I think you're missing something - Nielsen is gathering data to answer specific questions. When they call you, and ask you questions, and rule you out, that means you have no useful input for the specific questions they need answered right now.
If they ruled you out because you don't have a TV, the chances are they wanted to know what ad supported content you were watching on TV, so that people who make ad supported content have some idea what percentage of people who watch ad supported content were watching their ad supported content.
You saying "I've cut the cord, I never see ads now" basically means you can't answer that question (except in saying "None".)
Likewise if a car company wanted to know what percentage of car drivers want to switch to electric vehicles, and they called you, and you said "Actually, I use public transport", you may be able to give useful answers to a question about the most popular way to get around town, but not about whether to make more electric cars vs ICE cars.
People get upset about Nielsen because they think Nielsen just wants to know what's popular. They don't. That's not what they're trying to find out.
I think we have the same term being used for two completely different things. It's technically possible ISPs will go overboard and ban both "VPNs - commercial services offering proxies" and "VPNs - connections to business's private networks", but it'd be a little like Congress deciding to take action on "Hackers" by passing a law banning IP spoofing, exploiting stack overflows, and the sale of axes and machetes.
Ah, so (still confused, but I think I see what you're getting at) - are you saying it was a straightforward "You can choose our terms or the GPLs, but if you choose the latter you don't get the software at all (from us, but who else are you going to get it from if nobody else has it who hasn't agreed to our terms)?"
Because yes, I can understand why that would be a problem. Part of me is fearful it might still actually be legal to do that.
I'm confused, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I'm having trouble with this:
Let's say you warn someone in advance that you will harm their business by withdrawing their support and removing them from your customer list, should they exercise their right which is granted to them under the GPL. That's adding a term.
I'm not sure how it's adding a term unless one of the rights granted by the GPL is one of those that the "warning" is stating will be taken away. As I see it, this is little different to a straightforward "You can use this under the GPL, or you can voluntarily give up your rights under the GPL and accept this combination of rights and restrictions instead. Your choice." I don't see the latter as violating the GPL in any way - if it does, perhaps that means we need to revisit what the GPL does, as it's perfectly reasonable under certain circumstances.
For example, if someone wants me to support a piece of software, I don't want them to make changes to it without my knowledge, otherwise it's impossible for me to adequately support them. But if your reading of the GPL is correct, then if the heart of the software is GPL'd, I wouldn't be able to have them to make that agreement, especially if I supply the software to them.
Also worth pointing out - and I'm not expressing any views on Multics myself here - while it's technically correct that Unix was "inspired" by Multics, it was inspired as in "You're doing it all wrong! THIS is how you should write an operating system." Ken Thompson and Dennis Richie felt Multics was far too complex and reliant upon unusual hardware. Multics was also one of the more serious attempts to create proto-cloud computing - the concept was that people wouldn't own computers, they'd just pay AT&T for an account and a connection to a computer AT&T would own - plus, you know, per minute fees, per CPU cycle fees, per kilobyte fees, etc. How much this played into the design - beyond obvious issues like security - I can't comment upon, but I do know it meant the design wasn't dependent upon concepts like "Really should run on conventional computer designs."
As I understand it, there's very, very, very, little resemblance between the two beyond what you'd expect between two operating systems that shared some designers.
The reason it's going ahead is to prevent another Adobe Flash.
No, it doesn't. It replaces Flash with different-Flash.
Again: ECE is NOT A DRM SCHEME. It is a standardized interface to a NON-STANDARD plug-in framework where the PLUG-INs implement DRM.
Basically, after getting rid of Flash, we're now going back to a Flash equivalent - in some ways, worse, because Flash implemented video UIs slightly more efficiently than the half assed combination of HTML5 and PROPRIETARY PLATFORM AND BROWSER SPECIFIC plugins that this MORONIC proposal entails.
As I said, the only three companies supporting it are the three with media shops. No other browsers are behind this proposal. It's pretty easy to see why, and only hard if you're stupid enough to think ECE is a DRM scheme.
Well, not entirely true, there's a case of a Judge torturing a defendant with electric shocks a decade or two ago. The defendant was fitted with a device to administer them if he got violent, but she was using it because he was speaking out of turn.
But... yeah, leaving aside the fact judges aren't trained to be violent in certain circumstances, the major difference is that courts are generally open and there are witnesses to the proceedings who are mandated to be there, including lawyers who - whatever their reputation - are not going to lie or mislead about violence in a court room. So there are checks already. It's not just that judges are less prone to this kind of abuse.
