gian

Trump was elected because a very significant minority of Americans are racist, and the Republican party have been eroding democracy for decades.

Then where was the the majority of Americans ? Why they did not vote against someone that seems to be clearly a racist ?
Can not be the case that the opposing party did such a terrible job that people prefer someone else even if it racist since it is seen as the lesser devil ?
I mean, do you really think that normal people would agree that letting BLM (which was a minority) to devastate cities was a good way to earn votes ? Or calling misogynist or nazi everyone do not think like you will earn you votes ?

You refuse to acknowledge that trump is the instigator of a whole bunch of racist shit.

No, I refuse to acknowledge your cause-effect.
You say that people is racist because Trump won, I am saying that Trump won because people is racist.
Then it is obviously true that Trump find someone who listen to him but that people where there before Trump, do not spawned after Trump.

No, the problem is that people like you criticise diversity, equality and inclusion and like to pretend that it’s discriminatory when it’s working against racial inequality and racial discrimination.

I criticize forced diversity, I sustain that equality and inclusion means that everyone has the right to try, not the right to succeed.

But let’s assume you are right and DEI is the right thing, so why only in cushy c-level jobs ? No way, half of construction workers need to be women or from minority, half of the surgeons need to be women or from minorities, half of every worker in every job need to be women or from minorities. That would be the best diversity, equality and inclusion you could dream of… until you need a surgeon.

Lol. You wrote paragraphs on why you think DEI is bad and then you blamed DEI policies for the election of trump!

Obviously. You assume that DEI is always good, I say that DEI could be good. But forced DEI is always bad. It is obvious that if people are rejected for some DEI policy they will vote for someone who say that they will delete DEI policies.

You’re part of the mindless “blame Democrats for everything whether they oppose it or not” crowd and you are incapable of shutting up about how you think DEI and Democrats are wrong.

No, I am saying that Democrats have lost because they demostrated to be even more incompetent than the Republicans.
To be clear, I think that in the last election Republicans did not win because they did everything right but because Democrats did everything wrong, and DEI policies were only one the things they did wrong.

Anyone who takes trump or his international chums at their word is an idiot.

And that is the reason Democrats have lost. Insulting the voters is never a good way to win. And I could say the same about every voters: if you take any politician chums at their word, you are an idiot.

For someone who claims to be European, you’re pretty bad at realising that there are people who don’t live in America (including me, in case that persisted in escaping your attention), and you’re pretty bad at realising that it’s possible to be against racism whilst not being part of the leadership of the Democratic Party of the United States of America.

Oh, I realize that. What you do not realize is that criticizing some ideas or policies do not automatically make me a racist I can agree with the spirit of a policy but not agree on how it is executed and I don’t think to be a racist for this.

Supporting the racist in chief for equality’s sake is insane.

I don’t care about Trump, it is not my problem, in EU Trump policies are irrelevant.

And yet here you are, arguing in support of his policies.

Yeah, I should find something more productive to do… you are right.

But Trump is a consequence, not a cause.

You have that really fucked up for two reasons.

Trump is instigating all kinds of racist shit policies
Racism is NOT caused by inclusive words or actions, it’s a reaction against them by people who were racist from the start.

True, but Trump was elected, he do not magically appeared one night. And if Trump was elected, this can mean two things

• US are fundamentally racist
• you are no better than him, only on the opposing side.

choose what better suit yourself, because the point is that people voted for him and not that Trump “created” the voters.

If you wanted to win, you should have put against him someone more credible than Kamala Harris who had as only point the fact that she is a black woman: she got less than 1000 votes during the primary elections of her own party, listening to her TV debates it was chilling. Maybe you should care also about all the non $MINORITY_OF_THE_DAY people.

And that assuming that the Democratic voters even went to vote instead of staying at home horrified by what the party did.

You people voted for him.

No one like me voted for Trump.

Nodoby even voted for Berlusconi, yet somehow he won more than one election, just saying…

People like you voted for him then blamed people like me for their reactionary shit.

The problem is that people like me are the ones that see what happen, do not say anything but in the end vote based on what they see and what candidates say.

Supporting the racist in chief for equality’s sake is insane.

I don’t care about Trump, it is not my problem, in EU Trump policies are irrelevant.
But Trump is a consequence, not a cause. You people voted for him. Maybe choose better candidate (both sides of course)

Diversity has repeatedly been shown to be more profitable than homogeneity, in both academic and gray literature. Besides being good for societal cohesion, fairness, stability, happiness, and moral virtue.

I did not say that diversity could not be more profitable, just that it is not always more profitable.

The best candidate is indeed best, but there are too narrow and outdated ideas on how to identify the best candidate, and humans have a bias to choose/hire for safety and similarity over actually relevant criteria, which is why we have the problem in the first place.

There is no way to solve this problem. I can be the best fit as person but the worst from a technical point of view, like you can be the best from a techincal point of view but the worst from a personal point of view.
Both of us would be a problem, although in different ways, in a team.

Please provide proof that this is in use at the PSF.

