First, why so angry?

Second, I googled PS5 controller and posted the first link which was straight on the Playstation store. Didn't do any comparison shopping, just posted the first controller Sony tried to sell me.

Going to guess that effects a pretty slim number of Outlook for Mac users though.

Yeah, that's why JAMF is a $600+ million dollar company...

This is pretty hard to reconcile with why it's taken 4 years for Micron to get to breaking ground and their plant is going to take 4 more years to complete. That a newcomer without experience can get it done in 1/16th of the time, seems rather unlikely.

From the summary:

Well, not just one young arrogant engineer, also most of the maintainers of the major Linux distros in the world.

If it's really a bad idea, the blame doesn't really fall on Poettering. Many young, arrogant engineers have built things that were stupid, and their things got ignored by the world. Some smaller number of young, arrogant engineers have built things that were stupid but were able to convince their PHBs that they weren't stupid and they got deployed. I don't think that's how I'd characterize the leadership at Red Hat (I never worked there, but I have good friends who did), but let's suppose that they were clueless and that's why they deployed Poettering's stupid idea.

But then how do you explain why so many others looked at it, experimented with it for a few years, and then decided to adopt it, and even extend it?

The systemd opponents are loud and forceful on social media. The people who actually build the systems, however, disagree. And It's not just one or two groups who are somehow beholden to Poettering, nor is it people who don't know anything or have no technical stake in the decision.

You might want to consider whether you're living up to your nick here.

I don't personally care that much. I find it mildly annoying that the old scripts my finger muscle memory still wants to type by default don't always work... but honestly I rarely need them any more, because my systems Just Work. And I have to consider the possibility that systemd is part of the reason Linux requires so much less maintenance than it used to. There are multiple contributors here. A lot of it is that drivers have gotten a lot better and other aspects of the system have matured (like the audio subsystem :^)).

But given its broad adoption by nearly all open source and commercial Linux distros, Occam's razor says that it's probably better than sysvinit. Or BSD init. Or Upstart. Or OpenRC, or... <insert favorite system manager here>.

Yes, he turned a leaky reflecting pool that at least reflected into an algae-bloomed waste pool filled with partially-decomposing petrochemical film from using TRUCK BED LINER on a GRANITE SURFACE.

Literally anybody could have told him that wasn't going to work. And as it turns out, two weeks in Virginia summer heat was all it took to make that reality known to literally everyone.

He made it uglier, and more dilapidated than when he found it. Like literally everything else he touches.

But here you are, apologizing for him yet again. Why are you so complacent to such complete incompetence?

You think having a common and predictable operating environment across various system types has no value?

I don't want to have to remember a completely different stack of commands to use in an ephemeral test environment that doesn't work on core infrastructure. That creates "tribal knowledge" silos within organizations, longer onboarding times for engineers to know systems, etc.

One common service scheduler across all systems eliminates that bullshit, which eliminates the need for a "special cabal" of on-call people that have to deal with the bespoke systems that act different from every other damn thing out there.

I could do without them treating it as the "kitchen sink" and putting unrelated crap like DNS resolvers into it. That gets in the way more often than it helps.

So your position is that nothing should ever change because when things go wrong, you want to be anchored in "the days of yore"

No.

Systems get upgraded over time, and when defunct shit from 30 years ago is no longer sufficient for modern systems, that defunct shit gets deprecated and replaced.

Am I saying that systemd is the right fix? No, because I don't have enough information to make a good decision there, but the distro maintainers do and they keep choosing systemd instead of staying with 30 year old stuff that you are demanding.

Nobody chooses to take on all the work to adopt systemd for arbitrary and silly reasons. Adapt or die.

For comparison the Switch 2 joycons are $99.99 and the PS5 DualSense is $84.99.

When you think about all that's jammed into them these days, Hall-effect/magnetic joysticks so there isn't drift issues, touchpads, a battery, gyros, haptic feedback, and the microcontroller. It's easier to understand why it costs a little more than a rectangle with a couple red buttons of yesteryear.

And why force people to buy a controller if they are going to just use mouse / keyboard or are happy buying a cheapo corded controller?

Appropriateness of the response to the emergency is part of the legal considerations. Congress granted the power for a reason. Taking that and assuming it means arbitrary power is not operating within the law, not for Trump, not for Biden.

In what way? Please correct me.

Bah. If a human driver increased their safety and reliability by avoiding certain situations, would you call them a worse driver for it?

They provide full access to the regulators, and they've allowed academic researchers full access. Putting it all online would be more transparent, but they're a business and they have up and coming competitors.

Do you honestly believe that mass debt forgiveness -- after COVID was already over! -- was a necessary emergency response to the pandemic? Suspending payments (and interest) during the pandemic made perfect sense, and that was not struck down. I don't recall that it was even challenged.

No, the debt forgiveness clearly had nothing to do with the (already-ended) emergency, it was just an attempt to skirt the law, and the courts were quite correct to strike it down as executive overreach. If Biden wanted to do that, he should have lobbied Congress to change the law. He didn't do that, of course, because he knew Congress would refuse -- even though his party held both houses.

Your comment mischaracterizes what has happened. The Supreme Court has absolutely bent over backwards to let Trump do what he wants in temporary rulings, including jumping in to to stay lower-court orders that no previous court would even have responded to. But their on-the-merits rulings, when they have to issue a full opinion, have been much less friendly to Trump. There have been some incredibly bad ones (e.g. immunity) but Trump has lost more than he has won in SCOTUS final judgements.

You're treating the current law as a standard handed down from on high, incontrovertible and guaranteed-correct, which must be applied verbatim. And, indeed, laws must be applied as written... but that doesn't mean the laws are perfect forever. Laws are written within a context, and when the context changes, the laws have to change.

In a world where all cars are driven by humans, if you want to protect highway workers one way to do it is to attach serious prison time to killing one and to publicize that fact loudly so that all of the drivers know that they should be especially cautious around highway workers, even more than they would around other sorts of pedestrians (let's put aside the moral debate about whether we actually should protect highway workers more than other pedestrians).

In a world where some cars are driven by software systems, that strategy doesn't really work -- as your question correctly points out -- but the right conclusion isn't "Therefore self-driving cars shouldn't be allowed", or "Therefore we must identify some scapegoat human at the company to put in prison". The right conclusion is "Therefore we need a different kind of regulation to keep highway workers safe from self-driving cars". What should that be? I can think of lots of possibilities, both pro-active (e.g. require self-driving vehicles to demonstrate in rigorous testing that their vehicles stay far from highway workers, with whatever minimum distance you want to specify) and reactive (severe penalties, up to heavy fines and/or immediate loss of permission to operate). The point is that the law should choose an approach that works with the new context.