madez

> Which, more or less certainly, they won't, so you're basically just self-flagellating in a closet, which might make you feel morally pure but isn't doing anything to change the world.

I think you are factually wrong and condecending in the way you express it.

One case I can bring is the vegan product market in Germany. For many years, individuals were "self-flagellating in a closet" and simply avoiding animals products and buying the alternatives that were offered. That triggered the production of more of these products, which triggered more consumption of them. Today the market is big and makes a meaningful difference. This the result of individual action without coordination by all market participants.

I don't make a claim about the relative cost of individual change. I rather call the thinking that individual cost will only be accepted if everybody changes arrogant. I've heard more than I'd like to count sentences like "If I/we change, the others still continue, so the problem won't be solved", while in fact it will be solved to the degree that I/we are causing it. Demanding that everybody changes just because you change is arrogant.

I'm not saying individual costs are negligible compared to the influence one can have with individual change. There may be good reasons to not change.

It's not just about coordination. Clearly, coordination would make solving the accepted problem relatively easy. Yet, individual action does solve the problem to a small degree. Humans are wired to neclect small changes when they come at a personal cost to them, so they think "it won't change if I stop doing it, so I won't stop doing it". This thinking is arrogant and the cause why many changes in society don't happen, although many people recognize that there is a problem.

This or similar type of lacing is practicioned in some Bondage suspensions. The end knots may differ, but the way to secure the loose end to the hanging support ropes is often done this way because it is fast and allows a gradual release, which is important to stay in control and not be surprised.

Please, if you want to try suspensions, practice first, and read up about rope techniques and medical topics, like nerve positions, nerve function testing, and nerve damage.

If you have a working iPhone, Googles-Android based device or Windows computer around you, it is blind trust they don't surveil you, unless you permanently monitor and control their communications.

And even if the model is sufficiently specified, the constant factors and lower terms hidden in the O-notationen can be deciding in practice, and are yet usually left out.

Indeed. And a today barely usable weakness can be tomorrows glaringly exploitable security hole. If we are aware of the problems, we can at least make sure to not make them bigger.

I'm majorly surprised you needed to read until the end to figure that out. To me it was and is impossible to read from the beginning without having my propagandometer going off-limits nearly instantly. I wanted to take parts and comment here to substantiate my claim, but the post is too extreme and long. It's obvious. The linked post is outright /r/sino material.

Oh my. That post is drooling of authotarianism and disgust for individuality and freedom, and it has an alarming amount of nationalism and militarism. If this is how the Chinese government is thinking and working, then we are in for a bad time.

Does gitlab provide federation, such that forking, linking, issue reporting etc. works accross gitlab instances?

I don't want to use Windows. I won't work for anybody that forces me to use Windows. I can choose where to work. Children are forced to go to school, it is obligatory. That's why it is not okay to force children in schools to use Windows.

Computers for children are used for convenience or to solve problems. Neither of which requires Windows, or any other vendor-specific platform.

It's neither justified nor necessary to force children to use Windows or any other specific operating system in school.

Thanks!

How?

The votes also fluctuated a bit before settling. It's unclear to me why it got flagged. To me, my comment is an obvious and factual correction. Maybe it was flagged because I corrected someone tersely who has been downvoted a lot already. But then, other short corrections in these situations don't get flagged. Maybe there is a special sensitivity towards the topic of US-American exceptionalism and neo-imperialism. Who can flag? Only Dang?

> I worry about allowing Japan

It's not up to you.

> And also the slaughter of hundreds of millions of them every year is already well accepted...

I hope this changes eventually. It is one of humans archaic traditions that is highly unethical.

It's not about the history but the basics of computing. The boards can have multicore superscalar high-performance RISC-V CPUs, for all I care. From there you can go and develop a detailed understanding of more advanced devices and systems, if you choose to. I'm not against computers in school. They can be convenient and practical tools. Heck, I want computers in school, just not for just having computers in school.

Demanding every child in 7th grade to buy an iPad for math courses, so they can write on them instead of on paper, will not teach them about computers. They use them only as tools for the convenience (actually, they aren't more convenient; paper is extremely convenient for math), and the school has the possibility to say 'hey look, we are modern and digital!'. That is snake oil. The kids won't learn a thing about the excessively expensive status symbol devices they are forced to buy, especially not with Apple products of all. This is alienating them from what computers are; universal machines.

