Of course I agree with you, but the sad reality is that they're getting away with this stuff so far. I think Hegseth's time will be up when they finally need someone to do jail time for the team. Until then they'll probably keep him around because his incompetence is strategically advantageous for their puppet master's goal of undermining the republic.

I'm directing my criticism specifically on the technological advancement which is devoid of communal spirit, not on all technological advancement categorically.

Crediting human achievement to technological advancement is a mistake in my opinion. Technological advancement is not inherently good or bad. Communal spirit is what determines whether technology yields positive or negative outcomes. That's the real ingredient behind everything humans have achieved throughout history.

Sadly techno-optimism has become a prevailing mindset in today's world where people and institutions don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions because of belief that as-yet-unknown technological advancement will bail us out in the future, even when there's no evidence that it will even be physically possible.

But what I said is that your view is a sad one, not an incorrect one. The truth is, technological advancement may truly end up being the defining characteristic of humanity. After all, when we think about extinct species, we tend to associate them most strongly with what made them extinct. Just as we associate the dinosaurs most strongly with a meteor, maybe an outside observer will some day associate humanity most strongly with the technology that sent us out in a blaze of glory.

As someone that has never had soda my entire life (my parents were normal soda-drinking people, I'm just weird and was never interested in trying it), maybe I don't know what I'm missing out on, but water is soooo gooood. It's so refreshing and delicious if you're thirsty. I don't comprehend why these drinks even exist.

If you live almost anywhere in America or another developed nation, you get dirt-cheap clean water delivered right to your home constantly, and it's so great. Why does anyone spend money on garbage that's going to give them diabetes? And then the people who are sensible enough to try to avoid the diabetes just drink some other garbage and complain about the taste..??

WATER IS DELICIOUS YOU FOOLS

I don't doubt that in this case it's both silly and unacceptable that their driver was having this catastrophic failure, and it was probably caused by systemic failure at the company, likely driven by hubris and/or cost-cutting measures.

Although I wouldn't take it as a given that the system should be allowed to continue if the anti-virus doesn't load properly more generally.

For an enterprise business system, it's entirely plausible that if a crucial anti-virus driver can't load properly then the system itself may be compromised by malware, or at the very least the system may be unacceptably vulnerable to malware if it's allowed to finish booting. At that point the risk of harm that may come from allowing the system to continue booting could outweigh the cost of demanding manual intervention.

In this specific case, given the scale and fallout of the failure, it probably would've been preferable to let the system continue booting to a point where it could receive a new update, but all I'm saying is that I'm not surprised more generally that an OS just goes ahead and treats an anti-virus driver failure at BSOD worthy.

Thanks for your candid views on this.

To be clear, our interest in subsistence farming is not intended to do anything to solve the problems we're facing as a society. It's an attempt to figure out how we might try to survive locally after the global supply chains collapse. We're particularly researching what crops might be viable in a landscape that has been reshaped by the changing climate. Additionally we're studying everything we can about community organizing and systems of self-governance that promote collaboration over individual greed.

This might all sound defeatist to someone like yourself who is still committed to fighting the good fight, but we see it as a contingency plan that our community's ability to survive may depend on in the future.

Wow you've deadlocked yourself, congratulations. I wonder who the real child is here 🤔

You keep arguing that open source projects are strict with their code base reviews

Go ahead and quote the words I said that suggest this. You have a talent for claiming that people have said things they have never actually said.

The only claims I've made in this conversation are:

1. The open source ecosystem does NOT strictly rely on confidence in individual project maintainers because audits and remedial measures are always possible, and done more often than most people are aware of. Of course this could and should be done more often. And maybe it would if we didn't have so many non-contributing freeloaders in the community.
2. Most of the widely used open source projects are not being done by hobbyists or volunteers but rather by professionals who are getting paid for their work, either via a salary or by commission as independent contractors.
3. You don't seem to have a firm grasp on how open source software is actually developed and managed in general.

The overwhelming cost in these projects is always engineering salaries. These companies are making the calculation that they can throw shit (rockets) at the wall (into space) carelessly to save money by wasting more material to avoid paying the salaries of people that could think through the design more carefully and come up with something that will have a reasonable probability of working the first time.

And you can attack that issue by a combination of penalising companies that create debris and rewarding those that remove it under a capitalist economy

Add this to the insurmountable pile of things we should theoretically regulate but never will because of regulatory capture.

Yep, it's a private entity so very legal and very cool as they like to say.

A statement like "veganism is unhealthy" is so objectively wrong that it really harms your credibility in general. I wonder how much you actually read from the article, or did you just grab the title and run with it?

There are a small number of specific nutrients that are readily available in meat that are harder to come by in a vegan diet. Harder but entirely possible, especially with supplements.

And many of the meat alternatives that you were disparaging earlier are specifically engineered to provide those nutrients (in particular Impossible and Beyond brands).

"Veganism is unhealthy" in the same way that any eating pattern is unhealthy if you aren't mindful of what you're eating. Conventional meat-based diets have much higher risk of heart disease due to high cholesterol, so let's go ahead and label that unhealthy too.

Mirror universe Janeway would use the caretaker technology to conquer the Delta Quadrant and become the Borg queen without even being assimilated.

Here's an educational visual.