I broadly agree with your assessment that most of these are not sexual assault, even if they are inappropriate.

Tara Reade ultimately did accuse him of forced unwanted digital penetration, which if it had happened, would be absolutely sexual assault. So far this is the only allegation of that nature, but she didn’t go unambiguously public until 2020 (though there’s record of a more contemporary mention of the incident in a call to Larry King live, but the call was vague both in terms of what happened and who it involved).

However, it is still one person’s word versus another, and a singular incident. Also a lot of incidents where Tara was pretty much grifting through people, so she had a credibility problem. In the accusation itself she accuses him of going to zero to 100 faster than she could have said no, but stopping when she did say no. So ultimately by every measure and the most pessimistic interpretation of the allegations, it is still not as bad as Trump’s incidents. She alleges that he “grabbed her by the pussy” which would be a grave incident for bidens history while Trump just casually says that is something to do any old time.

Define “the OS package manager”. If the distro comes with flatpack and dnf equally, and both are invoked by the generic “get updates” tooling, then both could count as “the” update manager. They both check all apps for updates.

Odd to advocate for docker containers, they always have the app provider also on the hook for all dependencies because they always are inherently bundled. If a library has a critical bug fix, then your docker like containers will be stuck without the fix until the app provider gets around to fixing it, and app providers are highly unreliable on docker hub. Besides, update discipline among docker/podman users is generally atrocious, and given the relatively tedious nature of following updates with that ecosystem, I am not surprised. Even best case, docker style uses more disk space and more memory than any other option, apart from VM.

With respect to never having to worry about bundled dependencies with rpm/deb, third party packages bundle or statically link all the time. If they don’t, then they sometimes overwrite the OS provided dependency with an incompatible one that breaks OS packages, if the dependency is obscure enough for them not to notice other usage.

deleted by creator

Depends on if you stick to distro provided dependencies, then you are generally good, unless a third party repo decided to supersede that dependency.

I have spent a long time carefully packaging as a third party repository and it’s generally doable. Just sometimes another repository isn’t as careful and blows away the distribution provided libraries.

Washington Post had a better picture: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/07/04/zelda-master-sword-jail-nuneaton/

I’m guessing it’s pretty much a letter opener. From a read, letter openers count, and many people are mocking the idea of a letter opener being included in such a ban.

You don’t need the distro to package your sodtware through their package management systems though. Apt and dnf repositories are extensible, anyone can publish. If you go to copr or ppa you can have a little extra help too, without distro maintainers.

The headache comes up when multiple third party repositories start conflicting with each other when you add enough of them, despite they’re best efforts. This scenario starts needing flatpack, which can, for example concurrently provide multiple distinct library versions installed that traditionally would conflict with each other. This doesn’t mean application has to bundle the dependency, that dependency can still be external to the package and independently updated, it just means conflicts can be gracefully handled.

Flatpack can be centrally managed, it’s just like a parallel distribution scheme, where apps have dependencies and are centrally updated. If a flatpack is made reasonably, then it gets library updates independent of the app developer doing it.

“App image” and " install from tarball" violate those principles, but not snap or flatpack.

Funny thing is that’s how Trump thinks, but not ironically.

Generally their playbook is open, it just doesn’t work. Their strategy is to let rich people do whatever they want and hoard as much wealth as they can, and that prosperity obviously will trickle down to everyone.

However when taxes are relatively higher on the rich and regulations do things like punish them for poisoning a water source, they spend their resources gaslighting the populace into thinking economy is just terrible and if your personal experience does not bear that out, well your just lucky and you’ll be out on the streets in a few months unless you vote right.

How about the way you walk?

I would suspect never.

Either they are obsessed with their “work” and do it far more than that, or they do nothing.

Musk still counts as someone who likes Musk. Perhaps more than anyone else. So it still works.

Agreed, and further to point out they even have private schools if they feel so compelled to indoctrinate every day of the week, we let them do that too and even allow them to claim equal credentials to a publicly regulated institution.

I think the third party is a valid thing to keep in mind. The Republicans are a bit more “ends justify the means”, which translates to not letting themselves get distracted by “perfect is the enemy of the good”. So they might even prefer a third party, but they are less likely to because they tend to be a bit more coldly strategic in their voting.

