cheph

> "Build it and they will come" doesn't work anymore.

Did it ever? I feel like this omits the mechanism for people to get to know there is something to come to and reasons for them to come. Not sure why this saying really exists.

If someone builds a pile of garbage, I won't come, even if I knew about it, and I definitely won't be telling other people about it either.

EDIT: so the phrase is a variation on some phrase from a film from the 1980s where some guy was having auditory hallucinations ... https://samuelmullen.com/articles/startup-fallacies-if-you-b...

Maybe, not sure any laws were broken here though, would be interesting to know if there are laws covering it.

> Legal isn't there to make sure the company complies with the laws. Legal is there to advise on and minimize legal risk.

Breaking laws is one sure way to increase legal liability.

> I need a citation for the fact that Hitler (and to a lesser extent Goebbels) are synonymous with the words Nazi and Holocaust? Really?

That is not what you claimed. You need a citation for the claim you made, then we can talk about you citing other claims.

> Are you therefore claiming that executors of orders bear all of the responsibility?

Not something I claimed.

> In reality there's universal* consensus that Hitler and Goebbels et al do bear overwhelming responsibility for the atrocities of the Holocaust.

Feel free to provide a citation.

The title of the article is: France bears ‘overwhelming responsibilities’ over Rwanda genocide.

overwhelming is defined as [1]:

- 2a: to cover over completely : SUBMERGE

- 2b: to overcome by superior force or numbers

- 2c: to overpower in thought or feeling

So to claim that France bears "overwhelming responsibilities" begs the question: overwhelming of what? Overwhelming the responsibilities of the people who actually committed the genocide?! And if not that, then what the heck is the word "overwhelming" doing there?

Suggesting that anyone but the people who committed the atrocities bear "overwhelming responsibility" for them is sick, infantilizing, racist and revisionist.

The people who committed those atrocities were human beings with full agency, not infants, not subhumans, and they alone bear the overwhelming responsibility for their actions.

They don't even have the tired Nazi accomplice excuse that the French ordered them to commit it, because that would be a lie.

The title of the article is bullshit. Maybe it is quoted bullshit, but it is bullshit none the less. Aljazeera's job is not to be a stenographer for liars.

[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overwhelm

If you have a problem with France's actions, but don't have a problem with the whole of the west twiddling their thumbs while China is committing genocide, your opinion has no merit.

https://neveragainrightnow.com/

> avoid demonizing China

China is actively engaging in genocide and nobody wants to even speak up about it because "cultural differences". I think we should much rather be scared of running even more cover for them, than less cover for them. They already have enough people white knighting for them.

Western companies are demonizing the west for profit, and running cover for china for profit, just another example of how capitalism always wins.

All of this is sickening and it needs to stop now.

> Eliminate capital gains all income is taxed as earned income.

I don't own property, I rent, trying to save for an apartment. I am currently paying CGT on savings (I think at income tax rate). People who do own property where I live get tax rebate because they have mortgage, and they don't pay CGT on residential property. How is that fair? I am poorer than most people who own property but paying higher effective tax rate than them, and it makes it more difficult for me to buy.

How is that fair?

> I think at a certain point it's fair to shame people for seeking out loopholes, even if they're technically legal.

How do you define a loophole?

Why should you be punished if you do something entirely legal? Can't we rather just close the legal avenues that allow people to avoid them? Why keep it legal? What do you gain by having these loopholes?

> Why pay more when the law says you don’t have to?

Yeah, it makes no sense. I would not do that, not sure why I should expect others to do that. I think this whole thing is BS.

I can very well agree that some people can afford to pay more tax, but tax is not some trust based charity system. I would say simplify tax laws so people can avoid tax easier without having to hire an army of tax professionals, and then increase the effective tax rate on the people who can afford to hire an army of tax professional.

If you are not for this approach but you whine about tax avoidance I think you are just looking for a way to score political and ideological points.

