Sorry, it is not rude. It is a valid critique. You are publishing a teaching tool, thus you have a responsibility to ensure it is adequate for that purpose. That means you need to go out and find a competent editor for the English translations, a different competent editor for German, and yet another for each and every other language you are publishing in. If you don't do that, it calls into question the quality of the educational materials you are producing. Think about it, would you really want a person whose second language is X, despite being extremely smart, producing your marketing materials in that second language? If the answer is "yes" then I suggest looking up the word "hubris". A very smart person will know his or her limitations. English at the level of an educator is a limitation of whoever produced the English content for Gcompris.

I looked at the website too -- I don't think it is quite as vague as you make it out, but it is also clear to me that whoever wrote the summary and the website is either: a) not a native English speaker, or b) a very bad writer. Hopefully, there are no modules on English.

One year ago we took [^w made] the hard decision to fully rewrite GCompris in QtQuick in order to address tablet users while keeping PC compatibility. As you [can] imagine[,] it's [^w it was (*)] a daunting task and something for sure [^w^w that] could not be done alone. Thanks to the help of the many contributors who joined the project we have been able to port 86 activities of the 140 of the legacy version in a year. [clunky, especially the "of ... of" part -- maybe: Many contributors worked hard over the last year to port 86 of the 140 activities]. You can look at this page to see the status of the port. [rework: See the status report [with "status report" as the link, optionally and less desirably, append "here" and make that the link]] We can [^w] hope to complete the port in one more year ["one more year" is OK, but not really -- it feels off here, "in the coming year"]. The new version is far from perfect and we continue to polish it everyday(**) [^w every day,] but we already provide a better user experience than the legacy version. [This sentence is OK but a full rework wouldn't be a bad thing]

(*) They are still in the process of porting so "it is" could be considered correct, but everything else about this sentence is past tense. To adequately deal with the tense issue and porting stage would require a rework of that sentence.

(**) "everyday" means common. "Every day" means "each day".

Wow. I feel like a goose-stepping 3rd grade teacher. And of course, I will have made my own mistakes which will be pointed out with even more glee than I've exhibited here.

But my communications would not really be of interest to others. I am sure I may feel differently if I lived a life of politics or life of intrigue or sold bags of weed or raised money for Palestine or something ...

You actually have no idea whether your communications are of interest to the Government. If you are a member of the wrong religion compared to those in power, or no religion -- your communications might well be incredibly interesting. Or maybe it is your skin color, your sex, or any myriad seemingly mundane things. That could be very interesting, and dangerous to you, especially when you willing shrug as the only protections you have against the Government gulaging you, dissapearing you, or bankrupting you, is that Constitution you are so apathetic about.

If they aren't maintaining Consolekit, to say it should work fine on that is sort of nuts. Note the word "should" -- in other words, if you don't mind a broken Gnome setup, or one that is likely to fail as much as work in the future, than yeah, systemd isn't a dependency. That's like saying your computer should work with intermittent power outages -- sure, it'll crash when the power goes off but it will work the rest of the time. Just make sure to set your autosave timer to 10s intervals.

Yeah, sort of. Programming (or socially engineering) children to be subservient and accepting of constant surveillance. Surveillance of course, is basically 99.9999% tech.

Children belong to the State.

The converse is hardly better, though. Plenty of parents argue, in the same vein as States' Rights, that their kids are essentially their property to dispose of as they wish: to teach what they wish, to discipline as they wish, and so forth. I'm a parent, and yes, I have that instinct to kill anyone who comes between me and my kid -- but a little humility goes a long way. We're not born knowing how to parent, and many aren't even raised to know how to parent, not having any good role-models. It leaves a lot of parents with a very "well, I survived it, so can you" attitude that is unhealthy. Having a system by which our peers can intervene, either to show us how we're doing our kids a disservice, or to rescue our kids from us when we lose our minds, isn't a bad idea.

Kids belong to themselves, we're just along for the ride, for a while.

Malware is the primary reason why I have aggressive ad blocking strategies.

I don't see ads on the internet.

If I never had to clean up some poor sap's computer of malware caused by ads, I wouldn't care about ads. I have the bandwidth to handle it. I just don't want my shit infected.

These sats are going into LEO, not GEO, so their position in the sky won't be fixed. I imagine you'll used a phased array antenna to track them. The good points being: lower latency, no requirement to see the southern horizon specifically. The bad point being that you'll need a view of a bigger chunk of the sky to avoid signal dropouts as the satellites move - how big a chunk depends on how many satellites they have up there (and therefore how many are above the horizon at the same time). If they have enough satellites, it may work out better for you.

Your thinking is what fuels the divide in punishments between the thug who mugs a person for $63, and the Wall Street bankster who mugs the nation for trillions. Your inner-chimp can understand instinctually why mugging a person is wrong, and why the law should be against it -- the complex multi-layered fancy suit wearing type of mugging however, is completely incomprehensible on that instinctual level.

Everyone knows that the Demoblican party is the only party to really care about America! Don't be such a partisan hack!

They'll vote for either the right-wing, pro-war, pro-Wall-Street, pro-surveillance party or the other right-wing, pro-war, pro-Wall-Street, pro-surveillance party based on the only issues separating the two: abortion and gay marriage.

And what if you don't get the green card? Then you will go back home, and be the ideal candidate for offshoring the job you care currently doing -- although at much lower wages.

Understand, I *want* you to get the green card too. We should just issue more green cards faster to tech workers if we need them. If there is an H-1B program, it should be a fast track toward permanent residency.

Concentrations of tech workers *create* jobs. That's why Facebook moved from Boston to the Bay Area. Boston has plenty of tech talent for a small company, but if you're planning on growing from a half dozen to thousands of tech employees in three or four years the Bay Area is arguably the only place you can do that. So why would we want to kick tech talent out of the country? Only to send their jobs with them.

This has nothing to do with protectionism. Nobody is saying not let foreign software into the country.

As for foreign labor, I have no objection to bringing foreign labor in. My objection is kicking that labor out after it has gained experience. If there really was a tech worker shortage, these are the very workers we'd want to stay.

What this does is create a pool of offshore labor that's familiar with the work being done *here*. The obvious purpose is to use the immigration system to assist companies that want to relocate work overseas. And there's nothing special about American tech people; anything we can do can be done in India or Ukraine. That's fine, but I don't think the US government should be in the business of making it attractive for companies to move jobs overseas.

It's something so irrational (if we were to assume for the moment that the US government works for the welfare of the American people) there isn't even a word for it. It's the mirror image of protectionism. It's self-predation.

I'd like a Canine to English translator too.

I'm pretty sure at least one of my dogs is the equivalent of Anchorman's 'Brick' character.