Nothing but the truth: 12 is divisible by 4
The whole truth: 12 is divisible by all real and imaginary numbers.

By stating nothing but the truth you can lie by omission. By stating the whole truth you can confuse your audience by focusing on irrelevant details.

(the interesting truth: 12 is divisible by 12, 6, 4, 3, 2 and 1).

Yup. I thought numbering the questions I was answering would make that clear but I suppose I should have written "question 1:" and "question 2:" instead of "1:" and "2:" to remove all ambiguity.

That's a good answer I didn't think of. Thanks!

Is the social capital gained by this move that valuable? Are the costs that minimal? When there are companies specializing in providing custodial staff at costs lower than google could feasible hire them, why does it matter how they are employed?

Having the property of "being a person who knows me personally" does not render you immune to being manipulated into making judgments you wouldn't otherwise have made by people who have made a career out of achieving just that effect. This is what lawyers do. That they didn't always is no reason to maintain the laws written in a time when they didn't.

No, that's not what I said. I want people to judge over me who have been judged to be capable of doing so by people who have spent their lives studying the basis on which judgments are and should be made. This does not rule out the judge judgers making decisions based on other criteria (such as political affiliation (though the effect of this can be mitigated by requiring meta-judgments to be performed by a committee) but it is a vast improvement over the current system.

This does not contradict anything I have said. Furthermore, if that's what juror selection etc. is for, it's doing a piss-poor job. And even if that's what it's for, it's not how it's being used. I have been dismissed from jury duty for being a phd student in an area relevant to the case, ie., someone capable of thinking for themselves.

The practical issue that you can't educate a jury about every possible form of bias and fallacy remains, however. Jurors, being regular people, will insist on using heuristics that have served them well in everyday life in judging the matter before them (even though those are not typically logically valid but based on induction and fuzzy logic). Lawyers know this, and can exploit those heuristics in obtaining a verdict.

1: judges
2: law professors

The idea that justice can be obtained by being judged by a jury of your peers is based on the hidden premise that people who are equal to you in the way in which they are your peers are capable of rendering a fair judgment upon you. This premise is false. Not only are my peers easily influenced by spurious logic, they are also susceptible to all manner of emotional manipulation, subliminal messaging and whatever else. Justice is not rendered by the level to which one of the lawyers is able to influence these factors. Nevertheless, that is exactly how a majority of cases judged by jurors are played out. Being judged by a jury of your peers may have been a good idea 300-400 years ago, but now we know better. Why doesn't the law reflect that?

Offering incentives to solve problems is actually detrimental though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Fair enough and that's a laudable and, in a lot of satisfying ways, attainable goal.

Most of what he's complaining about is undeserved (hiring a hit on him, WTF?) but he's not exactly known to be very diplomatic in his communications. He is, with a heavy hand, changing the fundamental landscape of a lot of people's favorite OS. This is upsetting people, in a big way in some cases. Again, constructive criticism is the way to handle dislike of systemd and his other projects, not death threats or even simple, juvenile insults.

But he shares some of the blame when it comes to the vitriolic nature of systemd discussions. He can't just brush off a large percentage of the community and not expect people to get upset.

What blows my mind is that every single major distribution seems to be hopping on the systemd bandwagon. I'm looking squarely at Debian. The short time systemd (relatively speaking) has been around and has been worked on and debugged does not justify it's inclusion in a system that's known for stability and correctness over latest/greatest.

Oh well, for me it was the kick in the head I needed to finally getting around to 100% embracing *BSD as a server system and not as something to play around with in my free time.

make that "change the world". I don't think anyone could save the world from a gamma ray burst.

For the sake of brevity I assumed your interpreter would derive the meaning of "save the world" contextually and did not specify that I had in mind specific connotations not related to a strict, literal interpretation.