I think professional conduct has been confused with other things. There is some basic standard of professional conduct that should be adopted in a professional environment. The lack of such a professional conduct is detrimental to the organization and all people who work for it.

This professional conduct is not political correctness, it is not any specific political stance, it is basic things like don't make sexualized remarks, don't make sexual advances, don't ask for personal favours.

If someone can't adhere to these basic standards it is not clear to me why everyone else in a professional environment should be disadvantaged on their part.

> Linux starts falling behind both MacOS and Windows in this regard

Last I installed something with windows it had full write access to my home directory and pretty much everything the user it was running as had access to. Is this no longer the case?

> A single line of code allows any "sandboxed" program to escape from the sandbox.

How is that what is happening here?

> The sandbox is STILL a lie

No it is not. If sandboxed means no access to filesystem, sure it would be, but that is not the only definition of sandboxed, that is not the definition of that under which flatpak said they would operate, that is not the definition of sandboxed under which other things operate.

If you want them to use a different definition of sandboxed, by all means submit an issue making the case, but you don't even make it here. You just ignore that and then proceed to act as if your definition is the only reasonable one. And if that was the case the very least you can do is find a reference for your definition.

Try harder with the FUD.

I guess you are being downvoted because you are saying that Libya was better off before Obama "saved" it.

Seriously fuck him for his warmongering, he should be rotting in jail for what he did.

Remind me again why the fuck Obama rallied NATO to fuck that country up again and how Obama is still seen as the messiah to socialist and progressives after doing that?

> BankID, a secure national identification app operated by Sweden's banks.

Wow, that sounds pretty racist. Do better Sweden, we all remember what you did in WW2.

Linux use read(2)/write(2) for both blocking and non-blocking. Still don't understand what you mean by how NT does it. Either your code is written to accomodate Async IO or not.

> It's actually well understood that privatisation for platform industries is bad, privatisation for businesses running on top of platforms is good.

Cite?

I have lived in two countries, one with privatized market based grid and have not yet had one power failure, one with nationalized grid and producers grid that had daily 8 hours power outages for weeks on end to the point where year on year per capita electricity usage (an important measure for development) was going down.

Anecdotes are not data, but all I can say is that most definitely every nationalised grid does not run better than every privatized grid, and without some data to back your claim I am skeptical.

> Async-by-default I/O?

What? Can you elaborate? I mean if you want non blocking IO from an fd in Linux, you can just do that. Not sure what defaults have to do with anything. Your code will still have to be written appropriately.

I think the article sums it up fairly well. Signal to me does not solve the fundamental problems inherent to WhatsApp, additionally it suffers from some of the more serious ones I have with WhatsApp (tied to phone number) and brings some new ones (no web client).

And the places where Signal improves on WhatsApp relies entirely on trust which is what WhatsApp relied on until it broke trust.

I would prefer to use Matrix/XMPP instead of Signal and WhatsApp.

I am heavily against switching from WhatsApp to Signal, but you have very good points, and I think Matrix should take note of these points. Technically Matrix can yield a very similar user experience to Signal, but there has to be more focus on actually doing it if it wants to be considered as a serious player in the same space as WhatsApp and Signal.

> Gee I don't know, maybe standardisation has some sort of benefit that leads to a cohesive, consistent experience for all users as opposed to having a bunch of clients that all implement varying levels of the spec to various standards...

Supporting only one application is quite the opposite of standardization, it is vendor lock in. If it was standardized it would open up the opportunity to have more than one client.

WhatsApp just works also.

XFCE allows you to set a strftime string for date format.

endocrine disrupting chemicals cannot change sex.

> I had a space dedicated to work in that my employer paid for. Now I must make a part of my house that space and foot the bill.

And equipment. I have so far forked out $1000s and there is deductions or rebates where I live for any of it. I have to pay full VAT (25%) unless I can somehow get through the bureaucracy of fortune 500 company to get them to pay for it, in which case I have to find space in my 40 m² apartment for both my stuff and things from employer.

It is seriously messed up and the fault mainly lies with how governments are implementing lockdowns.