I'm somewhat dubious of a Youtube channel called "Western Liberty" that was created the day of Cummings's testimony, which contains nothing but the session and short clips of it. Using the link above avoids any potential ad revenue going to that clearly political pointed channel.
For anyone that's interested, here are the links to the other sessions of this committee:
Dammit, my edit window ran out of time. Alas. While the 22nd April, 3rd June, and 10th June sessions are from that committee, they are unrelated to the inquiry of constitutional safeguards. Skip to the 15th July session. Here's a link to the inquiry: https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9861/the-uks-constitut...
Anyway, after watching the session with Cummings, I have to say I'm deeply unimpressed with his contribution. While I found his bluntness somewhat refreshing, he was clearly irritated at being (repeatedly) asked to suggest actual solutions instead of just using the session as a pulpit for his grievances.
Failing to do anything constructive about the problems he’s identified is Cummings’ whole thing though.
He’s like an incompetent Cassandra: people keep on agreeing with his diagnoses, giving him power in the hope that he’ll fix things at which point he makes a complete hash of everything and leaves in a huff having made things worse than they were before.
If the right ever takes power in the UK in the near-ish future I expect us to go through exactly this cycle again. Cummings seems to be very bad at the politics of driving organisational change & making it stick, which is ironic given that criticising public bodies is what he spends so much of his time doing.
"I'm smart but my colleagues are all useless idiots" is an insight now? That's pretty much everyone's complaint about their colleagues in all of human history.
Except that his grievances are extremely surface level.
For example, he claims that legal experts, regardless of their political leanings, agree that the small-boats crisis cannot be solved without primary-legislative changes to the Human Rights Act. Does he mention how the HRA is obstructive? No. Does he mention even one change to the HRA that would help? No. Does he mention the scale of changes required? No.
What's funny is that I'd actually use his HRA example as an example of our constitutional safeguards working exactly as intended: it's for Parliament to decide what our human rights are and their extent, not the whims of ministers. That the Prime Minister and Parliament are refusing to make those changes because they find them to be politically untenable is actually how a democratic system ought to work.
In fact, I'd summarise his testimony as him being irritated at constitutional safeguards working as intended. For example, he claimed that the biggest enemy to British Special Forces is not Russia, China, or Iran but the Cabinet Office and Ministry of Defence lawyers. Oh no, our ministries are operating within the law! How terrible! He seems to advocate for ministers and ministries to instead adopt an 'ask for forgiveness, not permission' mindset with regards to the law, particularly given his testimony on how things were done during the chaos of the pandemic:
> That led to some very big decisions inside No. 10 where, essentially, I said on behalf of the PM, for example, "Call the airlines. Commandeer the planes. Fly the planes to China. Pick up all our PPE. Fly back here. We don't care if the officials all say it's unlawful. If we don't get all this PPE back, God knows how many doctors and nurses are going to die as a consequence. Do it, and, if there's a judicial review that says it's all illegal, whatever, the PM will deal with that down the line".
Cummings and people like him seem to think of officialdom as being something like a non-Newtonian fluid.
Trouble is, he thinks they're thixotropic - give 'em a big whack to get them moving faster - when they're actually by design closer to being rheopectic, absorbing sudden stresses to protect the nation.
So when faced with the multiple sudden gyrations in policy that we saw under the final five years of the last government, they of course acted as a dampener. That's what they're there for, that's why they're so valuable. But if you don't shock them and instead apply constant pressure in a consistent direction, they'll move smoothly, efficiently, and effectively.
For a good example of that, see Francis Maude's term in the Cabinet Office in the first half of the 2010s which changed the civil service very much for the better and was responsible for, amongst others, GDS, the Government Security Group, and a lot of open government initiatives.
One would presume they are making a clear distinction between people who design for design's sake, and those whose design is a result of interviews, research, and testing.
What I think everdrive is saying is that for it to be a smokescreen, there needs to be smoke: if it was only the government participating in the Purge to eliminate undesireables, it'd be extremely obvious and rallied against. But it's not, regular people are engaging with it in droves, which is what they believe to be the unrealistic part.
But most people don't participate, they just hunker down and wait it out. It's a small minority who are aligned with the government who do most of it. The prequel makes this very clear, where the government sent masked mercenaries to participate in the test purge to give them the results they wanted. The movies aren't high art or anything, but their message is pretty clear that they think the average person wouldn't be violent.
You need to consider that what regular people consider normal depends on little more then social consensus. Once you recognize this, the unrealistic part does not sound as unrealistic.
The et in etc (et cetera) being Latin "and" (in essentially "and so forth"). The ampersand is said to have started as a very stylized "E" and "t" merged together, so it does have an interesting historic appropriateness in &c.
Yup. I cannot stress how much the conversation has changed from a decade ago: the mere prospect of a European army was feared enough to be one of the reasons why we left the EU, but now it's something being seriously considered thanks to Russia's deranged land grab and the US's worsening instability. There's even been some panic over how reliant we are on the US for our nuclear deterrent and what that could mean should relations break down. This became a particular concern when the US started openly threatening to annex Greenland.
The prospect of the US going rogue has forced us to wake up and realise that every dependence we have on the US is potential leverage. For example, the US has levied sanctions against ICC judges, meaning that they can no longer use their VISA/MASTERCARD cards. This means that the French Judge Guillou for example cannot go to a shop in France, pay for French goods in Euros with a card from his French bank, because a US company is intervening to prevent it. As such they can only pay for things in cash... and Europe is becoming increasingly cashless.
