Them too, but that’s really is a distinction without a difference. Thank you for pushing back on eurocentrism.

(I mean, unless you’re claiming Germany [and Italy] started the war in Europe in direct respone to their ally’s invasion?)

My preference is to treat everyone as people, and hold them responsible for their own actions or inactions instead of shifting the blame to somebody else.

And, in doing a search, it looks like I was wrong!

;)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapscallion

Most societies historically had some form of negative pressure applied to post-adolescents who refuse to accept adult responsibilities.

Of course, you said not to search so I’m just spitballing here.

Rights aren’t on the ballot. Hate is.

Well, I’m pretty sure it’s just one word for starters.

I’ve always read ‘rapscallion’ as a sort of youthful miscreant: an almost gender-neutral mildly negative label applied to a person lacking the wisdom of age who is engaged with some slightly rebellious activity.

The word died about the time of ww2, when most of those erstwhile rapscallions became war veterans or casualties.

Sorry for the late reply.

Again, do you have any actual evidence that SHA-256 repositories in version 3.0 won’t be able to reference SHA-1 repositories as submodules?

Based on the design doc it looks like git will include both hashes during the transition, specifically to allow two-way communication with SHA-1 remotes. You may not be able to include a random stranger’s SHA-1 submodule via a shallow clone, but just doing a full clone sure as heck looks like a supported usage.

https://git-scm.com/docs/hash-function-transition

That’s all fine and good, but singling out liberals this way rhetorically absolves the actual fascists

Chamberlain was absolutely to blame for his weak actions , and the German libs were accountable for theirs, but so were the Nazis.

Purity testing and leftist infighting is the geo-political equivalent of blaming a girl’s outfit for her rape, instead of the rapists. It’s like going to a man who was stabbed and mocking his cowardly friend instead of providing first aid or chasing off his attacker.

Alito has a personal right to belittle, mock, and object to same-sex and same-gender marriage. Just as he also has a personal right to belittle, mock, and object to interracial, inter-reliigous, and childless marriage.

And we have the same personal right to belittle, mock, and object to his ideas as idiotic bigotry.

What Alito shouldn’t have is a right to use his personal animus to shape public policy. Except he does, because when the court recognized the constitutional right to abortion back when Alito was a 23-year old kid the whole US right wing gave up on the constitution and decided to try a judicial coup.

Alito’s entire professional life is pretending that he isnt a proxy for this coup. I’d almost feel sorry for him if his malfeasance hadn’t led to pregnant women dying of eminently preventable complications. (Not to mention W and Trump’s presidencies and all the death and destruction that might have been avoided if we had actually applied the rules.)

Don’t do the zionist work for them by limiting your criticism to just the rational people who should have stopped this.

WW2 was started by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, not Neville Chamberlain.

The bit about “comparability”. Where do you see that they will? (I mean, aside from the original article that claimed it without evidence.)

A submodule is “just” a pointer to a specific commit in an external repo. It was at one point entirely done via shell scripts, and unless I missed an update is still obnoxiously slow compared to the rest of git.

I can’t fathom why the SHA-256 support for submodules would do more than just treat the SHA as a foreign key.and go from there. We’d potentially be in trouble if SHA-1 support is being removed, but I don’t see any reason why git would do something so stupid.

(I honestly can’t fathom why SHA-256 hashed commits couldn’t be the children of SHA-1 commits. A bunch of reasons why you may not WANT to, but that’s a separate concern that seems like it’d be outweighed by comparability.)

Further reading that casts doubt on even submodules breaking:

https://www.deployhq.com/blog/git-3-0-on-the-horizon-what-git-users-need-to-know-about-the-next-major-release

It sounds like the new default is specifically to push GitHub et al to support SHA-256. Which they either will, or they will fork git and continue on with SHA-1 forever.

I read that whole article, and aside from an unsourced statement that GitHub et al will need “new and distinct servers” exactly zero of that seemed to support the thesis that a SHA-256 default was going to be “expensive”.

Submodules are not the preferred way to incorporate third-party code for any environment I know. And while web-exposed URLs for management tools like Jira or AzureDevOps will need to adapt before the new default can be used, doing so even with a wholesale re-hashing of every commit isn’t technically difficult.

