** - It seems dubious that Truman really understood what he was signing onto.
My take was that he could have stopped it if he wanted to, but the bureaucratic machine was already in motion, and he would have had to put some effort into stopping it. I'm glad we didn't bomb Kyoto but maybe Xi will.
also voted against the motion after pressure from community bank executives.
Wow, I hate both sides.
I am also dying to know how you want to measure the existence of not yet found security problems.
It was easy. I asked, "ChatGPT, are there any security bugs in this code?"
My code is now proven secure, get with the program.
Yes of course when there is a skill and no standards of training, some people are bad at it
This. Most companies don't follow best practices when it comes to good code (for example, they have a bug tracker that is always growing, never empty). They don't try to write secure code, they don't have trainings in secure code, they don't penalize insecure code (although they should in a lot of cases). That is why most corporate programmers can't write secure code.
History shows that developers cannot write safe code
History shows that incompetent developers cannot write safe code. There are examples of programmers writing safe code.
People who make excuses for unsafe code are usually crappy developers, and that is what I think of you. You're a crappy developer if you can code at all.
I think Ubuntu (and other's desire) to remove coreutils is precisely because coreutils is old, brittle and written in an unsafe language.
They aren't brittle. I've looked at them. The code is fine, but it uses an older style that is annoying to newbies.
If I were going to rewrite something in Rust, I would look at Firefox, not Coreutils which I would consider a waste of time.
Everyone is annoying right now.
Then allow me to annoy you more, asshole!
#1 is your best option,
Not always, it depends on the situation. If you don't have stock in the company, if your boss doesn't respect you, if other companies in the region/industry are the same, then these factors weigh towards a union.
#2 forming a union requires much more energy and commitment then #1.
Again, it depends on the situation. If someone else is already forming a union, lending your support to it is lightweight.
The argument[s] against distilling makes no sense to me.
They're all motivated reasoning, you shouldn't take them too seriously.
That is, they start with the conclusion they want, then say whatever they think will confuse/convince you the most.
It seems to merely be an upset activist masquerading as a journalist.
In America, that is fine.
Try asking your congress critters why they thought 2025 was the right time to get involved.
That one is easy, it became a big enough issue that they thought it would give them cheap votes.
"You'll pay to know what you really think." -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
