Maybe nobody cares about "compliance" with an artificial formal standard, they care about compliance with the standard code that needs compiling.
C++ requires compliance because it introduces a lot of complexity, and most users don't use the whole thing. Different combinations of these complicated features bring about different types of compilation bugs. There is an increased need for standardization.
With plain C, there is a lot more convention, and also things are simply more straightforwards due to dearth of features.
Maybe the people who care about C compiler compliance only care about real-world compliance because there is no corporate sponsor to worry about marketing the language? There could be just as much effort put into making actual use cases work well, just without the formalization.
Because no one has ever tried a natural language programming language
They don't know about Perl because it is write-only, just like most natural languages. "That isn't what I said!" "Yes it is, I recorded it." "Well... it isn't what I meant!"
There is actually a lot of serious civic theory and debate on the issue; many American lawyers would say that excessive reliance on perceived or claimed intent creates an avenue for prosecutorial and judicial expansion of laws because of the difficulty of pinning down intent. That is why in the US, the plain wording of the law is the most important thing, and then intent of the law is used as an additional constraint. So the law has to apply both in actual words, and also in intent.
Also, the idea that the intent of a law is more clear to the average man is exactly the sort of nonsense that this situation refutes. The average man is perfectly willing to credulously believe the lawyers when they insist that there is a loophole, and not only that, that the loophole was clearly intended by the way the law was written or it wouldn't exist. That is even when other lawyers were saying all along, there is no loophole there. The laws don't overlap, there isn't a continuous and seamless enforcement mechanism, but nevertheless any purported tax avoidance schemes would not be legal in Europe even if you point at a supposed loophole, because they're unfair or anti-competitive.
So how does a layperson know which intent is the one to focus on? The one lawyer asks them to, or the one that says, "If it makes a difference which country you're incorporated in, then that violates the intent of a common market." People who don't have a lawyer handy to ask not going to have any better way to understand intent than they have to understand wording.
That isn't a "problem," it is the situation the artists asked for; giving away exclusivity over some of your stuff reduces the value of the rest of your stuff for people who don't have the exclusive access. Duh.
What you said is just a re-phrasing from the "whiny artist" perspective. I'm assuming most of their contract negotiations had a conversation with their manager like, "So, like, exclusive means I get paid more, right?" "Yes" and fast forwards to now, "hey, what do you mean there is a tradeoff, what do you mean I thumbed my nose at spotify?"
The only thing dumber than artists using proprietary platforms that barely pay them anything is artists complaining that the proprietary platforms are greedy. Well, golly gee, you don't say?!?
What happened to the concept of a free society where every citizen may demand of the government to know if a particular action is legal or not...before doing it?
Nothing "happened" to it, that was never an actual concept. Perhaps it was from a Heinlein book and you misremembered?
The government enacts laws. They have to meet various basic requirements because Freedom. That is all true. But there is nothing about free binding legal opinions from the government. Sounds nice, but if it ever happens you'll know. If you're an American, it will have an Amendment number and will be on the news all month if it happens.
People pointed out it was illegal all along, and pundits waved their hands and insisted it doesn't matter because Apple is a big boy and the other cool kids are doing it to, so nobody can stop them.
Those pundits were not still listening to those who had said it was illegal, but the response all along was, "the EU might not care how cool they are. What if the judges are frumpy?"
Slashdot crackpots keep repeating that, as if tax breaks were not already a known form of subsidy when the EU started regulating subsidies. It is what was regulated all along; money the government gives directly to help companies, money that they choose not to collect from those companies, even money spent on other things intended to benefit the company.
Also, EU not UN. But even if we give that one out as a free brain fart; your idea is still totally ignorant.
Regulating subsidies, including attempts at finding loopholes to enact subsidies, is a major part of EU agreements. And generally under EU law, loopholes don't exist. Finding a loophole just means there wasn't an enforcement mechanism in place, and they'll have to use a generic action based on the clear intent of the law. Here in the US, loopholes work because our legal system is hyper-technical. In Europe they're a lot more deliberative, and the law places more weight on intent than on wording. And a good thing, too, since it all has to be translated into zillions of languages.
Ireland tried to get a shit deal, because local governments always love to bring home shit for their constituents, but the EU is forcing them to get a normal, legal deal. Ooops! This EU thing would have sure helped out during the potato famine!
However, you can't claim you're owed past money when Apple wasn't hiding anything.
