They aren't trying to require ID. They are trying to require either a passport or birth certificate. A lot of people don't have a passport, and a large percentage of the population does not have a birth certificate readily available. It takes money and time to get a replacement copy, and even if everyone requests one in time local agencies will be flooded such that the delay will cause them to be unable to vote. It is already well known that the way things have been done for many decades works just fine, and all claims of election fraud have been thoroughly debunked. Also, a poll tax is illegal, and it cost money to get any of the three (ID, Passport, Birth Certificate.) It's ironic that you are complaining about election fraud while supporting installing the means for Trump to commit it.

Phones can have multiple users also, either by allowing them to be physically shared or by creating multiple user accounts.

Back then companies were able to focus on strategy and long term plans. Now companies can only focus on the bottom line of the current quarter. Anything that helps that number is more important than any negative downstream side-effects such thinking causes. The combination of MBAs, spreadsheets and SarbOx tool control of most companies away from the people who were interested in innovation (and customers and employees) and put all control solely on the financial performance and the people that track it.

I'm not making the argument dipshit. I'm pointing out that you made the argument. Herp Derp.

"And yet you cannot be bothered to show us even one.

I personally don't know a damn thing about her other than that she has showed bad judgement across large swaths of her life (hanging around Epstein, marrying Trump, staying married to Trump)."

Why would you suggest someone might have difficulty finding an example and then immediately cite three of them off the top of your head? I assure you there are plenty of other examples if you just do a modicum of research.

> "Our vehicles are giant paperweights right now through no fault of ours," one wrote on Reddit.

No fault? None at all? That seems... counter-intuitive.

I get it that the technology failed spectacularly, and that this is a serious problem for which people need to be held to account, but my car is working just fine.

I know. I know. You are truly an amazing and brilliant man. There is no reason to use systemd. The vast majority of the Linux community are idiots. If only they were smart like you. Herp Derp.

It didn't strike the Earth. A house stopped it before it could. ;-)

Sometimes the absence of information suffices to convey the information. Other things that didn't happen include:

An Uber Eats driver was not delivering McDonald's to the house at the time

No famous or rich people lived there

Nobody was sitting on the couch

Protestors did not form outside the house to raise awareness of the dangers of space exploration.

So you don't use systemd and have yet to see any advantage using systemd. That logic checks out! Herp Derp.

I'm not about to continue a discussion with someone who is too stupid to figure out that they just contradicted themselves in a post comprised of only three sentences.

Nobody ever said they are disabling bash. Nobody said you can't runs scripts via unit files. If you knew how init worked you would know what init.d is, how it works, and why no longer using it is removing support. They are not removing support for scripts. They are removing support for the init script mechanism, implemented by numbering your scripts and putting them in init.d. Systemd, up until v260 supported that mechanism. Stop pretending you have a clue, when you have no idea what you are talking about.

Google is your friend.Try: "systemd 360 init script changes"

"Based on recent major updates (specifically systemd 260+), support for legacy System V (SysV) init scripts in /etc/init.d has been removed, making native unit files mandatory. Users must replace old shell scripts with unit files, which use declarative [Unit], [Service], and [Install] sections to handle service management, dependencies, and parallel execution."

So yes, I should have wrote 260 rater than 60. I didn't say nobody could "find a way", I said they are removing support.

You are clearly "throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of guy. Systemd still has huge advantages over init scripts, and you don't have to build the entire feature set in. This is like you finding about a portage variable getting added to Gentoo and saying "See, I knew Gentoo sucks!"

You do know that systemd version 60 removes support for SysV style init scripts, right? I do agree that it isn't related to this change, but it IS related to Systemd rapidly becoming a shitshow, so there is a correlation to the complaint.