With respect to they can ignore the results of the primary vote… but that’s exactly the sort of thing that people accussed them of when they put Hilary Clinton up as their candidate. So the right can tear into them for ‘coronating’ their candidate instead of doing an election.

While they can put up someone else, it would be a pretty desperate act, and it’s hard to know which bad option is the worst of the options.

I would say that Jill Stein’s platform is broadly impractical. It’s largely a wishlist of “things that would be cool if they were the case” generally bereft of “how it will be acheived” and ill equipped to deal with harsh realities.

The most pervasive issue is her platform asserts that it will do things that are beyond the authority of a presidential administration. Much of what she promises are the responsibility of congress, not the executive branch. She promises ranked choice voting but that’s not even the authority of the federal government, that’s the states. She even goes so far as to declare that foreign nations would basically act the way she tells them to. Meanwhile the Green Party despite fielding a presidential candidate is utterly missing in enough down ballot elections making it a guarantee that such a hypothetical presidential win would be lame duck from inauguration.

There’s also some inconsistencies. Like allowing the UN Security Council to hold Israel Accountable, but at the same time wanting to abolish the UN Security Council.

Then the flat-out bad ideas, like disbanding NATO. Her platform reads like she believes Russia would just be nice if NATO didn’t exist, that the US and NATO is the cause of the invasion of Ukraine. Maybe there was an opportunity there in the 90s if the world had helped Russia differently in the wake of the USSR collapse, but that opportunity, for now, has passed. Fairly sure if she had her wish that we’d probably see Taiwan fall to China, South Korea fall to North Korea (with Chinese and Russian help), and Russia take much of eastern Europe.

because he wouldn’t have fucked up COVID so spectacularly and likely would have won a second term.

I think that, frankly, COVID would have fucked up any president. I mean, we had some damning rhetoric and piss poor moves, but on the other hand there weren’t good moves really to be had. The best response would have still been an economic catastrophe that would not have recovered. We might have had fewer deaths, but we’d still have a lot of them. I think if it had been COVID-11 then even Obama would have lost his second term.

do some really sketchy stuff. Simply put “war”

Note that as bad as that is and as evil as it has sometimes been, it is “legal”, and thus not subject to criminal prosecution. It is specifically legal for the president to do that sketchy stuff.

For an “official” act to be illegal, but not subject to prosecution just makes no sense. It shouldn’t be possible for an illegal act to be “official”.

Extra bonkers is the 5/4 opinion that you can’t even mention official acts, like if you accept a bribe in exchange for an appointment, you can’t mention the appointment while trying to prosecute the bribe.

The third party situation currently is inherently going to draw candidates that are not practically minded. Any one that might align with a third party platform but have any hint of practicality go participate with one of the two likely parties.

In some areas, it’s not even two parties, it’s just one of the two. In those areas, you’ll see both left and right candidates in the primary for the practical choice, and the other mainstream party devolves into the same state as “third parties”, with far out impractical people trying to run.

Election reform to make third party candidates viable would lead to more practical sensibilities in those third parties

Perhaps an oversimplification, but I’d say it’s the one point that progressives are so pissed that they would tend to forget that the other likely choice would rather see more genocide. On other points I’d say progressives may wish for better, but are willing to be more pragmatic for now.

There’s a fair question of “would it ever be practical to do such large constructs”. As far as energy capture, between advances in energy efficiency and solar capture, one could imagine having energy beyond our greatest ambitions with no or minimal space based solar energy collection. The resources involved to construct such a thing would involve a mass equivalent to an entire planet to make a super thin shell, and we’d want to be pickier than just any old matter.

Similar to people dreaming of Mars colonization as a workaround for climate change. Anything we could do to make Mars livable would be even harder than engineering Earth’s climate. Now maybe population growth may demand more area one day, or non replacement birth rates become so normal that population just starts shrinking.

There is the possibility that no one can “win” against the physics, and things didn’t get much more advanced in space for any species than they are today for us. If that’s the case, then we shouldn’t be surprised that other hypothetical civilisations cannot be found.