That is a very strange legal theory. I don't think you're going to get very far with that. The question is, was their claimed loophole legal, not "did they admit to using the loophole they claimed existed, but that had not been intended by the law."
There were various parties in Europe saying at the time that such loopholes didn't exist, they just didn't have a mechanism in place to stop them right away and it would take extra time to collect those taxes.
Lots of schemes are unlawful even when you didn't "hide" what you were doing.
Why would Spotify feature artists they're not making as much money on? Anyone who's surprised by this is probably the same sort of person who asks their waiter for a food recommendation at a restaurant (hint: it's whichever entree gets him the bigger tip). If you think any company's curated list of [product] is more than an excuse to push the products they make the most money off of, I've got a bridge to sell you.
The claims that Spotify is intentionally manipulating their search results is just dumb.
I imagine a musician sitting around talking about the money they got from Apple, and saying, "wtf does `exclusive' mean anyway?"
That's what it means, nobody else is gonna be selling it. And knowing that they won't be ever selling any of your new stuff, even if you're the new Elvis, they won't care about trying to sell your old stuff unless you were already Elvis.
If you sold exclusive rights, you already paid a lot of opportunity cost. When Spotify ignores you, you asked them to.
Then they truly have no fan base and should find a day job. Concerts really are where a musician makes their money. If they can't make money doing that part, they simply can't make money as a musical act. If they're really a good musician, they should at least quit their band and try to get some session work, or teach lessons.
How about the joy of finding a way to tell a fully autonomous car to dart into a gap at the airport arrivals/departure scrum?
There is no scrum, the traffic computer scheduled everybody's access already and instead there is a timer on the dash telling you how long the car will be stationary. The scrum is caused by two things, ignorance (of where everybody is and where they are going, etc) and indecision. Traffic computers will solve both of these.
Even in the shorter term, where there won't be an airport traffic computer, and there will be a mix of human and computer drivers, there won't be much problem because generally you will be waiting in a line for the next available spot, and the computers can probably handle that situation fairly easily. There might be edge cases where your car wouldn't take the first spot because somebody kicked a traffic cone into it, and a human driver wouldn't car about clipping the cone, or driving near it. But those won't be major frustrations to somebody reading a book or jeejah and waiting for the car to tell them that they have arrived.
My point flew right over your head, you didn't say anything about why I'm wrong, all you did is state the opposite.
And it is nonsensical; he isn't being asked for something different than anybody else, and taking a principled stand. He's hiding something that he knew he would be expected to provide, so obviously he has something to hide.
If it was going to be boring, he'd have to be a complete idiot not to release it. Which is more likely, that he has an IQ under 65 and throws a temper tantrum when his lawyers tell him it is OK to release it, or that he has at least normal intelligence and has embarrassing stuff to hide?
If there was nothing else going on, no refusal to release it, then the default idea would be as you say. But when there is an active refusal that leaves him unqualified for the job he's applying for, even in the eyes of many members of his own party, he has to either have yuuuuuuuge stuff to hide, or he's yuuuuuuuugely more stupid than he looks.
Right, things I didn't say, that you somehow thought were "suggested," that you have been told were neither said nor meant, OK, at that point you've established completely and without question that you misread it. And you're still defending your misreading of what I said. Pathetic. Really.
Actually Trump's personal income taxes would probably be quite boring
LOL nobody is going to believe that doozy. If it was going to be boring, he would release it, because it is part of what is seen as the basic application requirements for the position.
If it was a document nobody else has to share, like a freakin' birth certificate, it would be reasonable to assume that it would be boring, and that the reason it isn't provided is because nobody else was asked for it and that is unfair. But when it is something that every other candidate provides, except for 1 guy, then you can bet that it is anything but boring.
Or look at it this way: Almost everybody assumes he's hiding something big. The actual thing that it is, has to be bigger than what he thinks people will assume. There has to be something yuuuuuuuuuge in there for him to attempt to run for President without even submitting the full application that the voters expect.
And by "had a header," he actually means, there was an inline capital letter C enclosed in parentheses.
You lie and lie and lie and lie and just assume that eventually you'll have the moral high ground, if you only say enough bad things about somebody else.
You're actually upset that Hillary discussed her schedule with her aides in the wrong way, because you presume that her daily schedule is as secret as nuclear launch codes. To most people, her schedule is classified to protect her, and she would ultimately be the one who makes decisions about communicating details of it to her aides while in the field.