ECE is not a standardized DRM system like CSS if that's what you think. It's essentially another plug-in architecture and has all the problems associated with plug-ins, including browser, CPU, and operating system dependence, a lack of mandated security, and so on.
Indeed, this is the fundamental problem with the W3C - this is an organization that's supposed to be standardizing the web, and it's actually unstandardizing it with proposals like this one. This proposal will force a situation where webmasters will be actively encouiraged to create websites that only work in certain browsers and on certain operating systems.
It's totally fucked up and the only reason it's going ahead is because three of four major browser makers own their own streaming media stores. Literally, that's the only reason.
I think Slashdot is posting articles from David Brooks, one of the world's worst columnists, on Brooks being annoyed nobody wants to hang out with him any more.
That's what I think.
What next? Tom Friedman on how we'll find out if the next iPhone is a success in the next six months, and what his cabbie thinks about that?
but the regularity one might travel can change. I remember in college I'd avoid visiting my parents if I didn't have gas money. With a round trip of about 300 miles that meant roughly a tank of gas in my Oldsmobile.
This is true, but again, people in that situation are not the majority, and it's not even like adding an occasional additional round trip to visit your parents was likely to double your yearly fuel usage.
In practice we'd be looking at a small percentage of people increasing their fuel usage by a small percentage. It's too little an increase to worry about compared to the massive decreases in fuel usage over all.
The idea of scraping 10 year old cars in the name of saving the environment is abhorent.
This is 2040 we're aiming for. Volvo are saying they're not selling any non-electric cars (albeit they'll continue to sell hybrids) from 2020. Given the current landscape, I'd be surprised if all others aren't electric/hybrid only by 2025.
So, no, we're not talking about 10 year old cars being scrapped.
That might be true in some places in Europe where the taxation on gas is fairly high, but speaking from the US here, I'm pretty confident it's a small percentage of car owners over here who think "I better not drive now, it'll waste gasoline." At some point, there's an upper limit to how much time anyone in their right mind wants to spend in a cramped metal box concentrating on keeping it straight and preventing it from crashing into something else.
Even if it gets better with self-driving vehicles, with people feeling the time in the car isn't wasted as they can at least read or watch TV, the reality is there's only so far anyone wants to travel.
The Democrats didn't raise any sticks about the election itself being hacked, you just made that up. The Russia issue relates to things they did to influence the election, such as releasing Clinton's emails without releasing Trump's, and some peripheral issues relating to the possibility they might have been planning to disrupt the election itself by manipulating voting lists, not actually changing the results.
But yeah, let's check them. Let's get an independent commission to investigate, made up on non-controversial experts who aren't pushing an agenda, and have a documented history of lying and bad faith when pushing that agenda in the past. Let's make it legal, and ensure that requests for data come with guarantees that data will not be misused.
In other words, let's do the exact damned opposite of what Trump's investigation is doing.
If there's a bug in the kernel that allows arbitrary code injection (say, a buffer overflow), it'll be harder for that code to operate because it'll have no idea where anything is.
Depending on the exploit, this may make it practically impossible to use the exploit in the real world.
Bear in mind there are two factors that lead H.264 to end up the standard for the web:
1. There was some controversy as to whether the rival codecs (WebM etc) being offered by Google et al were actually as good at similar bitrates. There wasn't a consensus, with a significant number of people saying WebM was slightly worse.
2. Apple, at an early stage, threw it's weight behind H.264 and refused to support WebM at all, including in the web browser. Meaning that every streaming company had to either support H.264, or forget about iPhone and iPad devices (even if they wrote custom apps to bypass the lack of browser support, the lack of hardware support would mean low battery lives.)
Will this be different? I'm not certain, it's nice to see streaming media companies take an interest, but unless everyone from Apple to Roku also takes AV1 seriously, or more seriously than H.265, then we may end up with a repeat of the same situation.
I just Googled serviscope's statement and I found a lot of links to articles about the systemd controversy, plus a Stack Overflow where someone asks why, and is told emphatically that he's wrong - but in all cases the links are to, and quotes are from, manpages, not to a standards document blessed by RMS, the LSB people, or anyone else.
I can believe that this is the standard though I disagree with the rationale, which seems to be "Then someone could create a username that's all digits fooling applications that allow you to specify either a UID or username" (I've never come across an application that does, but assuming some do, so what? They shouldn't) but it'd be nice to see an actual formal document, followed by all mainstream GNU/Linux distributions as a matter of policy, that mandates this.
