What signs point to these donations being strictly ideologically motivated? It seems more like it is about Omarchy's reach. It has clout right now. All donors stand to benefit from it by supporting it. Digital ocean especially. For an OS that aims to empower users with agents, they're going to need to host their projects somewhere. Gnome has no clout. It's boring and stable. I say this as someone who loves GNOME and uses it.
1. That theme over the distro didn't need funding as such. It's not providing anything not easily achievable without it. It doesn't need to hire highly paid full time engineers either.
2. Companies, or rather mostly CEOs donating are the usual circle of questionable characters where you can just search for "why is (name) problematic".
They're basically buddies donating to DHH not the project. The only ones that make sense are the tokens from AI companies to be used in actual development.
Gnome has lots of issues that still need to be fixed. Even if you're happy with it, you could find something on the bugtracker that you'd really like addressed. It's basically like seeing a house being built by a big crew, then someone completely unrelated painting the front doors and getting paid more than all of them and credited for the house as a whole.
I think a lot of people were in that camp. I'm not going to sign up for a Spotify account to listen to Rogan. I don't really have any problem with him and have found many of his guests interesting. No hate for Spotify either--I have never used the service so I don't really have an opinion about it, but the overhead of creating and maintaining another account and app was not something I was going to do for one podcast.
It sounds like that guy may have been exaggerating a bit. Aggressive people are a liability. Especially in law enforcement. Not just to the department but to fellow officers. They stir shit up and it is dangerous and annoying.
Cops do need more training, like dramatically more training. I think the screening process is trying to solve a really difficult problem. You don't know if/how someone will be corrupted when they have a little bit of power. Or how they will change over time.
I’m pretty sure the commenter you responded to agrees aggressive people are a liability and that’s the problem with current hiring(or at least the hiring contemporaneous to when they heard this).
From my own personal conversation with a hostage scenario trainer for the police, he said de-escalation forms only a tiny percentage of his training because that’s not what the cops want, even though he would make that the majority of the training given a free hand, since de-escalation doesn’t just increase the chances of the hostages being safe, but also the cops and the first responders.
Yes, I'm sure they would agree but I'm pointing out that the department/agency would agree as well. I don't think that departments were actively seeking out aggressive people, but rather seeking out people who could handle getting aggressive when a situation calls for it. Someone who can't get aggressive is likewise a liability.
I do see what you are saying regarding de-escalation. It seems like one of those things that is easy to mistakenly dismiss as "easy" and focus on something like firearms or tactics training.
This is my biggest fear for the law enforcement officers. They're becoming overdependent on these technology tools and forgetting to do actual police work. I say this as a former police officer myself.
So many people sleep on Brave search. I agree, it's like Google from 08. It just searches for what you ask for. You can disable AI overviews. It's quick. Has a nice UI. It's free lol
reply