It isn't a trope, I mean it literally and I stand by that as my choice of words. A trope is a figurative or metaphorical statement. For example, describing the act of governance as "guiding the ship of State," that is a trope. When I said "I don't think that word means what you think it means," I meant exactly that; no metaphor involved. "Criminal" is a specific word, that has meaning, and it is not figurative. And likewise, when I say it was used incorrectly, I mean that an incorrect meaning was used. It does not actually mean, "stuff that twists my underpants." See, there I was speaking figuratively. Can you tell the difference, or are there more words involved that you don't understand?
Words have meanings, and meaning matters.
I never disputed that I'm an asshole, so who cares? If you think I'm "insincere" that just shows you're an idiot who can't imagine people who come to different conclusions than you actually came to different conclusions than you.
I'd rather be "lazy and stupid" than an aliterate ignoramus.
No, I didn't say they're an "unknowable force dealing with the unknown." I said it is known that they deal in misinformation, have formal permission for lots of secret activities, have a large budget the details of which are secret, and it is their job to hide or obscure all the details of all that. It isn't unknown what their job is; it is known exactly where they are working when and in what way, etc, etc.
If you can't tell the difference between known unknowns and known knowns, you might as well not even bother. A known force with known formal powers and known jurisdiction, whose specific activities are both secret, and protected. That is pretty fucking far from an "unknowable force dealing with the unknown." And yet, you can never say anything particularly definitive or specific about them.
And then you talk about "wake up to what is going on," oh, what exactly "is going on?" You don't have any way to measure what anybody claims about that. And guess what! I don't have any way to weigh or measure what you say, either. You're just a guy waving his hands, insisting that their is a conspiracy of some sort, and that you know about it, and apparently you even think you have power to stop it, or else who cares if I "wake up?" The only way you can influence what the NSA does is by being in the Senate and being on the Intelligence Committee. And that committee isn't going to even want to change any of the things you may or may not actually be complaining about.
The only way I would have any reason to want to "wake up" and pretend I know what they are doing is if I was working for them. Because otherwise, there is really no utility in pretending to know shit that trained intelligence professionals with nearly unlimited resources have gone out of their way to obscure.
Conspiracy theorists are so credulous, they even believe stuff where the only evidence that it even exists are anonymous statements by professional liars [spies] purportedly made to journalists.
It is so impossible to believe anybody that you can't even be sure: A) That Snowden isn't still working for the NSA, with all the leaks being to distract from the real programs, or B) That Snowden was actually working for the Russians all along, and that they made up everything he pretended to leak, or C) That Snowden did work for the NSA, but most of what he leaked were lies that are planted in the systems in order to distract from or hide the real programs in case of a leak/theft. None of those scenarios are different than the type of things that are known from the history of espionage, nor are any of those actually stranger than the claims! There is no way to know at all, every potential party that would have access to actual information is a tainted party with clear potential motivations to lie, training in different ways to mislead you, and resources to carry it out on multiple tracks.
Many people don't know why they're expected to share their returns, or when it started. They don't realize that when President Nixon said, "I am not a crook!" he wasn't talking about the Watergate break-in scandal, he was talking about his low tax rate and was insisting that his lack of direct participation in taxation was legal.
The whole point is to lay your connections bare, show that you pay your share, show what your lot in life actually is.
Trump says, hey, it is none of your business who he is, who he is connected to, what his lot in life is; he's just running for President, he's not required to convince you of all that. And it is true; nothing requires him to campaign in a way that meets the minimum requirements of the mainstream voters.
And WTF does being audited have to do with any of it? You should be telling the truth perfectly during an audit. He hasn't even made any sort of specific case as to why being under audit makes an different. As in, on the level of verbs, what does he think will happen? What is the concern? No answer.
You say something about "criminal" stuff in regards to Clinton, but I don't think that word means what you think it means. I suggest looking it up.
I didn't say "I make heavy use of media big I'm a bigshot, so I need a belt AND suspenders!"
Who cares if you make heavy use? What does that tell you about what problems I have? Nothing. And it doesn't make the bugs I hit not exist, either. There are lots of mount-related bugs that have been known for years and years and don't get fixed because A) there are work-arounds and B) using traditional mount processes, they don't produce any log noise. That is a big thing with systemd; it exposes bugs by giving a shit. It is replacing a mishmash of base services that didn't give a shit. That exposes existing non-critical bugs. That is a good thing, if you care about details of your system, and value software that works.