Legroom was foremost on my mind, which is literally why I haven't flown since 2002 and have no intention to do so.
The problem with airlines is they think that the race to the bottom just means whoever reaches the bottom first gets all the customers. It actually, in practice, means that people start avoiding their industry altogether because they can't get an acceptable product.
In virtually every market, that's not what happens. There's an initial boost of sales, and then they taper off, and start to reduce across the market as a whole. People stop using your services unless there literally are no other options. A handful continue, because somehow the crap you're marketing still appeals to them, and as a result, because those people still praise your godawful services you think you're winning, and that you're just facing a tougher market. Whereas, infact, the market is "tough" because you no longer supply the product people want, and you've done everything possible to make people associate your services with misery and pain.
I expect this airline to do it. And in doing so, they'll once more reduce the number of flyers.
In the labor market, workers provide the supply and businesses provide the demand. Imposing a minimum wage that's greater than what results from an efficient market should result in higher pay but fewer workers. This is taught in introductory economics courses and makes intuitive sense that increasing the cost of labor will result in fewer people being employed.
If your "intuitive" "introductory economics courses" are teaching you that businesses are closed systems, then you should slap your economics professor around with a copy of The General Theory and walk out.
Businesses are not closed systems. It might be true that a single business raising wages might find it has less money to spend on workers, but there's no reason to assume it's true if all businesses raise wages.
Raising wages means that someone has more disposable income to spend. Doing that for a significant number of people who have no disposable income (like minimum wage employees) is going to raise incomes for local businesses. That means more money, not less, to spend on employing people. At worst, the vast majority of employers in a community where all have raised wages for those with the least disposable income should be able to employ just as many workers after they've raised those wages. At best, they should be able to employ more than they were before they raised incomes.
One of us has this backwards... It looks to me like in both cases Lennart is saying that systemd follows the Linux standard, not POSIX. Under the Linux rules on usernames they can't start with a number, so using "0day" as a username is invalid and the service won't start because the user doesn't exist.
Neither of us have it backwards. First ticket is Lennart essentially saying "It's OK for systemd to run an application as root when a user specifies an username beginning with a digit because I (Lennart) think the user has made an error, a username shouldn't begin with a digit (his justification being what you're saying.) The second is saying "We shouldn't treat a username beginning with a digit as an error".
It's debatable it is a "Linux" standard to begin with. Only one of the two command line tools to add users actually enforces this supposed rule. Literally nothing else does. The kernel is agnostic. And the command line tools aren't Linux, they're GNU. So what we're looking for is evidence that (1) RMS or an officer blessed by RMS has declared this to be a standard and (2) No declaration since has placed POSIX compatibility ahead of legacy GNU functionality.
Both tickets are entirely reasonable and not one of them should have been closed without discussion. Actually, let me correct that, the first should have been closed with just a note along the lines of "Fuck me! You're right! Personally I think {Inserts personal beliefs about "Linux"'s username policy here} so I'll just have it output an error message and not start the daemon", not "Ha, user is an idiot! LOL ROLF APK!! EVERYONE knows usernames begin with letters LOL! Root privileges for everyone!"
Not a Lennart critic in general (I usually defend systemd) but I think the GP has a point here.
- The first bug was closed immediately despite systemd treating what Lennart considers an error (debatable) in the worst way possible - escalating a process to root privileges when the user is clearly stating it shouldn't.
- The second bug is an attempt to say "OK, we'll play your game, if you're saying that's correct behavior because of {another issue}, then let's state that {another issue} is also a bug because that's not right either.
In both cases Lennart has immediately closed the ticket without waiting for discussion. He may or may not have reasonable reasons for initially opposing the tickets (he doesn't in the first ticket's case, he absolutely doesn't - root privileges because a username (which you're not even going to bother validating) doesn't look right?! - which is what the GP is complaining about.
This is, frankly, horrifying. systemd is a key part of the GNU/Linux infrastructure, and it exists for a reason: to remove the reliance on shitty, fragile, shell scripts that were all-too-easily made insecure through ignorance or haste. Those who develop it must, absolutely must, listen to and take seriously security concerns. Closing two tickets in a row, immediately, without discussion, concerning a major privilege escalation, still worse because of logic that ultimately boils down to "The user should be smart enough to know some username rules that some developer somewhere pulled out of their arse and which only one or two tools actually enforce", is ridiculously incompetent.
The overall homicide rate seems to have dropped off after 2002, before which it seemed to be rising. The gun ban was in 1996 from what I can find out, although presumably it wasn't instantaneous and the affects would have taken a few years to filter through.