To be honest, I don't think most people's first interpretation of someone's claim to a "Discord-esque feel" when describing the UX of their open-source IRC client is that it's therefore riddled with dark patterns to sell an upgraded version of the service. I think it's probably more likely that they were referring to the general layout (eg: having circular server icons as a vertical list on the left hand side). I'm guessing that that's also why they mentioned Slack, since that has the same layout too.
While I don't doubt that regulatory bodies and/or ethics boards would have some cost effect, I don't think it'd be to the degree that you suppose. If anything, the long-term costs might be less. For example, say you take bad legal advice from someone online, which you follow, and now you've been found liable for some misconduct and have to pay a fine. Whereas, if you had paid for an actual solicitor and followed their advice, the initial cost would've been higher, but you wouldn't have had to pay the higher cost of the fine.
Similarly, it might have preempted things like the $99 Apple Developer Program: if your software-engineering licence is at jeopardy, you may be less likely to upload malware, or target micro-transactions to children, or make cars lie about their emissions, etc. How many lives have those ruined?
It might help with the AI-slop crisis too: Speedy Web Compiler might not have needed to adopt a policy of rejecting every external PR out of hand if they could have chosen a "licensed software-engineers only" policy instead.
Some other things to consider too like what effect this would have on anonymous/pseudonymous contributions, and whether the regulatory body/ethics board would accommodate that in some way. There's been some discussion about how governments flirting with age verification laws could do so without forcing everyone to dox themselves to every website they use, or allowing the government to track everything they do. Perhaps a similar system could be adopted for contributions. Etc.
Overall, I do agree that the upfront cost would likely be somewhat higher, but I think the overall cost to run a modern OS would be somewhat lower, resulting in a similar-enough cost overall. Though this is just my opinion based on vibes. I'd love to see any data about this.
This is something that has been a problem for quite some time within the modded-Minecraft community that I'm a part of: it's highly generational, as in, upstreaming is exceptionally rare. Each server is a fork, or a fork of a fork, etc, resulting in lineages of servers like a family tree. It's very typical for multiple servers to encounter the same (or similar) problem(s) and create their own solutions, like convergent evolution.
There was an attempt to start upstreaming changes to a more centralised, ancestor repo, but this failed almost immediately. Why? Well, whoever owns that upstream will naturally want a say in, and thus will exert control over, what gets merged in. The best case scenario is that you create a whole bunch of work for yourself to conform your code whatever arbitrary requirements upstream demands, or; the worst case scenario is that you effectively cede control over what gets run on your server. But this begs the question: why doesn't upstream just pull from downstream? It's all open source, after all, and yet it almost never happens.
It's been a couple years since then and things have only gotten worse: servers are no longer accepting many (if any) community contributions anymore, instead relying on in-house developers. In a sense, these mods are no longer open source, but rather source available: the vast majority of updates come whenever the sole dev-admin has one of their code-binge days.
Anyway, I think something similar is happening here, with open source more generally, particularly with the advent of AI: any outside contribution is just creating work for you; it's probably going to have its idiosyncrasies from its author; features that you wont want to support or spend time tearing out or waiting for them to tear it out; etc. So if you want a feature, you might as well do it yourself, or get an LLM to do it since it'll probably generate something good enough, without complaint, and without much delay.
Thanks for that perspective! I think that dynamic is present in quite a lot of other communities too, especially the ones who have not traditionally embraced open source. You also see it a lot around creative / artsy work where it almost seems to be a faux pas to share anything but the final product. People do recreate things or just are inspired by other work. Coming from open source software it always seemed like wasted potential to me, but that's probably just my bias.
> In a sense, these mods are no longer open source, but rather source available
I understand what sense you mean, but the terms "open source" and "source available" have very clear definitions, and it has nothing to do with accepting contributions or not, only with the license the code is published under. So in a sense only about downstream effects; upstream effects are still a courtesy also with open source.
Seems like Kling is a wee bit of a chud. The claim about human rights likely stems from the "trans rights are human rights" mantra and is likely is reference to this (https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814) where Kling accused a contributor of bringing "personal politics" to the project for changing one instance of "he" to "they" in a markdown file. Since then he has, for example, apparently gone on to complain about anti-white discrimination in the workplace (https://x.com/awesomekling/status/1874518295350837401).
For what it's worth, the perpetually-offended progressive has become an annoying stock character in our culture. At risk of falling for Poe's Law, the commentor on that PR who said "The denial of non-male users and/or developers is sufficient reason to not use SerenityOS" is a perfect example of this. Another more contemporary example would be the seething outrage over Last Ditch Bar's new mask-optional Saturdays.
I'm somewhat dubious of a Youtube channel called "Western Liberty" that was created the day of Cummings's testimony, which contains nothing but the session and short clips of it. Using the link above avoids any potential ad revenue going to that clearly political pointed channel.
For anyone that's interested, here are the links to the other sessions of this committee:
- 22nd April 2026: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/e79ae489-4db6-4159-88b...
- 3rd June 2026: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/f27d8b93-b09d-433a-8e6...
- 10th June 2026: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/097aadbd-b58d-4f76-90e...
- 15th July 2026: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/87f1e00f-82b5-432b-af6...
- 2nd September 2026: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/110f81a5-32c4-4577-bab...
- 16th September 2026: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/ecf7a237-54c9-40be-922...
reply