You weren't asked to "buy" an argument. I pointed out facts, that are reasons people have. You don't have to know or be able to understand the performance difference between being able to have a rarely-used service NOT running until you need it. Who cares? Nothing is damaged by you not understanding that. And if you don't understand it, it also means you don't need to understand it, you're not managing systems where it makes a difference. No sysadmin is burning for you to understand their work needs.
It makes no difference how tortuous you find the details.
I don't think you should care. If you don't have the problems that are being solved by systemd, you don't even have any reason to care.
It solves problems that people have. It solves them in the way that makes the systemd developers happy. So many sysadmins agree, that most distros adopt it.
If people don't agree, who cares?
Like if it was music. Maybe one person wants to listen to AC/DC, and I want to listen to Metallica. Both opinions are valid. There is no right or wrong answer. You might like one more than the other, but that is a very different claim that to claim that there is something wrong with my choice, only because yours is different. Maybe one radio station plays a lot of Metallica. Maybe most radio stations play a lot more Metallica than AC/DC, because they're professionals and they think that it is going to make them more money. Now, maybe you're feeling salty about that, because you'd rather listen to AC/DC. That doesn't mean you've been wronged. It is their own choice which to use.
Same with a distro. A distro chooses. As a user, maybe you choose what software you run, maybe somebody else does. Who cares? If you're the person choosing, then you make the choice you want. It is all open source. Complainers about systemd seem to have been out of class the day that they learned wtf software freedom means. It means that there is no conspiracy; there can't be a conspiracy because of SOFTWARE FREEDOM and excessive complaints about other people exercising their freedom in the "wrong" way is just worthless bullying. And it is bullying that has no chance to succeed, against because: Software Freedom.
The point isn't what sucks or doesn't suck. The point is that people want to do it this way, and that is their business. People who don't already know the details didn't even need to ask about it, to be honest.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe nobody cares about "compliance" with an artificial formal standard, they care about compliance with the standard code that needs compiling.
C++ requires compliance because it introduces a lot of complexity, and most users don't use the whole thing. Different combinations of these complicated features bring about different types of compilation bugs. There is an increased need for standardization.
With plain C, there is a lot more convention, and also things are simply more straightforwards due to dearth of features.
Maybe the people who care about C compiler compliance only care about real-world compliance because there is no corporate sponsor to worry about marketing the language? There could be just as much effort put into making actual use cases work well, just without the formalization.
Because no one has ever tried a natural language programming language
They don't know about Perl because it is write-only, just like most natural languages. "That isn't what I said!" "Yes it is, I recorded it." "Well... it isn't what I meant!"
That's just a dangling civic policy assertion.
There is actually a lot of serious civic theory and debate on the issue; many American lawyers would say that excessive reliance on perceived or claimed intent creates an avenue for prosecutorial and judicial expansion of laws because of the difficulty of pinning down intent. That is why in the US, the plain wording of the law is the most important thing, and then intent of the law is used as an additional constraint. So the law has to apply both in actual words, and also in intent.
Also, the idea that the intent of a law is more clear to the average man is exactly the sort of nonsense that this situation refutes. The average man is perfectly willing to credulously believe the lawyers when they insist that there is a loophole, and not only that, that the loophole was clearly intended by the way the law was written or it wouldn't exist. That is even when other lawyers were saying all along, there is no loophole there. The laws don't overlap, there isn't a continuous and seamless enforcement mechanism, but nevertheless any purported tax avoidance schemes would not be legal in Europe even if you point at a supposed loophole, because they're unfair or anti-competitive.
So how does a layperson know which intent is the one to focus on? The one lawyer asks them to, or the one that says, "If it makes a difference which country you're incorporated in, then that violates the intent of a common market." People who don't have a lawyer handy to ask not going to have any better way to understand intent than they have to understand wording.
That isn't a "problem," it is the situation the artists asked for; giving away exclusivity over some of your stuff reduces the value of the rest of your stuff for people who don't have the exclusive access. Duh.
What you said is just a re-phrasing from the "whiny artist" perspective. I'm assuming most of their contract negotiations had a conversation with their manager like, "So, like, exclusive means I get paid more, right?" "Yes" and fast forwards to now, "hey, what do you mean there is a tradeoff, what do you mean I thumbed my nose at spotify?"