It at least appears that the gun ban had an affect, although not a dramatic one, on homicides in Australia.
Tylenol is what most people call the drug in the US. In fact, I don't know anywhere where acetaminophen is the common name. In English speaking parts of Yurp, it's usually called "Paracetamol", for example. Using the technically correct generic term would confuse more than it would help.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're missing something - Nielsen is gathering data to answer specific questions. When they call you, and ask you questions, and rule you out, that means you have no useful input for the specific questions they need answered right now.
If they ruled you out because you don't have a TV, the chances are they wanted to know what ad supported content you were watching on TV, so that people who make ad supported content have some idea what percentage of people who watch ad supported content were watching their ad supported content.
You saying "I've cut the cord, I never see ads now" basically means you can't answer that question (except in saying "None".)
Likewise if a car company wanted to know what percentage of car drivers want to switch to electric vehicles, and they called you, and you said "Actually, I use public transport", you may be able to give useful answers to a question about the most popular way to get around town, but not about whether to make more electric cars vs ICE cars.
People get upset about Nielsen because they think Nielsen just wants to know what's popular. They don't. That's not what they're trying to find out.
I think we have the same term being used for two completely different things. It's technically possible ISPs will go overboard and ban both "VPNs - commercial services offering proxies" and "VPNs - connections to business's private networks", but it'd be a little like Congress deciding to take action on "Hackers" by passing a law banning IP spoofing, exploiting stack overflows, and the sale of axes and machetes.
Ah, so (still confused, but I think I see what you're getting at) - are you saying it was a straightforward "You can choose our terms or the GPLs, but if you choose the latter you don't get the software at all (from us, but who else are you going to get it from if nobody else has it who hasn't agreed to our terms)?"
Because yes, I can understand why that would be a problem. Part of me is fearful it might still actually be legal to do that.
I'm confused, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I'm having trouble with this:
I'm not sure how it's adding a term unless one of the rights granted by the GPL is one of those that the "warning" is stating will be taken away. As I see it, this is little different to a straightforward "You can use this under the GPL, or you can voluntarily give up your rights under the GPL and accept this combination of rights and restrictions instead. Your choice." I don't see the latter as violating the GPL in any way - if it does, perhaps that means we need to revisit what the GPL does, as it's perfectly reasonable under certain circumstances.
For example, if someone wants me to support a piece of software, I don't want them to make changes to it without my knowledge, otherwise it's impossible for me to adequately support them. But if your reading of the GPL is correct, then if the heart of the software is GPL'd, I wouldn't be able to have them to make that agreement, especially if I supply the software to them.
Also worth pointing out - and I'm not expressing any views on Multics myself here - while it's technically correct that Unix was "inspired" by Multics, it was inspired as in "You're doing it all wrong! THIS is how you should write an operating system." Ken Thompson and Dennis Richie felt Multics was far too complex and reliant upon unusual hardware. Multics was also one of the more serious attempts to create proto-cloud computing - the concept was that people wouldn't own computers, they'd just pay AT&T for an account and a connection to a computer AT&T would own - plus, you know, per minute fees, per CPU cycle fees, per kilobyte fees, etc. How much this played into the design - beyond obvious issues like security - I can't comment upon, but I do know it meant the design wasn't dependent upon concepts like "Really should run on conventional computer designs."
As I understand it, there's very, very, very, little resemblance between the two beyond what you'd expect between two operating systems that shared some designers.
No, it doesn't. It replaces Flash with different-Flash.
Again: ECE is NOT A DRM SCHEME. It is a standardized interface to a NON-STANDARD plug-in framework where the PLUG-INs implement DRM.
Basically, after getting rid of Flash, we're now going back to a Flash equivalent - in some ways, worse, because Flash implemented video UIs slightly more efficiently than the half assed combination of HTML5 and PROPRIETARY PLATFORM AND BROWSER SPECIFIC plugins that this MORONIC proposal entails.
As I said, the only three companies supporting it are the three with media shops. No other browsers are behind this proposal. It's pretty easy to see why, and only hard if you're stupid enough to think ECE is a DRM scheme.
Well, not entirely true, there's a case of a Judge torturing a defendant with electric shocks a decade or two ago. The defendant was fitted with a device to administer them if he got violent, but she was using it because he was speaking out of turn.
