We need ~~three~~ four things:

1. A way to poison the data that will throw off the training without causing perceptible difference to humans. As I remember it, many image AIs were sensitive to a peculiar noise that was imperceptible to humans.
2. A skiplist of AI data stealers, so that their IPs/domains can be blocked in bulk.
3. Eventually, the above technique will become useless as AI data stealers will start using dynamic IPs and botnets to bypass the skiplists. We'll need to throttle or block data to visitors based on pattern recognition. For example, if the visitor requests linked pages in rapid succession. Or if the request interval is uniform or pseudo random, instead of genuinely random.
4. If the pattern recognition above is triggered, we could even feed the bots with data from AI models, instead of blocking or throttling. Let the AI eat its own s**t.

Systemd is too egotistic to even mention Linux. They will simply name it systemd-defenderd.

Don't believe me? See this!

People favor Arch Linux for configurability, not lack of bloat. With the level of configurability that Arch offers, any DE can look bloated. On the other hand, if you are a new Linux user or someone who just wants to use the computer without so much personalization, anything Linux offers is lightweight enough. Even a decade old system has enough hardware to handle modern Linux distros effortlessly. This is probably what a regular user wants anyway.

I don't know if you're talking about panics and abort or about crashes caused by memory safety errors. The latter class is very unlikely in safe rust, other than as rare compiler bugs. Panics and aborts are your call. You can easily write code that doesn't panic or abort.

I find myself passing copies of values around and things like that, it might be that the compiler just takes care of that,

Rust prefers explicitness over magic. So it does what you tell it and doesn't just take care of that.

If you're copying a lot of values around (I.e cloning. Not moving or borrowing), then you're definitely doing it inefficiently. But you don't have to worry too much about that. If there are too many difficulties in borrowing, it may be because those borrows are problematic with respect to memory safety. In such cases, sacrificing performance through cloning may be an acceptable compromise to preserve memory safety. In the end, you end up with the right balance of performance (through borrowing) and safety (through cloning). That balance is hard to achieve in C/C++ (lacking in safety) or in GC languages (lacking in performance).

If that's the friction you're facing in Rust, then I would say that you're already in a good position and you're just trying too hard.

Linus does that only to experienced guys - not beginners. People who should know better.

It's still missing the send and receive features from btrfs. And while they say it's more stable than btrfs, it's yet to prove itself (through widespread use), and is marked as experimental in the kernel config.

Torvalds indicated in a recent interview that they're struggling to find young maintainers. Many people contribute, but few stay around to become proficient enough and take on the responsibility of maintainership. I believe that the email comment was made in this context.

However, I don't think that many kernel devs including Torvalds are in favour of the Github workflow. He once indicated his strong dislike for it. So the replacement for email won't be Github - but something just as easy, without sacrificing the quality that the kernel devs need.

Finally, a word is kernel development. Contrary to popular belief, they aren't hostile to new contributors. Kernel developers have high quality intro material for newbies - including for email workflow. They're also very considerate and patient with newbies. Even Torvalds who was known for his abrasive style in the past really took that only on experienced developers doing the wrong thing.

I didn't know he was alive. But he was a legend enough to be known. It's sad when the world loses a mentor like him. RIP!

The newer FOSS projects have a preference for permissive licenses like MIT. That's due to a narrative going around that copyleft licenses like GPL are somehow 'less free'. Apparently, GPL etc are not free enough that companies avoid such projects. And if you want your project to be adopted, you have to avoid these licenses. You can easily guess who is behind such narratives and why.

That being said, I still don’t mess around with rebase for anything

Rebasing has a worse reputation than it deserves. It's something you just get used to - just like how git use is, when you started using it. There are a couple of strategies to make it easier and less anxiety inducing:

1. Before starting a rebase of a long branch, create a new branch. That way in case you seriously mess up, you can just delete the rebasing branch and rename the old branch to restore everything (you can usually get away with rebase abort. This is just added safety). Even in case of a successful rebasing, you can just keep the backup branch around, as a faithful record of actual development history.
2. Do only one (or max 2) operations in a single rebases. Do this over multiple rebases to get what you want.

After a while, rebasing becomes as simple as commit or merging.

The danger is the same as WEI or Play Integrity. Apps may refuse to work if the attestation fails. What do they gain from it? I don't know. But what is the purpose of banking apps checking if the device is rooted or not? They work without it on laptops.