The only thing dumber than artists using proprietary platforms that barely pay them anything is artists complaining that the proprietary platforms are greedy. Well, golly gee, you don't say?!?
What happened to the concept of a free society where every citizen may demand of the government to know if a particular action is legal or not...before doing it?
Nothing "happened" to it, that was never an actual concept. Perhaps it was from a Heinlein book and you misremembered?
The government enacts laws. They have to meet various basic requirements because Freedom. That is all true. But there is nothing about free binding legal opinions from the government. Sounds nice, but if it ever happens you'll know. If you're an American, it will have an Amendment number and will be on the news all month if it happens.
People pointed out it was illegal all along, and pundits waved their hands and insisted it doesn't matter because Apple is a big boy and the other cool kids are doing it to, so nobody can stop them.
Those pundits were not still listening to those who had said it was illegal, but the response all along was, "the EU might not care how cool they are. What if the judges are frumpy?"
Slashdot crackpots keep repeating that, as if tax breaks were not already a known form of subsidy when the EU started regulating subsidies. It is what was regulated all along; money the government gives directly to help companies, money that they choose not to collect from those companies, even money spent on other things intended to benefit the company.
Also, EU not UN. But even if we give that one out as a free brain fart; your idea is still totally ignorant.
Regulating subsidies, including attempts at finding loopholes to enact subsidies, is a major part of EU agreements. And generally under EU law, loopholes don't exist. Finding a loophole just means there wasn't an enforcement mechanism in place, and they'll have to use a generic action based on the clear intent of the law. Here in the US, loopholes work because our legal system is hyper-technical. In Europe they're a lot more deliberative, and the law places more weight on intent than on wording. And a good thing, too, since it all has to be translated into zillions of languages.
Ireland tried to get a shit deal, because local governments always love to bring home shit for their constituents, but the EU is forcing them to get a normal, legal deal. Ooops! This EU thing would have sure helped out during the potato famine!
However, you can't claim you're owed past money when Apple wasn't hiding anything.
That is a very strange legal theory. I don't think you're going to get very far with that. The question is, was their claimed loophole legal, not "did they admit to using the loophole they claimed existed, but that had not been intended by the law."
There were various parties in Europe saying at the time that such loopholes didn't exist, they just didn't have a mechanism in place to stop them right away and it would take extra time to collect those taxes.
Lots of schemes are unlawful even when you didn't "hide" what you were doing.
What if the law existed, but the loophole was just a theory?
Why would Spotify feature artists they're not making as much money on? Anyone who's surprised by this is probably the same sort of person who asks their waiter for a food recommendation at a restaurant (hint: it's whichever entree gets him the bigger tip). If you think any company's curated list of [product] is more than an excuse to push the products they make the most money off of, I've got a bridge to sell you.
The claims that Spotify is intentionally manipulating their search results is just dumb.
I imagine a musician sitting around talking about the money they got from Apple, and saying, "wtf does `exclusive' mean anyway?"
That's what it means, nobody else is gonna be selling it. And knowing that they won't be ever selling any of your new stuff, even if you're the new Elvis, they won't care about trying to sell your old stuff unless you were already Elvis.
If you sold exclusive rights, you already paid a lot of opportunity cost. When Spotify ignores you, you asked them to.
Then they truly have no fan base and should find a day job. Concerts really are where a musician makes their money. If they can't make money doing that part, they simply can't make money as a musical act. If they're really a good musician, they should at least quit their band and try to get some session work, or teach lessons.
How about the joy of finding a way to tell a fully autonomous car to dart into a gap at the airport arrivals/departure scrum?
There is no scrum, the traffic computer scheduled everybody's access already and instead there is a timer on the dash telling you how long the car will be stationary. The scrum is caused by two things, ignorance (of where everybody is and where they are going, etc) and indecision. Traffic computers will solve both of these.
Even in the shorter term, where there won't be an airport traffic computer, and there will be a mix of human and computer drivers, there won't be much problem because generally you will be waiting in a line for the next available spot, and the computers can probably handle that situation fairly easily. There might be edge cases where your car wouldn't take the first spot because somebody kicked a traffic cone into it, and a human driver wouldn't car about clipping the cone, or driving near it. But those won't be major frustrations to somebody reading a book or jeejah and waiting for the car to tell them that they have arrived.