What would be terrible and dangerous would be if git 3.0 entirely dropped SHA-1 support. But just as you’re free to keep on using “master” instead of “main”, i expect that extant projects will still be supported until a version after every major project has converted to SHA-256 or what have you.

There also is no point of collective bargaining for them as they don’t have centralized skills or a centralized set of employers like most union jobs do.

If you think “software engineers” don’t have skills as comparably fungible as carpenters or factory works either you’re not a programmer or your code is hot garbage.

It’s also irrelevant with regards to unionization. Actors,.writers, lawyers, and doctors all have unions, and the last two are so old and so pervasive that it’s easy to mistake them for something else.

This is 10,000% the right call.

The ability to generate a photorealistic video of a person is an impressive technical feat, but it doesn’t change the legal weight of said video. As far as a court of law is concerned, it may as well have been a videotaped skit or narration over cartoon drawings.

(And sometimes said skit or drawings is relevant and admissable! Testimony is testimony and evidence is evidence! )

Arguing with yourself in the mirror can improve your rhetoric. As could pretending that a random roll of polyhedral dice is agreement or disagreement. But either can also reinforce bad habits or not buttress good ones.

What sets LLM chatbots apart is that it’s easier to pretend. Which can be a beneficial thing depending on where you are in your growth, or it can be a very bad thing if you lack sufficient humility and self-awareness to treat the mindless software as no more than it is.

I’m with the AP on this, by the way. Don’t attribute cognitive actions to software. No chatbot can trick anyone. Humans use them to trick humans, either other humans or ourselves.

No means “No”, not “stop asking”. “Stop asking” means “stop asking”. “We’re not having sex tonight”, “i don’t fuck on a first date”, and others say “don’t even ask”, but a mere “no” doesn’t. And even asking after they say “stop asking” is itself consent respecting, because its literally a request for consent.

Consent is the single and all-important bright line, and globbing behaviors that are merely rude or ignoble with actual coercisve.activity like “control the environment” or “express anger” is not accurate or helpful.

“Sexual force” and “young men” need some fairly large qualifications here.

• the most.common “sexual force” was some variant of “sell yourself” or “ask again”. No distinction was.made in the absract betwreen consent-respecting and consent-disregarding strategies, with all merely grouped as “sexual force”

• The study is on college student aged men, who responded to an ask to 'tell men’s side of the story", reported a hook-up in the past two years, and either didnt clock the thin rewording of “tell me how you raped her” or continued regardless for the $10.

This is absolutely a worthwhile study and should be repeated and refined, but its not at all as described in that headline. If you want to distill it.down to a single sound bite, *65% of men claim they never employed rapey strategies" is more accurate.

(I mean, unless you consider…“ask a woman to help you connect with a date” or “sell yourself as a good hookup” rapey…)

These warnings DO serve a purpose, even when they are legally void. People tend to follow less closely behind trucks, secure their belongings when parking, and take other actions to avoid the clearly indicated potential loss.

If a load breaks and cracks your windshield the truck is likely liable, but depending on how close you were following you may share some liability as well – especially if you, say, collide with the truck or another car after your windshield breaks. The law may hold that the sign has no effect, but itll be hard to convince a jury that you didnt know the truck was a potential hazard after you say that you saw it.

Because document.certificates are not legal declarations. The only thing they do is add some confidence to the declaration that you already make just by offering a document.

Microsoft wants a higher quality and distinctly revokable certificate by default as a ward against malicious software. Users can absolutely ignore it or even trust a self-created certificate that you provide.

Apple, Google, Valve, Epic, Amazon, and also Microsoft charge a fee and/or a revenue cut to offer something for sale on their commerce platforms. Unlike Windows or Linux, “app stores” have potentially severe liability if malicious software is found on their platform, on top of other compliance costs, so they charge a fee to offset their risks or costs.

All of the above is mostly a pragmatic and economic argument. But you asked “why are they allowed”, which presumes that there is some grand permission structure that has to assent before anyone can do anything. Which is not generally how the world works.

For most counties in the world, laws affecting private behavior only get passed to stop behavior that is already occurring. Since no one has passed a “think of the poor nerds” law prohibiting walled gardens in software, the gardens are free to exist and you are free to offer your work elsewhere.