Per dang in many previous comments, it's not a dupe. Multiple submissions of the same topic are fine, it's only (maybe) a dupe when a discussion starts or it's actually the same submission. You linked to a submission with 0 comments submitted a whopping 15 minutes earlier. This one is the one that got traction, neither is a dupe. If someone submits it again, now that there is a discussion, or submits the same Wired article, then those would be dupes.
I get that a lot of folks were traumatised by the shift from init based systems to systemd. However the architecture is sound and relatively straightforward given the inherent complexity in managing a diversity of system processes.
EDITED TO ADD:
If you’re looking for a UNIX anti-hero regarding “do one thing and do it well” (that predates systemd), look no further than emacs.
Most of the complexity comes from trying to wrangle uncooperative, poorly written processes. For example, if process descriptors had existed early enough--they came to Linux long after systemd--process management would have been easier and systemd and alternatives could have had a more narrow focus.
Linux is now a corporate Unix. Many features exist to support tooling around impenetrable services and applications that can't be modified to behave better. This type of value-add is the bread-and-butter of commercial products and services. But by solving problems in the wrong place you're just adding cruft atop cruft, which hastens bitrot. Starting fresh with saner and thinner applications is how Linux won the Unix wars, but now the ecosystem is recapitulating the same sins.
For the problems it's solving systemd is a great system, it's just that the real problems it solves aren't technical, but are rooted in too much layering.
lol. Even among a party crowded with self-serving grifters and imbeciles, who would be insane enough to nominate Trump as VP? The mind boggles at the thought.
I would assume that even if theoretically Trump did serve as VP, in the event of the President's death he wouldn't be able to step in and they would just go up the line of succession. He would remain VP indefinitely.
I assume that's how it's supposed to work. Who knows how it would actually work? SCOTUS might just decide it's fine because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say otherwise, or something.
The 12th amendment text suggests he couldn't be VP because he is ineligible to be elected president under the 22nd amendment, and the 12th requires the VP to be eligible to be president. But that's about elections.
He could be appointed to the VP, potentially, but that would mean the Republicans would have to put up a ticket with the intent of the elected VP resigning so the elected President can nominate Trump as his new VP. Then get Congress to confirm Trump, which would require a Republican majority in both houses. The new VP would have to be onboard with this, or not onboard but have so many skeletons in their closet that a resignation can be forced. Which would make them a bad running mate and drag the ticket down.
I get the sense that there is a school of thought I’d call “biological exceptionalism”, a belief that somehow constructs made up of many functionally simple units, is fundamentally different and special compared to a similar construct composed of silicon units. I can’t see how someone could hold this belief and be a materialist (I’m not implying you are btw). Biological exceptionalism surely implies the existence of a “soul” or “spirit” (which raises a whole bunch more questions).
I don't think it'd have to imply a soul - one of these "functionally simple units" is much less well-understood than the other, and you can insert whatever belief you want to fill the gaps.
I think it goes the opposite way, starting with a soul and arriving at biological exceptionalism: You start by saying "I have a soul / spirit". Then you extrapolate "things like me probably have a soul / spirit". But since there is no theory of souls, the extrapolation is not based on principles but rather on vibes and guesswork, ending up somewhere like "there must be something weird going on with neurons that somehow create a soul, connect with an existing one or something like that.. maybe.."
Which is an interesting argument because: do neurons somehow create a soul (as you mentioned), or are do neurons somehow attract souls, or do souls choose what to inhabit. In the first case it posits that a “soul” is purely a function of biology. In the others that there’s some sort of inextricable link between the two (which in the absence of any theory of soul or how these are linked to biology, seems rather far fetched, unless of course souls could choose to inhabit anything with sufficient degrees of freedom: a brain, a mega computer, a planet, a galaxy)
Maybe a materialist biological exceptionalism position could be that biological substrates are capable of sending kinds of signals that silicon substrates are not, in the sense that brain matter especially might give rise to far greater complex processing in ways that we don't know about or appreciate yet, and which we may discover can't be efficiently recreated in silicon?
I don't know if I buy that argument or even if it makes sense. But yeah this all smacks inextricably of soul talk.
I agree that as per current understanding, the functional biological base units have more degrees of freedom and a greater functional diversity as a result, but that’s merely a quantitative difference not a fundamental distinction. One could imagine equally more complex silicon base units beyond what we have now. Whether they need to follow the same pattern/modes as the biological units remains to be seen (but it’s pretty hard to argue against evolution as an efficiency maximiser).
So many questions! Since we still don’t understand consciousness how can we draw a line to stay on the right side of? Is consciousness correlated with intelligence or independent of it? What if we keep growing these organoids until they are near-human-brain sized. We know that such things can host a consciousness yet not always eg. “brain dead”.
What if the only reason we don’t believe they are conscious is because they have no mouth to scream with?
Also, it occurs to me that a right-to-lifer would have to be against such biotech to remain consistent.
I find it all incredibly fascinating but ethically highly fraught.
I forgot: I do strongly see that the current horrid mess is due to lack of the diligent calling things with their own names - there are all kinds of bestial players active, which are treated as if normal and not labelled as they deserve. The silence of the Intellectuals has brought to this unjudging world.
> a reference
I realized (after searches in my DBs, which as said do not allow fuzzy searches yet), that the source could have been a piece submitted to HN, and then I realized that it could have been a piece found generically on some newspaper on the web. You can search for "the (female member of cabinet) states that blocking social networks ... not enough: children could look for inappropriate things on wikipedia or look for them on google", and there could have been a mention of "genitals". Similarly I remember keir starmer, on another island far away, stating that "kids should never be able to see pictures of naked people until the age of 16". Look for it on your search systems (keyword based or RAG) on the whole web. If you remember the name of the proponent in au I will look again in my offline sources.
A lot of people are replying saying they can’t get to your blog. I just tried using stock Safari on iOS with UBO Lite and AdGuard and it worked fine. FWIW I’m in Australia and not tunneling through a VPN.
The leak was via a compromised Okta SSO login (why anyone still uses them is a complete mystery to me).
reply