflexively don't waste. When you walk out the door of an air-conditioned (or heated) room into the hot (or cold) outside, you shut the door to conserve energy. You don't leave the door open and say, "It don't cost me nuthin,"
Sensible, but too often as a people, we aren't. It's also a different definition of "conservative" than matches current usage. Too often these days in the US, "conservative" goes along with a right, almost an obligation, to waste resources, both natural and human.
https://lists.freedesktop.org/... Specifically: > Unless the systemd-haters prepare another kdbus userspace until > then this will effectively also mean that we will not support > non-systemd systems with udev anymore starting at that point. > Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call. > > Lennart
Now another thing in there. Just because I prefer not to run systemd, I have been characterized as a "hater". Other than the fact that I'm also not into Taylor Swift, I'm not that much into the whole "hater" thing, but I recognize that I'm being categorized and insulted.
I actually tried being an early adopter of systemd, years before its widespread adoption, and found that it didn't work for me. By the time it started getting widespread adoption, the THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE! attitude really annoyed me. If it were just the attitude I could probably get over it, but I also have technical and software-philosophical objections. But none of that appears to matter in discourse, because it all comes down to haters and steamrollers, instead of real discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not simply the breach. It's that after the breach, things just kept getting worse.
- Executives sold a bunch of stock between the breach and the report.
- The first "Am I affected?" site was horribly constructed from a security point of view, not to mention not being clear about the legalese regarding liability. There were also reports that it was acting like a simple random-response generator - putting in nonsense IDs gave specific answers - with both types of results.
- The "Freeze my credit" site set up to handle the volume, and the PIN they gave was a simple time-date stamp, easily guessed.
One of these days, I plan to write to my banking institutions saying that Equifax has failed miserably at their primary job - being secure, and my institutions should not be using such a shoddy business.
The first thing that will make Earth interesting is our Goldilocks position around our sun.
The second thing that will make Earth interesting is our atmosphere. We have an "interesting" atmosphere.
Both of those bits of information have been out there for a long time - longer than we've existed.
Let's pretend for the moment that you're right, and global warming IS a natural phenomenon. That doesn't immediately indicate that all of the "green" solutions are wrong - except in one respect - and that is if CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Except in that scenario, the "green" solutions are good ones, and are actually the least intervention.
I've read of scientists talking of "geoforming", with various proposals, notably aerosols to reflect more light. But universally they're afraid of trying that kind of thing, and want to try the lesser interventions of CO2 reduction first. They consider "active geoforming" to be a last-ditch measure.
Your assertion that "green solutions are wrong" is likely based on the assertion that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Most of the scientific community asserts that it is. Since you don't trust them, who are you trusting for your geoforming science, and why the heck should I trust them?
Or try something else... Since you say global warming is part of a natural cycle, then PREDICT! So far the global warming side is doing a decent job of predicting - each of at least the past four years has been the warmest year on record, each surpassing the last. On the global warming side, the prediction is that that will continue for some years, even with intervention.
What does you natural cycle "theory" predict?
Make a prediction, let's TEST.
Just found the wiki article, and the closing narration struck a bell, when combined with references to the Kardashians earlier on this thread:
"If knowledge is power and power corrupts...how will human kind ever survive?"
The Kardashians are the salvation of humanity - how we can survive!
At some level, one doesn't have to care if global warming is human-induced or natural. If a given area is too hot and too humid, like places in the Persian Gulf are now, people will die without air conditioning fed by electric power. If either the air conditioner or its power source fails, they're equally dead, whether the environmental conditions were caused by nature or man.
It doesn't matter the slightest whether the planet has survived the conditions we're now heading into. The fact is, our civilization hasn't been through this before, and it's not clear that we'll make it through now.
So what if warming is natural. It's going to be hard on us, and if there are things we can do to mitigate its effects, we should be doing so. Here's the issue - if we accept AGW, then we accept that we should be doing something about it. Then saying that because it's natural we don't have to do anything is like saying that you have to dodge a truck heading at you, but don't have to dodge a charging bear - because the charging bear is natural.
If the "natural warming" crowd were to propose mitigating actions, that might be one thing, but so far they haven't. Hot is hot, storms are storms, droughts are droughts, floods, are floods, whether AGW or natural.
So the rest of the thread goes off on chads, butterflies, and court decisions. What was missed was Florida having tens of thousands of voters thrown off the registry under sketchy circumstances. I don't have the demographics of those voters at my fingertips, nor do I have the eventual disposition of their eligibility, so I won't make anything up. But we can say that the number of disenfranchised voters swamps the number of votes under "mechanical question."
By the way, they eventually did finish the recount. Had it been done Gore's way, Bush would have won. Had it been done Bush's way, Gore would have won.
I think that if someone offered "tin cans" or trusses at a reasonable price, they would find buyers. Nice thing about either is that presuming you have a way to manufacture them, you're not limited by launcher or fairing size. I agree that there's a lot to be done to get on-orbit 3D printing of metal at that sort of physical scale. But I think if you had a product, if it looked good, if there was even a low-volume need, and if it were cheaper than launched, you could sell it.
