No, you define it.

If im asking you it's because I don't understand your viewpoint , how would me defining it help with that?

Im seeing a wall of text here so I'm going to split them up into something more coherent.

Should an employee who advocates for abortion rights be able to be fired because their employer doesn’t like the optics of their statement?

Should an employee who vouches for a particular political candidate be able to be fired for it?

The answer to both is that it's a legal issue, my personal beliefs don't really factor in to the legal outcome.

I think freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences so consider the (sometimes legally viable, if not morally) consequences of your actions and act accordingly.

I think we can both agree that a person who advocates for the genocide of a people should be punished, but where do you draw the line?

Thats a very rigid position to take on something that has significant subjective nuance.

I'd evaluate on a case by case basis and make a decision based on what I can live with.

As much as I don’t really care for corporate interests, there are real consequences for companies that continue to employ people with controversial views; why would they want to continue to employ those people when they could win back public favor by firing them?

No idea, not sure how it's relevant but I don't generally care enough to have an opinion I'd be willing to defend.

Im not being dismissive, I genuinely don't give corporate PR tactics that much of my headspace unless I have no choice.

I don’t think I could define a line between what’s “accepted” political speech that’s protected against employer reprisal and what’s not. Unless we go old stand-bys, such as calls for violence, which are easy to evade. I’m not suggesting this is an easy or even a possible problem to solve; all I meant was that think employees should be protected from firing for reasonable political statements. What “reasonable” is defined as is a much more complicated question, and I concede I don’t have an answer for it.

Agreed

I wasnt looking for what "acceptable" political opinions consist of, i was wondering how you defined that category in general.

I ask a variation of this question a lot (check my history for examples).

Im not looking for a fight im just bad at understanding ambiguity in some contexts.

like charlie kirk or ben shapiro.

....well....just ben shapiro now...but you know what i mean.

There is no link to the repo in there.

Is this it : https://git.sr.ht/~ser/ostui ?

Block community will block it from browse all FYI. (At least in my client)

If that's what you're looking to do I mean.

Very possible i got this the wrong way around, or that I’m incorrect entirely.

Wasnt it so that it was easier for the woman to do up the man's buttons for them?

Because, real men don't button their own clothes.

The problem with automated tests is that they only test for the narrow slice of things you actually think to test for. They don’t cover the gamut of things you didn’t think to test for.

They also only test how you write them to test for, which means if you make a bad assumption somewhere along the way your tests can’t help you find it.

Indeed, which is why it's an ever evolving suite of tests, as and when you come across problems and things that were missed, you add automated tests for them.

It's not magic, you only get out what you put in, but it is automated, which means that if you do a reasonable job you have a lot less to worry about from that particular issue in the future and now you have a much quicker way of checking for it.

Peer reviews cover two very important things:

1. Knowledge sharing and de-siloing
2. Logic and assumption checking

A fresh set of eyes and a different perspective is just so important to writing robust, quality code.

Also agreed, and automated testing is a way to partially formalise that knowledge into something that can be checked quickly and deterministically (if you are doing it right).

As i said before it's not magic and it's not a replacement, it's more of an augmentation to relieve some of the cognitive burden.

As with any other approach, it also has it's downsides, there are ways to go about it that can be actively detrimental.

In my experience a well done (and maintained) automated suite is a boon to ongoing development.

So......not a comparable situation then, ok.

but hey, if you want to argue with yourself about a slippery slope no one mentioned, who am i to stop you?

It seems you are having a good time with it, congrats.

edit : salty downvotes aren't a replacement for a coherent argument, they are however, entertaining.

ah, so questions about logic aren't good questions?

or just that one ?

edit: i replied before your edit.

I think knowing that these voters base their position on abortion on the belief that it is murder hurts your position so it’s better not to answer. Or you just don’t know them that well and really have no idea.

I mean, i've no idea because it's never happened, you also have no idea.

You can assure me it's true all you want, your assurances mean nothing to me if they don't make any sense.

The argument that these voters’ position on abortion (and therefore their votes) are based on race necessarily requires that they are aware of the statistics.

It does not, at all.

A decision can easily be based on a belief, an understanding of relevant statistical values isn't required.

If the claim is they vote this way because it disproportionately harms minorities, how do they know it disproportionately harms minorities?

That's not the claim, the claim is "Some people vote this way , wholly or partially because they think it disproportionately harms minorities"

They probably don't know , they may think it does, or hope it does, or not care at all either way.

There are of course people who are voting solely on their opinion of "baby murder is bad", nobody is or has been arguing otherwise.

You are arguing race isn't a factor, i am arguing that that's an impossible position to defend and no "All the people i know aren't racist" doesn't count as a valid defense.

But I’m glad we agree that they do not know that.

Common ground is a good basis for understanding.

Yeah, I'm going with a tiny dedicated infra bootstrapping box with all the tools I'd need to bootstrap the main infrastructure.

Using a hypervisor (proxmox in this case) I have some prebuilt vms's and container images that I can use for the bootstrap instances so i'd not need to completely hand roll it again should it be needed.

I'm looking at cloudinit scripts to see if that's useful for this.

I really like packer but I'm hesitant to rely on anything hashicorp until whatever they have going on shakes out.

Then I just load up the bootstrap box with the main infra code and use woodpecker to deploy.

Code and config backed up, also mirrored to newly created infra forgejo instances, just in case.

If I can get a semi presentable cloud init based bootstrap system working nicely I'll stick it somewhere people can get to it, in case it's useful to someone else.

"Treating them as legitimate" and "forceful removal" are very different concepts and the definition of "legitimate" is subjective in the extreme on the world stage.

Sanctions and penalties are within the remit of the EU, "liberation" is not , at least as far as I know.

Finally, a question, which other country could be considered "held captive by conservatives" with numerous deaths provably tried to said conservatives and also could be said to "difficult" to reason with?