But... yeah, leaving aside the fact judges aren't trained to be violent in certain circumstances, the major difference is that courts are generally open and there are witnesses to the proceedings who are mandated to be there, including lawyers who - whatever their reputation - are not going to lie or mislead about violence in a court room. So there are checks already. It's not just that judges are less prone to this kind of abuse.
ECE is not a standardized DRM system like CSS if that's what you think. It's essentially another plug-in architecture and has all the problems associated with plug-ins, including browser, CPU, and operating system dependence, a lack of mandated security, and so on.
Indeed, this is the fundamental problem with the W3C - this is an organization that's supposed to be standardizing the web, and it's actually unstandardizing it with proposals like this one. This proposal will force a situation where webmasters will be actively encouiraged to create websites that only work in certain browsers and on certain operating systems.
It's totally fucked up and the only reason it's going ahead is because three of four major browser makers own their own streaming media stores. Literally, that's the only reason.
What do I think?
I think Slashdot is posting articles from David Brooks, one of the world's worst columnists, on Brooks being annoyed nobody wants to hang out with him any more.
That's what I think.
What next? Tom Friedman on how we'll find out if the next iPhone is a success in the next six months, and what his cabbie thinks about that?
This is true, but again, people in that situation are not the majority, and it's not even like adding an occasional additional round trip to visit your parents was likely to double your yearly fuel usage.
In practice we'd be looking at a small percentage of people increasing their fuel usage by a small percentage. It's too little an increase to worry about compared to the massive decreases in fuel usage over all.
This is 2040 we're aiming for. Volvo are saying they're not selling any non-electric cars (albeit they'll continue to sell hybrids) from 2020. Given the current landscape, I'd be surprised if all others aren't electric/hybrid only by 2025.
So, no, we're not talking about 10 year old cars being scrapped.
That might be true in some places in Europe where the taxation on gas is fairly high, but speaking from the US here, I'm pretty confident it's a small percentage of car owners over here who think "I better not drive now, it'll waste gasoline." At some point, there's an upper limit to how much time anyone in their right mind wants to spend in a cramped metal box concentrating on keeping it straight and preventing it from crashing into something else.
Even if it gets better with self-driving vehicles, with people feeling the time in the car isn't wasted as they can at least read or watch TV, the reality is there's only so far anyone wants to travel.
The Democrats didn't raise any sticks about the election itself being hacked, you just made that up. The Russia issue relates to things they did to influence the election, such as releasing Clinton's emails without releasing Trump's, and some peripheral issues relating to the possibility they might have been planning to disrupt the election itself by manipulating voting lists, not actually changing the results.
But yeah, let's check them. Let's get an independent commission to investigate, made up on non-controversial experts who aren't pushing an agenda, and have a documented history of lying and bad faith when pushing that agenda in the past. Let's make it legal, and ensure that requests for data come with guarantees that data will not be misused.
In other words, let's do the exact damned opposite of what Trump's investigation is doing.
If there's a bug in the kernel that allows arbitrary code injection (say, a buffer overflow), it'll be harder for that code to operate because it'll have no idea where anything is.
Depending on the exploit, this may make it practically impossible to use the exploit in the real world.
Bear in mind there are two factors that lead H.264 to end up the standard for the web:
1. There was some controversy as to whether the rival codecs (WebM etc) being offered by Google et al were actually as good at similar bitrates. There wasn't a consensus, with a significant number of people saying WebM was slightly worse.
2. Apple, at an early stage, threw it's weight behind H.264 and refused to support WebM at all, including in the web browser. Meaning that every streaming company had to either support H.264, or forget about iPhone and iPad devices (even if they wrote custom apps to bypass the lack of browser support, the lack of hardware support would mean low battery lives.)
Will this be different? I'm not certain, it's nice to see streaming media companies take an interest, but unless everyone from Apple to Roku also takes AV1 seriously, or more seriously than H.265, then we may end up with a repeat of the same situation.
I just Googled serviscope's statement and I found a lot of links to articles about the systemd controversy, plus a Stack Overflow where someone asks why, and is told emphatically that he's wrong - but in all cases the links are to, and quotes are from, manpages, not to a standards document blessed by RMS, the LSB people, or anyone else.
I can believe that this is the standard though I disagree with the rationale, which seems to be "Then someone could create a username that's all digits fooling applications that allow you to specify either a UID or username" (I've never come across an application that does, but assuming some do, so what? They shouldn't) but it'd be nice to see an actual formal document, followed by all mainstream GNU/Linux distributions as a matter of policy, that mandates this.
Legroom was foremost on my mind, which is literally why I haven't flown since 2002 and have no intention to do so.
