How is "foreseeable" (by you) future relevant? The topic is future, not your prejudices.

You didn't read my post, did you? I am saying that the more precisely we measure intelligence, and the more types of intelligence we measure, the more certain it becomes that we find differences. Differences could be in at least one measure of central tendency, OR at least one measure of variation; of at least one type of intelligence.

Why is it acceptable to set out to "prove difference" between rice of Asia vs Africa?

Not exactly.

Doesn't follow. While both parts 1 and 3 of you sentences are correct, the "so" doesn't fit at all. Are you saying the vast majority of non-exotic pizzas in the world are acceptable? Or non-exotic-ness causes acceptability? Both are pretty difficult positions to argue for.

Ok, so assume no special needs like allergy or restricted diet. Still, all non-exotic pizzas don't taste similar - cheese and tomato both are non-exotic yet taste wildly different from each other.

Only low quantity of toppings and leeching flavour and taste from toppings can cause pizzas with different toppings to taste similar. Non-exotic-ness is a factor with pizza hut but it doesn't fit with your post at all.

Success rate may not really mean much. It could also mean :

1. Toppings are in such small quantity, that too with flavour leeched out of them, that non-topping-ingredients might decide the majority of taste / satisfaction.

2. 98% say they liked their pizza after ordering this way - but maybe they would have liked any pizza? There needs to be a control group which is served the pizza that the algorithm finds least "good" for them. The very fact that they chose to order this way might mean they are not particular about which pizza they want.

At least, there needs to be a control group with random pizza ordered for them. Press release, being a press release, is short on details.

And more importantly, if there turns out to be a difference between some intelligence measures in the millionth decimal point, of which you don't deny the possibility, it does indeed "prove" the difference in intelligence. Even though there is another measure of intelligence in which the other race turns out to be more intelligent.

The culture problem is a very small symptom of the larger problem - we have not enough clue what intelligence really means, to really measure it.

The context in which I was replying was already of the future, I took it categorically to the future by talking about a time when we really do understand intelligence. This was expected to forestall comparisons with intelligence studies done to date. Which have been little more than jokes.

Thanks. One of the Debian meetings for which I read the minutes mentioned they will not support a shim - I'll evaluate what kind of shim this one is.

Exactly. Good luck it is that I tried it after 13 years and got interested in it as a "app" platform, not an editor. Great "app" store, amazing UI, life changing "app"s, leverages synergy with ecosystem - what's not to like?

We already know intelligence is a vector with at least dozens of fields. Suppose we ever figure out a way to measure those to arbitrary precision.

Are you telling me that there is chance in hell of all measures of central tendency, and all measures of variation of all these dozens of fields of intelligence to trillions of decimal places between different races to be identical?

When one sets out to study rice traditionally grown in Africa vs rice traditionally grown in Asia, one can freely set out to "prove" differences between rice traditionally grown in Africa vs rice traditionally grown in Asia. Because rice is a complicated mixture of chemicals and there is no chance in hell of rice with different geneology, climatic conditions, socio-political situation, cohabitating animals/insects ; be identical in ALL those respects to trillions of decimal places.

Why the shitty political correctness about scientific hypotheses about human intelligence, which is also immensely complex? Why does one have to qualify setting out to "find out if there is a difference and prove it", rather than just prove it? You don't have to do it for rice.

Yes, that is why counter-assholes like RMS are indispensable. Emacs is going strong - no UI idiot is getting closer than 100 miles to emacs UI.
With web browsers, IDEs, email clients all going to shit, I'll have to look at Emacs as the oasis.

Do you understand the difference between "supporting open formats" and open sourcing some implementation ?

Well, your statement included "supporting open formats". This is the textbook first step of EEE. Mentioned in the wikipedia article to which I linked, with only a small change of words. What exactly do you not understand?

Halloween documents are just "related" bedtime reading, especially around these times of the year, not to spoonfeed you about Microsoft supporting MKV and FLAC.

Why, textbook variety. Do you have specific questions? For related bedtime reading, refresh Halloween documents every year.

Why then did Debian decide not to work on even a shim on systemd?

Overall your post comes across as from a position of ignorance about interoperability in open source software world.

I disagree with your on the interpretation of the word "significant" from GP too, though my opinion is as good as yours in that regard - the act of forking is significant, as even you admit. The forking cannot be insignificant if it resolves a"huge distraction ". The forked distribution, may or may not be significant. Decisions yet to be made will have an effect on the significance of the distribution.

RedHat customers haven't completed the transition to RedHat 6 yet. I know, I work for a humongous customer of RedHat (sort of). Our customers, who are enterprise-y, haven't completed transition to our releases of 4 years ago.

I see the enterprise market as very slow moving, so all the noise you are missing should be missed 4 years from now.