No cloudy days on-orbit. Just a matter of how much power do you need and how much mirror do you need to grab that and focus it. There are of course probably one or two minor details with the idea of solar smelting... Sheffield/Pournelle did it in "Higher Education".
Who said a thing about getting mass down. It costs a lot of money to get mass off of the Earth. Making things for use off-Earth might most economically be done starting with raw materials from off-Earth. New 3D printing technologies might even make such manufacturing possible.
Back in the 80's Japan announced its Fifth Generation Computing initiative. They were planning to leapfrog the computing industry and usher in a new age - under Japanese leadership. One might wonder if this Chinese initiative is likely to lead to the same end.
Along that line, it's worth questioning why the Chinese want this, and depending on their reasoning, if their society is capable of creating it. For instance, what if a key underlying reason for wanting AI is to keep better control over their domestic population? In that case, it may require "unsanctioned thought" in order to create the AI. Loyal scientists and engineers may not be capable of the necessary concepts. Non-loyal scientists and engineers who are capable may realize that they're ultimately shooting themselves in the feet and elect to fail, over a long, convincing, (and comfortable) attempt.
At some point, Asimov explained that part of his three laws was to show something that seemed simple, yet offered nearly infinite opportunities for stories.
Consider the amount of knowledge and true AI it would take, simply to implement Asimov's Three Laws.
What is a human being?
How do you tell a human being from a mannequin or a humanoid-form robot?
What constitutes harm to a human being?
What actions might eventually cause harm to a human being?
Really, the First Law is the toughest of the three, given a little thought.
A - We don't really have true AI yet. (Or is this like One True Scotsman.)
B - As we get closer, the AI we're developing will be too profitable, so those profiting from it will prevent or subvert any regulation, anyway.
Some people put in special effort as they get older not to get set in their ways, and for some getting to post-kids is a time to branch out a bit and do more adventuring. On the flip side, you're a bit less capable physically, but there's still a wide range of learning, new experiences, etc, available.
What's new is the MBA. It gives greed the tools to look under more rocks for coins to scrape into their own coffers. Or another way of looking at it, the MBA enhances the ability of the greedy to pull threads out of the fabric of society to feather their own already-opulent nests.
Bump.
My wife would agree with you, but add something about how unwashed and grubby they usually were.
But then again, when you're trudgin' across the tundra, mile after mile, trudgin' across the tundra - with not a parish in sight, you get grubby.
> Specifically I was asking about examples of piles of hate. It's okay if you want to retract that statement.
No, but I'm not sure I feel like retreading that ground at the moment. I may keep one of these links around, in case I do. In the meantime, I'm running my computer as I see fit, and am only mildly inconvenienced by the things that require systemd. Incidentally, as far as userspace goes, I never had packages that required sysv, upstart, or whatever. Usually once the system is up, applications have been init-system agnostic. That's another thing I don't particularly like about systemd.
You're right, the sky hasn't fallen - yet. But so far systemd doesn't really have a lot of penetration in the big server space, where rebooting really is a big deal. By the same token, there have been a few laughably bad bugs found in systemd, and other than mentioning them in this sentence, I'm not hammering on them. I'll simply say that nobody has yet started the real bug search - the subtle bugs, timing bugs, the nasty stuff that takes years to discover - and get hidden by TLAs, and that type of stuff.
Perhaps that's the most disturbing thing about sytemd. It came in and practically took over the Linux ecosystem in about a year or so, and it was only a few years old at the time. It takes many years for software to truly get wrung out, to get the subtle bugs out. Systemd is too young for that to have happened, so most of the Linux ecosystem is part of a big experiment and learning curve.
Note that I'm not hammering specifically on systemd for being immature, this is part of the curve for any software. It's just that I think systemd has become too ubiquitous, too soon, for all of our good. Time will tell.
> That's also not a pile of hate. You could say it's not polite, but the implied message that I pick up on here is that Gentoo will need to implement alternatives to systemd technologies if they
> want to continue to benefit from other software projects that use systemd.
The you missed something in earlier lines in that post. Gentoo already maintains its own udev fork, eudev, so that's not the issue. He spoke of moving kernel event signalling from netlink to kdbus, which "breaks userspace" at a much more fundamental level, not just Gentoo's eudev.
I put "breaks userspace" in quotes, because the statement of simply changing interfaces like that breaks normal kernel practices, like keeping published APIs around for years of non-use before removing them. I've no problem with a kernel config switch that says something like "netlink or bus1 for event signalling", that's fine, breaking currently in-use and in-development software isn't. This betrays either a lack of familiarity or lack of regard for normal practices, neither of which belongs in a piece of infrastructure as important as systemd has become.
> That's great, but I didn't see any technical arguments from you. Maybe I missed them.
You didn't. I've mentioned technical or software philosophy several times, and this is the first time in this thread that anyone has picked up on it, or expressed any interest.
1 - PID1 is critical. If it crashes, the whole system crashes. I know that everything in systemd is not PID1, but it's still got a big one. Every line of code may someday translate into a bug or a crash. Proof, look at the bug history of IEFBR14 some time - that really is quite literally a one-liner, that managed to accumulate multiple bugs. My hair is grey, I used to use IEFBR14 all the time.