My point flew right over your head, you didn't say anything about why I'm wrong, all you did is state the opposite.
And it is nonsensical; he isn't being asked for something different than anybody else, and taking a principled stand. He's hiding something that he knew he would be expected to provide, so obviously he has something to hide.
If it was going to be boring, he'd have to be a complete idiot not to release it. Which is more likely, that he has an IQ under 65 and throws a temper tantrum when his lawyers tell him it is OK to release it, or that he has at least normal intelligence and has embarrassing stuff to hide?
If there was nothing else going on, no refusal to release it, then the default idea would be as you say. But when there is an active refusal that leaves him unqualified for the job he's applying for, even in the eyes of many members of his own party, he has to either have yuuuuuuuge stuff to hide, or he's yuuuuuuuugely more stupid than he looks.
Right, things I didn't say, that you somehow thought were "suggested," that you have been told were neither said nor meant, OK, at that point you've established completely and without question that you misread it. And you're still defending your misreading of what I said.
Pathetic. Really.
Actually Trump's personal income taxes would probably be quite boring
LOL nobody is going to believe that doozy. If it was going to be boring, he would release it, because it is part of what is seen as the basic application requirements for the position.
If it was a document nobody else has to share, like a freakin' birth certificate, it would be reasonable to assume that it would be boring, and that the reason it isn't provided is because nobody else was asked for it and that is unfair. But when it is something that every other candidate provides, except for 1 guy, then you can bet that it is anything but boring.
Or look at it this way: Almost everybody assumes he's hiding something big. The actual thing that it is, has to be bigger than what he thinks people will assume. There has to be something yuuuuuuuuuge in there for him to attempt to run for President without even submitting the full application that the voters expect.
And by "had a header," he actually means, there was an inline capital letter C enclosed in parentheses.
You lie and lie and lie and lie and just assume that eventually you'll have the moral high ground, if you only say enough bad things about somebody else.
You're actually upset that Hillary discussed her schedule with her aides in the wrong way, because you presume that her daily schedule is as secret as nuclear launch codes. To most people, her schedule is classified to protect her, and she would ultimately be the one who makes decisions about communicating details of it to her aides while in the field.
So, in your universe 0 is a "multiple?" Wow, I so do NOT want to have to attempt math on your side of the wormhole!
It isn't a trope, I mean it literally and I stand by that as my choice of words. A trope is a figurative or metaphorical statement. For example, describing the act of governance as "guiding the ship of State," that is a trope. When I said "I don't think that word means what you think it means," I meant exactly that; no metaphor involved. "Criminal" is a specific word, that has meaning, and it is not figurative. And likewise, when I say it was used incorrectly, I mean that an incorrect meaning was used. It does not actually mean, "stuff that twists my underpants." See, there I was speaking figuratively. Can you tell the difference, or are there more words involved that you don't understand?
Words have meanings, and meaning matters.
I never disputed that I'm an asshole, so who cares? If you think I'm "insincere" that just shows you're an idiot who can't imagine people who come to different conclusions than you actually came to different conclusions than you.
I'd rather be "lazy and stupid" than an aliterate ignoramus.
Ooops. THe head of the FBI is a Republican, is what I meant to say.
The head of the CIA is a Republican.
Please, that word, "criminal" doesn't mean what you think it means. Look it up . It doesn't mean, "me not likee."
No, I didn't say they're an "unknowable force dealing with the unknown." I said it is known that they deal in misinformation, have formal permission for lots of secret activities, have a large budget the details of which are secret, and it is their job to hide or obscure all the details of all that. It isn't unknown what their job is; it is known exactly where they are working when and in what way, etc, etc.
If you can't tell the difference between known unknowns and known knowns, you might as well not even bother. A known force with known formal powers and known jurisdiction, whose specific activities are both secret, and protected. That is pretty fucking far from an "unknowable force dealing with the unknown." And yet, you can never say anything particularly definitive or specific about them.
And then you talk about "wake up to what is going on," oh, what exactly "is going on?" You don't have any way to measure what anybody claims about that. And guess what! I don't have any way to weigh or measure what you say, either. You're just a guy waving his hands, insisting that their is a conspiracy of some sort, and that you know about it, and apparently you even think you have power to stop it, or else who cares if I "wake up?" The only way you can influence what the NSA does is by being in the Senate and being on the Intelligence Committee. And that committee isn't going to even want to change any of the things you may or may not actually be complaining about.
