Godwin's law obviously has no modern relevance given that it was invented for USENET and that was effectively destroyed.

Now seriously though it never spoke to whether or not the comparisons to Hitler were apt, as that is situational, only that they would occur.

And sidebar, Mike Godwin explicitly stated that such a comparison is apt when it comes to der pedofuhrer. Just like to toss that in there.

This is why there's no ethical consumption under capitalism. The worst people have the most money because they have no compunctions about harming others.

It doesn't actually provide that because of the things you can't do in unit files without scripts.

When systemd proponents can construct a non-fallacious argument maybe I'll consider taking it seriously

There is no value to running SteamOS on your PC over some other distribution except simplicity. If you actually want to do non-game things with it you'll wind up installing enough additional packages to erase the benefit. If you want simplicity, you'll also buy a steam machine, so you don't have to figure out the PC.

Yes, controllers generally cost $80 now. They used to cost $50, but there's this thing called inflation.

US: 66% (Wall Street's numbers aren't those found in official statistics)
UK: 28.9%
Holland: 23%
Norway: 16%
China: 6%

US' conclusion: The rate is a complete mystery, we've no idea how to decrease it, let's do more of what we're currently doing differently to everyone else.

There is a slight possibility this may be flawed.

Some professional printers do have their spools in cartridges, and refuse to work without them...

5 axis printers using non-planar slicing are becoming more common in pro use, they allow you to print things without supports which would have required supports.

systemd might make sense for ephemeral VMs. That doesn't justify it for long-running servers or desktops.

Every silly error I see in automatic captions today is on Youtube and was created by an LLM. Why didn't it catch them?

I didn't find them to be so. The primary advantage claimed was that it eliminated init scripts. But init scripts are really easy on modern Linux because of the boilerplate, and there are still cases where you need scripts with systemd, so it didn't actually eliminate them — It only reduced their number. The other advantage claimed was that it implemented cgroups. Well, I'm using Devuan and that uses cgroups too, they are created and managed and destroyed with simple commands and you do not need any special tools for that at all.

systemd solves a non-problem, since scripts are a core OS feature.

Closed environments and simulations. Simulations are better in particular because you can create test situations trivially, so you can test on e.g. a thousand variations of the same onramp. You can't really build the vision models in simulation, but that's OK, because you can build them by logging data from cars where the computer isn't controlling anything and therefore isn't endangering anyone.

This isn't new, though, this is obvious. You just want to move fast and break things.

Weren't you here when we discussed this when Debian adopted systemd? The change was rammed through without the normal discussion procedure, specifically for the purpose of supporting GNOME at a time when nobody gave a fuck about it any more. The idea that they have to have had a good reason because they did it is not logic-based.

strncpy() was not intended for null-terminated strings at all. It should have been named copy_null_padded_buffer(). Then its operation would have made sense to almost anyone. People wouldn't have minded the longer name much either, because hardly anybody uses null-padded buffers in modern software.

Note that a null-padded buffer that is completely full doesn't have any nulls in it at all. That's why strncpy() doesn't necessarily add a null termination. It also fills the entire destination buffer with nulls after the end of a short copy, which can be very inefficient when used with null-terminated strings.

TL;DR: don't use strncpy(). It doesn't do what anybody thinks it does.

You also have to give them achievable parameters. "You are always responsible" is not realistic. In some cases someone else is, in fact, responsible. And that's the rub of regulation, not that I think this means we shouldn't regulate, but it's going to always be true that doing it well takes effort. You can only ever reasonably expect that people are moving forwards (at best) and doing what is reasonably and humanly possible, and hopefully advancing the state of the art. Determining whether or not they are doing that is inherently complex.