Thanks for elaborating! Appreciate you taking the time. And yeah, the hack to get rootless containers listening below 1024 isn't great.

I run podman at just a large scale as I used to run Docker. In fact, I can run podman on an even larger scale because the Docker daemon isn't sapping 30% of my resources. I'm genuinely interested in your experience and would love you to elaborate.

Can't really comment on the others, but personally I think the CentOS move was misunderstood. Moving CentOS to upstream of RHEL (where the CentOS community can contribute), rather than downstream (where nobody can contribute because that would diverge it away from being a RHEL clone, and hence destroy its usefulness as a clone) was a well-intentioned move. I still run CentOS streams, and have had no problems at all.

And here's the kicker: You make a point about RHEL 8 and 9 being an exercise in "What did they break THIS time?". CentOS being downstream gives zero opportunity for the community to be in the driver's seat and influence things. Being upstream puts the community in the drivers seat. Do you see how complaining about Red Hat pulling features, yet also complaining about CentOS moving upstream are at odds with each other?

You nicely unknowingly point out the different between positive and negative liberty. And it's this understanding that completely eludes the but MuH Feedoms! crowd.

One the one hand, the crowd, like Kernel Kurtz, see gun ownership as a proxy for personal freedom, and an attack on gun ownership is an attack on their personal liberty. They're not entirely wrong! But this is what's called "negative" liberty in the Two Concepts of Liberty theory. It's a "freedom from...". I want to be free from anybody telling me I can't own a gun.

The other kind of freedom is generally recognised as "freedom to...". This is called "positive freedom" in this model. I want the freedom to live my life without being shot.

Here's the thing: They're both a form of liberty, but you can't have both.

And this is what the gun-toting crowd don't seem to understand. They think their freedom is the one-and-only freedom. And they can't see that the positive-liberty crowd also want liberty!. As Kernel Kurtz says above:

This whole concept was laid bare during the pandemic. The anti-vax crowd wanted the freedom to do anything they please... including the freedom to infect others with a life-threatening disease. You can see why it's called negative liberty now, right? The positive liberty crowd want to live their lives without some jackass given them a life-threatening disease.

Sadly, the negative freedom crowd are way more vocal.

Mind you, all that could easily change. Trump's attempts to slap tariffs on Australian minerals sure pissed the Aussies off enough that we were questioning our buddy-buddy relationship with the US.

I have no doubt that another Trump term would cause permanent damage to the relationship, and the US would quickly find itself being charged at the upper-end of the price spectrum of the minerals in TFA.

I don't think I'll ever understand this American custom of becoming a card-carrying member of a political party. If you want your politicians to deliver for you, then they need to understand that you're ready to stop voting for them if they put a step wrong. And you do that by being as "on the fence" as possible. By welding yourself to a party, they _are_ going to take you for granted.

We treat politics like we do sport: you cheer for your team when they're winning, and doubly when they ain't doing well. Well, in politics, if a political party ain't doing well (corruption, bad decisions, etc), then they don't deserve loyalty.

Hang on. Instead of using AI to improve patient outcome (say, by reducing time physicians spend writing up a consult and instead spending more time with the patient), they'll use the technology to grind through even more patients, thereby making more money. All while being less accurate.

Ahhh, USA. Don't stop... being you.

I'll bite. Can you show me where the cost of their subscriptions keeps ramping up? I'll wait...

p>Holy shit! Uhh.. I honestly don't know how to respond to this.

And in my scenario above, by withholding my bone marrow, I'm making a medical decision for a 6 year old child (who will die) who also legally cannot speak for themselves. You haven't actually refuted my point from a legal standpoint.

I make no such claim, and in the interests of healthy debate I'd appreciate if you stick to what I actually said.

But the mother is not uniquely able to look after the child. And you are missing the point here. Should the state prevent a mother from adopting a baby out, or otherwise giving up their baby? Of course not! Again, the state should not compel the mother to keep the baby, on threat of incarceration.

I don't think you quite grasp the legal point about bodily autonomy. In the case above, a growing fetus is solely and uniquely depending on the mother to donate her body, otherwise it will die. In my scenario above, likewise, I am solely and uniquely in a position to donate the 1-in-billion marrow match to donate my body, otherwise the child will die. And it was my choice to register with the bone marrow donor registry.

So my scenario, from a legal standpoint, is identical, and I'm amazed you're not thinking broad enough to actually see it.

Can you be a little more specific about the options that are stripped out of the base model?

I'm comparing, say, the Polestar 2 with the Telsa Model 3. To get the same level of features on the Polestar as on the base Model 3, I have to add:

• The Plus Pack to get the 13 speaker audio, heated steering wheel, heat pump, cabin filters, wireless mobile charging and the panoramic roof.
• The Pilot Pack to get the blind spot, steering assist, cross traffic, adaptive cruise control, pilot assist, auto-dimming mirrors, and fog lights.
• Finally, I have to get the dual motor to get the same performance.

So I'm curious if you can elaborate.

Wait, they've invented a way to contain pollution at state borders?

Yep, exactly!

The hypocrisy is really showing. I don't see much effort to protect and improve the lives that are already here.

And their argument fails on many fronts. Here's another great way to think about it is this scenario: Should I be compelled by the State, via threat of incarceration, to donate my bone marrow to save the life of a 6 year old leukemia sufferer?

I think most people of either political persuasion would argue "no" - that's a pretty draconian and authoritarian policy

But it's exactly the same scenario as banning abortion. The question of whether and when you consider a fetus a person is irrelevant. Should any woman be compelled to donate her body to save the life of a child (even one growing in her womb)? The answer is no.

One important reason is because the value of the USD is (mostly) determined by market forces - ie, it floats. The value of the yuan is controlled carefully by the CCP. This allows them to artificially weaken the value of the yuan to ensure the balance of trade is in their favor.

I would rather trade in a currency that is reflective of its actual value, and hence the value I receive for my goods is not being manipulated.

That's the theory, anyway. In practice, I wouldn't be surprised if the USD wasn't being secretly manipulated... I doubt the US would be "leaving money on the table".

Care to re-think that statement?

Given that 0-days are inevitable and not preventable, and defence-in-depth is not a new phenomena, and given that it's generally recognised that the health industry must adopt these strategies because the threat of cyberattacks is not exactly decreasing, one could reasonably argue that LVHN were negligent here.

Until it starts costing health-care providers real money (through law suits), they ain't gonna take cyber security seriously, which is a threat to everyone using the healthcare system.