The only way I would have any reason to want to "wake up" and pretend I know what they are doing is if I was working for them. Because otherwise, there is really no utility in pretending to know shit that trained intelligence professionals with nearly unlimited resources have gone out of their way to obscure.
Conspiracy theorists are so credulous, they even believe stuff where the only evidence that it even exists are anonymous statements by professional liars [spies] purportedly made to journalists.
It is so impossible to believe anybody that you can't even be sure: A) That Snowden isn't still working for the NSA, with all the leaks being to distract from the real programs, or B) That Snowden was actually working for the Russians all along, and that they made up everything he pretended to leak, or C) That Snowden did work for the NSA, but most of what he leaked were lies that are planted in the systems in order to distract from or hide the real programs in case of a leak/theft. None of those scenarios are different than the type of things that are known from the history of espionage, nor are any of those actually stranger than the claims! There is no way to know at all, every potential party that would have access to actual information is a tainted party with clear potential motivations to lie, training in different ways to mislead you, and resources to carry it out on multiple tracks.
Many people don't know why they're expected to share their returns, or when it started. They don't realize that when President Nixon said, " I am not a crook! " he wasn't talking about the Watergate break-in scandal, he was talking about his low tax rate and was insisting that his lack of direct participation in taxation was legal.
The whole point is to lay your connections bare, show that you pay your share, show what your lot in life actually is.
Trump says, hey, it is none of your business who he is, who he is connected to, what his lot in life is; he's just running for President, he's not required to convince you of all that. And it is true; nothing requires him to campaign in a way that meets the minimum requirements of the mainstream voters.
And WTF does being audited have to do with any of it? You should be telling the truth perfectly during an audit. He hasn't even made any sort of specific case as to why being under audit makes an different. As in, on the level of verbs, what does he think will happen? What is the concern? No answer.
You say something about "criminal" stuff in regards to Clinton, but I don't think that word means what you think it means. I suggest looking it up.
I didn't say "I make heavy use of media big I'm a bigshot, so I need a belt AND suspenders!"
Who cares if you make heavy use? What does that tell you about what problems I have? Nothing. And it doesn't make the bugs I hit not exist, either. There are lots of mount-related bugs that have been known for years and years and don't get fixed because A) there are work-arounds and B) using traditional mount processes, they don't produce any log noise. That is a big thing with systemd; it exposes bugs by giving a shit. It is replacing a mishmash of base services that didn't give a shit. That exposes existing non-critical bugs. That is a good thing, if you care about details of your system, and value software that works.
You weren't asked to "buy" an argument. I pointed out facts, that are reasons people have. You don't have to know or be able to understand the performance difference between being able to have a rarely-used service NOT running until you need it. Who cares? Nothing is damaged by you not understanding that. And if you don't understand it, it also means you don't need to understand it, you're not managing systems where it makes a difference. No sysadmin is burning for you to understand their work needs.
It makes no difference how tortuous you find the details.
I don't think you should care. If you don't have the problems that are being solved by systemd, you don't even have any reason to care.
It solves problems that people have. It solves them in the way that makes the systemd developers happy. So many sysadmins agree, that most distros adopt it.
If people don't agree, who cares?
Like if it was music. Maybe one person wants to listen to AC/DC, and I want to listen to Metallica. Both opinions are valid. There is no right or wrong answer. You might like one more than the other, but that is a very different claim that to claim that there is something wrong with my choice, only because yours is different. Maybe one radio station plays a lot of Metallica. Maybe most radio stations play a lot more Metallica than AC/DC, because they're professionals and they think that it is going to make them more money. Now, maybe you're feeling salty about that, because you'd rather listen to AC/DC. That doesn't mean you've been wronged. It is their own choice which to use.
Same with a distro. A distro chooses. As a user, maybe you choose what software you run, maybe somebody else does. Who cares? If you're the person choosing, then you make the choice you want. It is all open source. Complainers about systemd seem to have been out of class the day that they learned wtf software freedom means. It means that there is no conspiracy; there can't be a conspiracy because of SOFTWARE FREEDOM and excessive complaints about other people exercising their freedom in the "wrong" way is just worthless bullying. And it is bullying that has no chance to succeed, against because: Software Freedom .
The point isn't what sucks or doesn't suck. The point is that people want to do it this way, and that is their business. People who don't already know the details didn't even need to ask about it, to be honest.