burtness

the Wayland folks are the X11 folks though

Right-wingers are so reliably sore winners. X is still comfortably the dominant microblogging platform on the internet, Facebook and Youtube happily boost and feed right-wing content and concerns. Tiktok has been brought to heel. ATproto hasn't found a way to encode communism - just like activitypub could be used for Truth Social - the ATmosphere will turn right once the ecosystem is in anyway relevant politically or commercially. But you could always start quatrechan while we wait

It won't because none of the alternative inits are better

*England and Wales

Man, you really suck

Isn't the problem that the vernacular concepts are what counts and they change depending on time and place?

Buddy, I have some bad news about tobacco and alcohol...

Ah, good ol' Riley's law

No, its an upstream bug being discussed in the debian bug tracker

This is a misreading of the bug. It is from upstream stable kernels before 6.5 that include commit 91562895f803 but not 936e114a245b6[1].

In this case Debian's current process is good - it's kernels track kernel.org stable releases. This debian bug is responsibly flagging "for visibility" that a serious bug has been discussed and fixed upstream.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20231205122122.dfhhoaswsfscuh...

Linux Virtualization Based Security (LVBS) is an umbrella term under which we can offer various hypervisor backed kernel protection solutions. This is a common hypervisor agnostic extendable architecture in Linux kernel that can be used by any hypervisor to implement and extend Linux kernel protections. Different hypervisor frameworks (Hyper-V as an example of type-1 hypervisor and KVM as an example of type-2 hypervisor) can plug into the common layer to harden the Linux kernel.

Hypervisor-Enforced Kernel Integrity (Heki):

Heki is a proof-of-concept that implements new KVM features (extended page tracking, MBEC support, CR pinning) and defines a new API to protect guest VMs. It is designed to be merged with the mainline project. It is inspired from other private implementations currently in use (e.g. Windows's Virtual Secure Mode), but our approach is tailored to Linux specificities.

what about purchasing power?

First they came for the Nazis...

The example doesnt seem to support your argument. The rationale the developer gives here is reasonable and looks like good stewardship of a shared library - the patch added a new API that was tightly based on termites' needs and provided little benefit for other terminal programs. What the maintainer wanted was a more complete API for the feature. The termite dev said he did not want to implement this feature in the library. This is also reasonable. Its his code and his time. So we have two people who can't find/commit to a solution everyone is happy with. It doesn't really seem user hostile at all, just that something couldnt be worked out. Sure, its frustrating when its an app you really like, but sometimes interests wont align even when it seems from the outside like they should.

This sounds more like "incumbent" than "first"

This misrepresents what happens if you use busybox in your product and don't comply with the license (posting a buildable version of your changes) - they first try and negotiate compliance before starting litigation. You won't get served papers until you refuse to comply with the license. This includes giving you time to fix the situation - https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...

Wouldn't the path of least resistance here be giving cars the surface layer?

I mean this is basically all politics - who should suffer and how much to keep society running. I don't think you'll find a progressive monopoly on that

Yes, but those interest rates have been affordable. That context of affordability matters. The UK is also basically organised around the profitability of private home ownership. Its the fundamental basis of the current ruling party's support. Anything that threatens property value and rent yield is catastrophic for the economy (as currently organised) and the current government

sure, in the real world we're all going around checking everyone's respect earnings to know whether we should use their preferred names, pronouns, exempt them from our favourite slurs. Gotta earn that

You can change it to export in the background:

  (setq org-export-in-background 't)

This reifies the view of the system. Particularly the time spent as a PhD would be spent doing meaningful work contributing to the country. This is if we accept that the time spent as a student living in America making connections with people as your life develops as a young adult deserve to be waived away. Yes the system doesn't count them but we shouldn't count the cruelty of a system just on its own terms.

Ive had luck running it in wine on linux

*German-French-British

Is there a particular one you have in mind?

I dont think the parent comment's bullshit jobs are the same as your definition of nice-to-have jobs, at least assuming parent is talking about David Graeber's use of the term.

Bullshit jobs are ones that could disappear and the impact would unnoticeable or minimal for an organisation's output. Nice-to-have (for society?) professions still have value, otherwise they wouldn't be nice - if all the musicians disappeared people would definitely notice.

I'd also contest the idea that cultural labour is unnecessary. Lots of people in lockdown have depended on all kinds of music, TV, film, etc to maintain their mental health. This seems to go beyond preference, even if not everyone needs the same or as much cultural produce to survive healthily.

Its hard to take these assertions seriously while they are so vague, especially as they seem to be respins of the idea that education, and higher education in particular, is taking liberalism/anti-racism/feminism "too far".

My understanding is that you're saying there is a causal link between admission programs being shutdown and CRT/I, and that the particular aspect of CRT/I that causes this is an insistence on equal outcomes across social groups. I'd be interested to first establish what the actual statistics are wrt gifted and talented student programs - are the closing faster than they opening? Are they shrinking or expanding? Where approaches have changed, are the outcomes definitely worse? etc.

Does this mean we are discounting material possibilities, such as just not having enough money or changing demands/restrictions on expenditure? Accelerated programs sound a lot like arts programs - easy to cut with minimal blowback. Are we also discounting that providing fair access to accelerated programs turned out to be far more complicated than we originally thought and that the choice has been to cut rather than spend money on extra tests and more qualified staff? CRT/I [aren't the only academic source](https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/02783190609554382) of critique these programs receive.

I'd also contest your definition of equity in CRT/I as an overriding principle ('equality of outcomes by whatever means available' and implicitly, regardless of the consequences). CRT/I uses the principle of equity - that outcomes should be proportionate across social groups and that unequal outcomes must be accounted for. The vast majority of CRT/I scholarship explicitly focuses on 'leveling-up' outcomes, and where this focus is not explicit it is normally implicit (in that the paper would not otherwise make much sense, or the prospect of reducing everyone's outcomes to the lowest common denominator is a rhetorical tool).

‘people from oppressed classes have a truth unto themselves that cannot be taught but must be respected, and all opposing viewpoints must be shut down’: This is a misreading of CRT/I, and one that I suggest highlights its value. CRT/I asserts that everybody has a point of view and way of seeing the world that is affected by their various interlocking identities and experience. There are plenty of aspects of life were we generally accept the necessity and uniqueness of experience as a kind of knowledge - jobs, parenting, relationships, etc. Why should race, gender or class be different? However I'd argue that this assertion gets us closer to the truth. Accounting for bias in science and acknowledging how fundamental it is to people and instruments gets us better science, not worse, even if its harder. "all opposing viewpoints must be shutdown", seems to be a strawman: No reading of CRT/I demands this, in fact most of the literature consists of patient, often quantitative, critiques of systems (law, education, science, public health, etc). So if anything, CRT/I furthers the ideals you see it as threatening.

By CRT are you referring to Critical Race Theory? I'm sceptical that its both that influential, or that any good faith reading of CRT supports sacrificing accelerated programs. In particular CRT in education if anything pushes against reliance on standardized testing scores.

sub-Saharan Africans, Euro/Asians, Melanesian/Australian Aborigines, and African pygmies

These groups are not considered different species or subspecies of human (homo sapiens sapiens). There are homo sapiens subspecies, but all except sapiens are extinct.

Well its at very least contested whether its a biological phenomenon. Its certainly not a genetic phenomenon and hasn't been treated as such since the mid-twentieth century