I suppose that

advance or promote DEI, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.

say everything.
To my understanding of the language (which is not my primary language) they simple ask that no DEI initiative is carried forward and that there is no violation of anti-discrimination laws, so what I read is that PSF is not confident that they will not be able to not carried forward some DEI initiative or to not violate anti-discrimination laws.
Assuming this is the only reason they pulled out and given the usual definition of “DEI”

Quotas for minorities are a very outdated practice and were used to break the most entrenched norms (women in C-suites).

Cinically speaking, only in cushy jobs…

More modern practices include preferring diversity between equally qualified candidates, ad retargeting and messaging efforts, and inclusive norms at workplaces.

Well, between equally qualified candidates (if really true) you can just toss a coin.

Also, diversity is profitable, it increases both innovativeness and productivity. It seems uniquely stupid to kneecap the economy to benefit your cronies.

Diversity could be profitable. Uniformity could be profitable.
The only thing that benefit economy is to choose the best candidate for a given work.

Then again, maybe that’s the whole point of the GOPedo platform: rob the commons.

Then good I am not from US.

Removed by mod

That is a personality issue, not a code emergency.

True, but it is an indication that the developer cannot follow a common rules. Simply Torvalds was tired of how he behaved.

There were two dozen patches submitted for 6.17 that were never merged. What has the fall-out been? Where are all the stories about data loss? I am sure they would hit the front page.

And so ? A patch can be submitted but never merged, for whatever reason. Problem is: these two dozen patches were submitted during the -RC cycle ?

The file system can improve but it is already fine.

Good. Now it it the developer that need to improve his attitude to work in teams.

Whether it’s pertinent or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s useful to know is irrelevant. How they’re treated is (kinda) irrelevant.

Whatever, I still think that knowing such information in a technical forum is irrelevant and should not be asked or disclosed per se.
I will still treat the person as she deserve, with respect to the person if she is respectfull or as assholes if she is an assholes, irregarless how they choose to identify themself.

If you think it is wrong how I treat people think whatever you want, it is not my problem.

Why in this context I need to know that ? And why in this context I would like to ask about this ? How it is pertinent ?

My point is simply that there are situations where these kind of information are not needed nor usefull. I am not saying that this is valid everywhere and every time but that there are places where knowing that the person you are talking to is a queer is important, situation where it is not important and situation where merely asking for that information is dangerous.
In my view, on the Ubuntu’s discourse this is an information that is not relevant nor usefull to know.

Do you want to consider it as a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy ? Fine, I just try to treat people like they deserve in any case and to do this I don’t need to know these informations, a queer is a normal person to me when it comes to interact with him/her/whatever.

No, that’s treating you as a normal person irregardless of the private aspects of your life. You are free to disclose them and I am free to ignore them since in this context I don’t care, and I don’t see why I should care, about them.

Else explain to me how being a queer/gay/trans/whatever impact on the submitted code or contribution.

And what better way to normalize diversity in this context than ignore everything but the code you submit ? We are talking about code, not personal issues.

I mean, I don’t care that the bus driver who take me to the office this morning is gay/trans/whatever, why I should care about this for the person that send me a code contribution ? Being queer make the code inherently better ? Or bad code should be accepted because a queer person send it ?

As I see it, you send good code it is merged, you send bad code it is refused and, most importantly, it was explained why the code is not good enough to be accepted. Nowhere in this flow knowing that you are a queer has any importance.

Ubuntu has a diversity policy to explicitly welcome and encourage participation, mentioning that they explicitly honor diversity in sexual orientation among other things.

I think that things would be far better if these type of informations should not be disclosed by anyone in context like this, where they are irrelevant.

It is a little difficult to spy on phone owner (except knowing where the phone is located) when everything you have is SMS and a memory measured in Kb, leaving aside that every phone had its own firmware incompatible with everyone else.
Of course telecom companies always know where you were and who you call, like today, but at most they can tap and read the SMS.

For context, GPRS was rolled out around 2001, before that you basically have not any data connection if not plugging to the phone an external modem.

True but I was only pointing out that what is a problem in modern smartphone was not a problem in older dumb phone since they lack the functionalities (and the supporting infrastructure)

spyware in a 90s phone ? Where it was even a miracle to be able to connect to Internet ? Yeah, they were able to pinpoint your position using the cell towers (which were less than today so not that precise) and the telecom know who and when you were calling but other than that…

Not an option, at this point a somewhat big part of the people don’t want to run windows 12 so do not care.
And vendors who agree could simply see they sells down since a, at this point large enough, percentage of the buyer prefer someone who don’t agree.

That not an option. If Linux is a serious threat it means that a normal people could use it without any problem, with all the common software needed (Office, a browser and few other things).
At this point trying to lock down the PC to have the be able to run Windows is not really an option, people could simply choose to not use Windows anymore and be productive anyway.

Only problem are games, but it is probably solvable

Which in the precise moment when Linux is a serious threat is not possible since there is no assurance that the hardware vendors would accept, given they now have an alternative.

An it really deeply annoys me when these talented persons, who’ve spent countless hours reverse engineering crap, undocumented, proprietary technologies that the original vendor didn’t care enough for its’ users to document or open source, get blasted online by entitled brats that say “Linux sux, my AAA game don’t work!”.

While I agree with you, reading the linked article this does not seems the case. She simply said that she reached all the goal she wanted in this endeavour and then she pass to the next challenge.

https://pwnies.com/systemd-bugs/