I don't have in my mind children that 'balk like cavemen at modern computers'. I think of children that can get excited about advanced hardware and systems, and see all the possibilities. They'd ask for the battery run time, for the computing capacity, for the I/O abilities, or the instruction set, etc. And they'd want to code the machine to do things they deem useful. That curiosity is not just not nourished, it is killed how it is done now.

Driving school has different goals. Cars are products that are dangerous when their operator is not trained. So the driving school is there to train people to operate these machines safely. General public school has the goal to prepare children with general knowledge, a basis to build on, so they can be informed citizens. Democracies crucially depend on that.

Going from one proprietary locked-in system to the next doesn't solve the problems. Especially 'The Web'®© services are unsuitable for anything with remotely sensitive documents.

A mouse is not necessary to understand computers nor to interact with them. I don't want schools to prepare the next generation of Web users that can create an account with Google, but barely anything more; that way the democratic oversight of technological changes and powerful companies fails, because the citizens aren't informed and competent.

Humans are strongly bound to habits. I have seen that personally, and in reports about institutions doing the change. Some people were strongly opposed to change away from Windows because the alternative doesn't look and feel the same, so they don't like it. And that even if the alternative offers the same capabilities.

Building a habit around Windows is part of Microsoft strategy to bind people to its platform. That is why academics and schools get discounts. Public infrastructure like schools must not fall for this fixation.

Children learn how a combustion engine works, and how it can be controlled. Why don't they learn how a CPU works, and how to program it?

> You can't learn how to program or really know what the computer is doing unless you are using and trying to create something on there.

This is incorrect. The principles of a computer can be explained and understood with pen and paper. Even the execution of a simplistic computer can be worked out with pen and paper, just as algorithms can be thought and reasoned about that way.

Because it creates a dependence on the OS they use in school, and a OS is not necessary to teach the things I mentioned. The teaching can be done abstractly on a board and paper, or with interactive games. The practice can be done with microprocessors on educational board with plenty of easily accessible I/O.

And when there is a need for an operating system, which I don't see in basic and mid-level teaching in school, schools should use libre software, because it relates to public infrastructure.

It even shows why some aquifers may never replenish. The layer of the aquifer is not tightly compressed and can hold water. When the water is released and the layer starts to compress from the weight from above, its ability to hold water is permanently diminished.

Schools are not to teach children to operate specific commercial products. The school teaches the basics so the people are able to continue to learn on their own and judge products and technologies. Schools should teach on one side simple hardware architectures, encoding of data, computer representation of perceivable things, and some programming. On the other side, it should put the digital revolution into a historic context and show the dangers that arise from it and how to act as an individual and as a state in it. This way the children can grow into informed citizens.

Can you backup that claim?

Yes, this is why societies must take care about which hardware and software they use in schools. In Germany, some schools opted for Apple hardware and software, which is equally bad.

Neither AMD nor Intel offer x86 chips that give end users full access to the highest privilege levels.

x86 and its descendants are a no-go for me because of that. Neither Intel nor AMD are willing to produce x86 chips where the end user has full access to the highest privilege levels.

It's maybe not practical, but it is not impossible. You can build a four-component system that does the job. You build two computers with different ISAs from vendors you assume to not share a backdoor, and let all I/O happen through a simple verifier, that copies the input for both machines, compares byte for byte their output. For cryptographic purposes, the random number generators of the machines must be linked, which would be our forth component. The software for each computer should be derived from different sources, which must follow the same I/O specification.

It's not necessary to be outright 'authoritarian'. The 'national security' excuse goes a loooong way in the USA when the government wants something from a company. Also, financial sanctions can be equally effective for competing companies, or even just the carrot for the company that plays ball, like the alleged payments for Skype, Google, Microsoft, and others in PRISM.

Europe could have stepped up and become competitive long before, but they are too complacent with the status quo. It's good that finally someone steps up.

A documented disassembly followed by a reimplementation seems to be a viable way to get games ported to other platforms.

Does anybody know why libebml wasn't fixed yet in Stretch?