You do realize that not all problems are the same.. right?

And that to different problems, the different properties of different choices can have varying suitability to that task.

tl;dr. systemd is not some omniscient "I will solve every problem" solution. There will be times where it is less suitable than a different option. People who recognize this don't want to have to throw the baby out with the bath water (from dependencies in other software that aren't really necessary) when choosing to use a more suited option to their task.

The anti-systemd integration people seem to still want to be able to choose the best tool for the task, not be forced along a certain path without necessity. Systemd may have plenty of good uses, but to assume it is the best tool for the task no matter the task is just folley.

I think this whole thing would be a non-issue if you could swap out systemd with another system and still have everything function easily.

The pro systemd people seem to never realize that other people may have differing requirements than they do, and dismiss anyone who does as making "a technically inferior choice". I find it very presumptuous to assume that you know every detail of someone elses criteria for a task you've never heard of.

In regards to lifespan to cycling, you are thinking of lead acid batteries, lithium batteries can be deep cycled all the time. When your phone gets to a few percent battery life, it is being deep cycled pretty heavily.

There does need to be some kind of undervoltage protection, because if drained under 3v batteries can be damaged, however by that point well over 99% of all the energy the battery has has been expended. I'd hardly call that "light cycling".

Modern quality lithiums can be deep cycled somewhere between 500-1000 times depending. A 2-3 year life full cycling once a day isn't too shabby at all.

In regards to the usage of the label social justice warrior

It is used as a short hand for people who have a particular culture, generally very well meaning, nice people, who fail to see how their solutions to perceived "problems" may themselves cause differing problems for people, and that other peoples heirarchy of priorities may not necessarily be in a similar order to their own.

Common but not necessary beliefs/traits of SJWS can include. Blaming the 'patriarchy' for all of the worlds ills. Belief in 'rape culture'. The redefining of words in such a way that the same behaviour turned in the other direction does not qualify "only white people can be racist because only they have systemic power" etc.

Individual social justice warriors may believe whatever they like, there are only trends and common themes, common themes and tactics that lead to a common label.

The name fits the behaviour commonly seen. They are for what they perceive to be social justice. They go about it in a way that is potentially/often very hostile to others interests, and are quite devout in their beliefs. They fight for what they believe in, thus the "warriors".

If you are intolerant of his differing views, you fit the bill if a bigot.

This is okay, there are plenty of views out there that people don't tolerate. I sure as hell wouldn't tolerate someone who believes it is perfectly alright to come up and punch me in the face unprovoked and acts on that belief.

The lesson to be learnt here, is that it is probably silly to be tolerant of absolutely everything and that calling someone a bigot in the process of being intolerant of someone else's differing views is a silly thing to do. The social justice crowd just needs to drop it, as a step of winding back the hypocrisy.

Even if you find a cause, or several causes for the imbalance that does not necessarily mean that they are problems.

Its changing the situation to favour the preferences of a group, depending on the situation being changed and what measures are to be taken some people may consider it worth it, but others may not.

I have no problem with this, it's always helpful to try to figure out how something came to be.

This can be problematic. We can try to figure out what influences the male muscovy duck to hold the female down and force copulation for example, but why is it a "problem"? and why should it be "fixed"?

Since when is people choosing what they want a "problem" that deserves "fixing" with indue influence?

Science is a tool used to try to figure out how things are, it doesn't judge them as morally good or bad.

Why must everything be gender balanced? Why not let women do what they want instead of trying to force them in to places that aren't necessarily their thing?

If women are actors instead of objects, they can make their own damn choices and do what they want to do without requiring others to try to sweeten the deal specifically for them to try to entice them.

I agree with your post, I brought it up mainly because someone said that we know something with certainty, my post was to remind people that we don't really know anything 100% and to always leave room for doubt, nothing more.

I see people claiming that something is without a doubt 100% certain and truth. Which is why I linked that speech.

there are plenty of scientists out there who know the limitations of what they know, and there are a few who are more certain than they should be. When measures are proposed from theories where the measures are likely to destroy some people's livelihoods,the amount of certainty people want can differ. Those who aren't likely to be adversely affected by the measures are the most likely to want to push forward. Those that will be adversely affected, want to be truly sure it is worth it.

wanting to protect the environment from people can be a nice goal, but people need resources. It doesn't matter if we become 30% more energy efficient across the board when the population doubles.

i think richard feynman put it best.

Most lead acid batteries don't like being discharged really quickly, ones designed for cold cranking amps tend to not like being too deeply run down either. Right now for sixty dollars I can purchase an 11.1v lithium polymer battery that can output well over 250 amps co tinuously and 500 amps in bursts that's on a four amp hour battery. Up the capacity and the maximum current can get crazy

Were the dissenting opinions from within the organisation though? I remember a piece written by one of the gay employees that said while the revelation of his donation was disappointing that he had always been reasonable and treated them no differently than anyone else.

from a bystanders point of view, it looked like just a lot of hate directed towards him, with no end in sight until there was some form of admission that he was an evil evil person.

What people consider harm can be pretty arbitrary though

Considering I don't see gay marriage activists advocating polygamy be accepted yeah, they aren't for equal rights. The only sensible thing that would treat everyone equally in regards to marriage would be to eliminate it as a government thing whatsoever.

treating people equally can be a silly goal though at times, I would not treat the prime minister of great Britain. The same as I would treat a six year old on a special needs bus. Like it or not people are different and sometimes those differences can matter to their suitability to a task or problem.

what people would probably agree more to is not using criteria irrelevant to a task, but that then devolves into what are the criteria and why is it important.

anyway the point I was trying to get across is equality as a blind goal is not necessarily a good thing.

bigotry ËbÉgÉ(TM)tri/ noun intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself It is kind of sad, how the people calling others bigots in a negative fashion are often being bigots themselves. The word is used far too often by left-leaning people in hypocritical ways.