The problem with airlines is they think that the race to the bottom just means whoever reaches the bottom first gets all the customers. It actually, in practice, means that people start avoiding their industry altogether because they can't get an acceptable product.
In virtually every market, that's not what happens. There's an initial boost of sales, and then they taper off, and start to reduce across the market as a whole. People stop using your services unless there literally are no other options. A handful continue, because somehow the crap you're marketing still appeals to them, and as a result, because those people still praise your godawful services you think you're winning, and that you're just facing a tougher market. Whereas, infact, the market is "tough" because you no longer supply the product people want, and you've done everything possible to make people associate your services with misery and pain.
I expect this airline to do it. And in doing so, they'll once more reduce the number of flyers.
If your "intuitive" "introductory economics courses" are teaching you that businesses are closed systems, then you should slap your economics professor around with a copy of The General Theory and walk out.
Businesses are not closed systems. It might be true that a single business raising wages might find it has less money to spend on workers, but there's no reason to assume it's true if all businesses raise wages.
Raising wages means that someone has more disposable income to spend. Doing that for a significant number of people who have no disposable income (like minimum wage employees) is going to raise incomes for local businesses. That means more money, not less, to spend on employing people. At worst, the vast majority of employers in a community where all have raised wages for those with the least disposable income should be able to employ just as many workers after they've raised those wages. At best, they should be able to employ more than they were before they raised incomes.
Wait, where did you get the latest draft of the AHCA?
Neither of us have it backwards. First ticket is Lennart essentially saying "It's OK for systemd to run an application as root when a user specifies an username beginning with a digit because I (Lennart) think the user has made an error, a username shouldn't begin with a digit (his justification being what you're saying.) The second is saying "We shouldn't treat a username beginning with a digit as an error".
It's debatable it is a "Linux" standard to begin with. Only one of the two command line tools to add users actually enforces this supposed rule. Literally nothing else does. The kernel is agnostic. And the command line tools aren't Linux, they're GNU. So what we're looking for is evidence that (1) RMS or an officer blessed by RMS has declared this to be a standard and (2) No declaration since has placed POSIX compatibility ahead of legacy GNU functionality.
Both tickets are entirely reasonable and not one of them should have been closed without discussion. Actually, let me correct that, the first should have been closed with just a note along the lines of "Fuck me! You're right! Personally I think {Inserts personal beliefs about "Linux"'s username policy here} so I'll just have it output an error message and not start the daemon", not "Ha, user is an idiot! LOL ROLF APK!! EVERYONE knows usernames begin with letters LOL! Root privileges for everyone!"
Not a Lennart critic in general (I usually defend systemd) but I think the GP has a point here.
- The first bug was closed immediately despite systemd treating what Lennart considers an error (debatable) in the worst way possible - escalating a process to root privileges when the user is clearly stating it shouldn't.
- The second bug is an attempt to say "OK, we'll play your game, if you're saying that's correct behavior because of {another issue}, then let's state that {another issue} is also a bug because that's not right either.
In both cases Lennart has immediately closed the ticket without waiting for discussion. He may or may not have reasonable reasons for initially opposing the tickets (he doesn't in the first ticket's case, he absolutely doesn't - root privileges because a username (which you're not even going to bother validating) doesn't look right?! - which is what the GP is complaining about.
This is, frankly, horrifying. systemd is a key part of the GNU/Linux infrastructure, and it exists for a reason: to remove the reliance on shitty, fragile, shell scripts that were all-too-easily made insecure through ignorance or haste. Those who develop it must, absolutely must, listen to and take seriously security concerns. Closing two tickets in a row, immediately, without discussion, concerning a major privilege escalation, still worse because of logic that ultimately boils down to "The user should be smart enough to know some username rules that some developer somewhere pulled out of their arse and which only one or two tools actually enforce", is ridiculously incompetent.
The overall homicide rate seems to have dropped off after 2002, before which it seemed to be rising. The gun ban was in 1996 from what I can find out, although presumably it wasn't instantaneous and the affects would have taken a few years to filter through.
It at least appears that the gun ban had an affect, although not a dramatic one, on homicides in Australia.
Tylenol is what most people call the drug in the US. In fact, I don't know anywhere where acetaminophen is the common name. In English speaking parts of Yurp, it's usually called "Paracetamol", for example. Using the technically correct generic term would confuse more than it would help.
Yes, everyone should stick to PHP and C until they do something about the security issues in Java.
TIL Pearl Harbor is in Yurp.