From what I've seen the functionality of systemd's PID1 could have readily been separated into a much smaller PID1 that did less, and one or more helpers that PID1 could restart as needed. That would have also allowed updating systemd without rebooting the system, as long as the PID1 portion hadn't changed, and being much smaller, that would have been more likely.
2 - Unix philosophy - small pieces each of which does one job and does it well. Then tie them together to do bigger things. In other discussions on this topic, I've been told that the Unix philosophy is obsolete, but I disagree. It has kept Unix running for some 40 years, through orders of magnitude of change in every aspect of computing. I'd be hesitant about throwing it out that quickly.
3 - I like initscripts written in a Turing-complete shell script language. You don't always need it, but when you do, you've got it. I've never written an initscript from scratch, but I have so heavily modified some that they practically end up from-scratch. From what I've ready, systemd has a decent configuration language for service units, but it's not Turing complete, and if they did, why not just use something that already exists and is well-debugged - shell script?
4 - Right now systemd is one package, even though it has many parts. That means that a bug in its logger requires a complete sytemd update... Or a bug in its new resolver subsystem, etc, etc. If the packaging were split, kind of the way the old functions that systemd has been subsuming were, then such updates would be simpler. Don't forget that a systemd update requires rebooting.
I could go on, but that's a few.
By the way, when attempting to make technical arguments like this, I've been called quite a few names, along the names I've been called when calling for network transparency out of Wayland. I try to let it roll off my back, but it can get to you after a while, especially when technical arguments are answered with insults and name-calling, rather than counter technical arguments.
So you've obviously decide that there are no possible technical or software-philosophical faults with systemd.
I'm not trying to sit here and argue with YOU. I'm requesting that people quit questioning my sanity or technical chops for not using systemd.
No, you keyed off of the wrong sentence. Look at, "Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call." Up until the Devuan fork, Gentoo and Slackware were the only Linux distributions not converting to systemd. There was context surrounding this quote, implying the inexorable forcing of systemd into Gentoo.
I will add that you've got a bit of the attitude here, too. Note your words, "fact resistant, knee-jerk reaction against progress". There are certainly interesting ideas in systemd, I'll grant that. However overall I don't consider it progress, so in wishing to not adopt it I don't consider myself anti-progress.
If you really wished to engage in a technical discussion about this, what I like and what I don't like about systemd, I'd be happy to. However your last paragraph has lumped me as a systemd-hater, and therefore I cannot possibly have technical arguments to make. That is not true, I (and others) have technical and software-philosophical arguments, its just that nobody from the systemd camp (There, how's that for polarizing?) wants to hear them.
As opposed to a simple carbon tax, there is another proposal which I rather like, though I've sadly forgotten the details. Maybe knowing a little about it would enable you to learn more. It was also proposed by someone conservative-leaning, but that doesn't stop me from liking it.
He proposes something like a carbon tax, but really more of a carbon transfer. As I said, I don't remember the details, but essentially high-carbon-emitting parties put money into a fund that is QUICKLY transferred to low-carbon-emitting parties. That's a poor choice of words, but as an example carbon-emission-proportional funds are transferred from coal-fired power plants to solar, wind, and tidal power plants. That transfer is then reflected in the cost of the power they sell. Cost for coal power goes up, cost for solar, wind, and tidal power goes down.
The real issue there is "QUICKLY", and this is what I like about the idea. Any time you create a pot of money, there is a class of people who work hard and craftily to get their hands into that pot, frequently through government / regulatory capture. While this is vulnerable in that it creates a flow of money, at least it specifically avoids creating a pot of it.
Star Trek, or any post-scarcity economic model depends on a generally conservative populace. And by "conservative" I mean as in "conservation", not right-leaning. Peoples' ability to waste is probably limitless, so you need people who reflexively don't waste. When you walk out the door of an air-conditioned (or heated) room into the hot (or cold) outside, you shut the door to conserve energy. You don't leave the door open and say, "It don't cost me nuthin,"
Sensible, but too often as a people, we aren't. It's also a different definition of "conservative" than matches current usage. Too often these days in the US, "conservative" goes along with a right, almost an obligation, to waste resources, both natural and human.
https://lists.freedesktop.org/...
Specifically:
> Unless the systemd-haters prepare another kdbus userspace until
> then this will effectively also mean that we will not support
> non-systemd systems with udev anymore starting at that point.
> Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call.
>
> Lennart
Now another thing in there. Just because I prefer not to run systemd, I have been characterized as a "hater". Other than the fact that I'm also not into Taylor Swift, I'm not that much into the whole "hater" thing, but I recognize that I'm being categorized and insulted.
I actually tried being an early adopter of systemd, years before its widespread adoption, and found that it didn't work for me. By the time it started getting widespread adoption, the THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE! attitude really annoyed me. If it were just the attitude I could probably get over it, but I also have technical and software-philosophical objections. But none of that appears to matter in discourse, because it all comes down to haters and steamrollers, instead of real discussion.
I have this ugly feeling that by "people" this bill means "corporations", not us ugly-bags-of-mostly-water.