That's why systemd has been systematically making interoperability with grub and encryption more difficult, in no small part.

Oh cool so they fixed all the problems!

Simplification?

There was no simplification. It was all markedly more complicated and interdependent. That was literally the primary selling point of systemd, aside from "faster boot times".

What are the discreet benefits to the "1000s of containers at scale" scenario you mention which are satisfied with systemd which could not be or were not satisfied with init?

There was not a lack of uniformity before. In fact, it was more consistent and uniform before systemd at a system level.

The only benefit systemd provides is integration with eg. pulse audio - another one of this shmuck's horrible projects - and desktop integration. While that is potentially useful in and of itself, it didn't need to be done in such a massive, integrated, monolithic Microsoft-like fashion.

It'd be nice if people would use all this excess coding capacity as provided by AI to clean up the human written bloat slop they've been churning out for the past 20 years...

> Meta doesn't really know how to do anything else with any skill.

They don't know how to do Facebook very well either: it's been pretty much stagnant and enshittified to death for the past 22 years, and it feels like a forum for greying people whose greying friends haven't bothered to move on either, or to get the date of the next annual meeting of the bridge club.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

one of those companies whose sole purpose seems to be annoying you by slapping their name as a watermark on a generic image you'd like to use in a meme, and force to spend 10 seconds finding somewhere else because you were never going to pay a stupid company to remove their mark on a bad picture you can find everywhere.

I wonder how those companies still exist, let alone make any money.

Anyway, the modern way to use copyrighted photos for free is to ask stable diffusion to regenerate it, because the AI companies have done all the data stealing for you and repackaged the stolen data into "models" you can use for free.

I'm personally convinced they're a cutout. They're being used to intentionally push this fear agenda so that the government can crack down and further implement the panopticon.

It's the only reasonable response to them repeatedly saying, "our products are dangerous". They're pushing for government intervention, and for whatever reason, want industry regulation or governmental industry control.

On one hand you've got potential nationstate-threatening technology which could take out power plants and penetrate sensitive top secret systems.

On the other hand you've got mean words and fake nudie pics.

I think your priorities are a bit fucked and navel gazing.

What an utterly naive interpretation of world history you have. I can assure you, if you'd been a Jew being rounded up for extermination in WW2 you'd have a different opinion. Likewise, if you were Chinese or Korean being subjugated by Imperial Japan, you'd have a different perspective. There is such a thing as a "just war" even though you somehow ignore the concept. It's usually when your opponent starts the war and is hell bent on eradicating you and your way of life.

Alas, you sit there in perfect safety and comfort, passing judgement on those who sacrificed fa more than you can ever imagine so you could impugn their sacrifices.

Banned for who? And who's going to enforce this ban?

You have to remember any treaty (a) must have signatories that agree to follow it and (b) there must be a method of enforcement. If you lack either of these two conditions, the treaty has no effect.

Not sure how you think you could pull that off, but whatever.

Again...exactly how do you plan to accomplish this? It's not like Iran hasn't been firing missiles at our carriers this whole time. Yeah, it's a halfhearted effort by the Iranians, but what exactly do you think would happen to Iran if you managed to even damage one of our carriers, much less sink one? I can describe it thusly: the American gloves would come off. Iran would be plastered into oblivion via conventional bombardment, and there's very little Iran could do to stop it. Sure, we'd take losses, but the Iranian regime would cease to exist in totality. America has had this option available to it since day one. We haven't exercised it. Not because we couldn't do it but because we chose not to. Do not mistake restraint for a lack of capability.

"I want to know what war is! I want you to show me!!" (Apologies to 'Foreigner')

No, Europe is not at war with Russia - not yet. Sure, Europe spies, facilitates killing of Russians in Ukraine and Russia, and holds onto Russian money. On the other hand, Russia kills Russian dissidents in Europe, snips cables, holds onto European assets and occasionally jams GPS. This isn't war. The two sides should be actively negotiating a wind-down of hostilities with each other and in Ukraine, and retaliating proportionally to offenses to keep each others worse instincts in check. But this is not war.

This is not the Jetsons. If Ukraine had a robo-army, by now there would be no "busification". And yes, Russia is losing more men, but why do you think that is? It is because the Russians are attacking, breaking cover. If the Ukrainians attacked, the same would happen to them.

It may be that the Ukrainians have superiority in autonomous targeting drones; that the Andurils and tech startups of the West help them in this. But how long do you think this superiority will last? Will this period be long enough to enable the Ukrainians to break out and get the the Donbas back? What do you think will happen to the casualty exchange rate when Ukraine attacks?

Yes, drones can help attack, but they cannot hold land. That requires men. Again, we are not in the Jetsons era yet.

Look, Ukraine is already in a demographic death spiral. Using EU funds, it is importing guest workers, already reluctant to enter a warzone, while shipping of it's own youth to die at the front. Ukraine is desperate to involve the West more deeply in the war. This is unsustainable and dangerous for both itself and the West.

Say, your plucky smaller friend is getting trashed in a bar fight with a big guy. He is gesturing at you frantically to join in. Won't the wise option -- for him and for you -- be to urge him to stop the fighting and try to come to terms with his opponent? Rather, the West keeps slipping Zelensky the equivalent of knuckle dusters, tells him "Keep going", "punch him over there", "look out for his left hook", and swears at the Russians while quietly buying uranium and gas from them. Rocky Balboa's coach is doing business with Ivan Draga.

Those Ukrainian defensive lines you speak of, the ones that are too sacrosanct, they are no guarantee. The Ukrainians need to scramble and build new ones behind them anyway. The Russians are still advancing, imposing losses on Ukraine's assault brigades that have taken back territory in the last two months. The Ukrainians aren't going to get a dramatic infusion of soldiers. So they need new lines far in the back anyway, either as defenses after surrendering territory, or as fallbacks if the frontline is breached. The West should help Ukraine build new lines in the back (the only real security guarantee), encourage them to make concessions for peace and broach the topic with the Russians