What signs point to these donations being strictly ideologically motivated? It seems more like it is about Omarchy's reach. It has clout right now. All donors stand to benefit from it by supporting it. Digital ocean especially. For an OS that aims to empower users with agents, they're going to need to host their projects somewhere. Gnome has no clout. It's boring and stable. I say this as someone who loves GNOME and uses it.
80k of donations in less than 2 weeks is quite a lot, compared to a lot of other open-source projects.
Heck, Linux Mint gets 15k a month.
And yeah, you are missing the point. The original claim was about 100% of money coming from DHH's friends/buddies/rich kids, and from far-right at that. Hundreds of public donations was merely the sinplest way to debunk the ridiculous claim. The original claim was false.
If we go deeper, we can easily deduct that not only is the 100% number in the claim not correct, but that wherever it might (sic!) be arguably (sic!) correct, even then the number is close to 0%.
Almost always, using absolutes is unwarranted and a sign of stupidity. When the minimal effort to showcase this was used, the stupid argumentation suddenly became "trivial technicalities", in an attempt to escape the accountability after the essense was called into question. If the stupidity displayed was so very much trivial, what does it say about the person who said such clearly incorrect and dubious things initially?
Nitpicking on a rhetorical exaggeration is a form of fallacy, not a serious rebuttal. Throwing in words like "accountability" while doing so makes it look even more unserious. But I'm sure a smart person who couldn't resist the urge to say "stupid" 3 times in one reply can figure that out for themselves.
1. That theme over the distro didn't need funding as such. It's not providing anything not easily achievable without it. It doesn't need to hire highly paid full time engineers either.
2. Companies, or rather mostly CEOs donating are the usual circle of questionable characters where you can just search for "why is (name) problematic".
They're basically buddies donating to DHH not the project. The only ones that make sense are the tokens from AI companies to be used in actual development.
Gnome has lots of issues that still need to be fixed. Even if you're happy with it, you could find something on the bugtracker that you'd really like addressed. It's basically like seeing a house being built by a big crew, then someone completely unrelated painting the front doors and getting paid more than all of them and credited for the house as a whole.
Sounds like they have been downsizing continuously for the last 7 years or so. I think peak casual dining was 2007, the marker segment has been losing ground to fast food ever since.
Something like this will probably be done on android years before iOS, if ever.
One hope I have for the Ternus era is that Apple opens up more. I love Apple's hardware, I just have how closed off the software is and can't have the fun with it that I want to have.
I think a lot of people were in that camp. I'm not going to sign up for a Spotify account to listen to Rogan. I don't really have any problem with him and have found many of his guests interesting. No hate for Spotify either--I have never used the service so I don't really have an opinion about it, but the overhead of creating and maintaining another account and app was not something I was going to do for one podcast.
It sounds like that guy may have been exaggerating a bit. Aggressive people are a liability. Especially in law enforcement. Not just to the department but to fellow officers. They stir shit up and it is dangerous and annoying.
Cops do need more training, like dramatically more training. I think the screening process is trying to solve a really difficult problem. You don't know if/how someone will be corrupted when they have a little bit of power. Or how they will change over time.
I’m pretty sure the commenter you responded to agrees aggressive people are a liability and that’s the problem with current hiring(or at least the hiring contemporaneous to when they heard this).
From my own personal conversation with a hostage scenario trainer for the police, he said de-escalation forms only a tiny percentage of his training because that’s not what the cops want, even though he would make that the majority of the training given a free hand, since de-escalation doesn’t just increase the chances of the hostages being safe, but also the cops and the first responders.
Yes, I'm sure they would agree but I'm pointing out that the department/agency would agree as well. I don't think that departments were actively seeking out aggressive people, but rather seeking out people who could handle getting aggressive when a situation calls for it. Someone who can't get aggressive is likewise a liability.
I do see what you are saying regarding de-escalation. It seems like one of those things that is easy to mistakenly dismiss as "easy" and focus on something like firearms or tactics training.
It's very different in other countries. My partner is a psychologist and was at a scene where police were called in, she commented afterwards that they were using established de-escalation techniques that she was very familiar with to defuse the situation (I didn't recognise any of it, she's the expert here). So they'd apparently had fairly extensive training in de-escalation as well as experience in applying it.
This is my biggest fear for the law enforcement officers. They're becoming overdependent on these technology tools and forgetting to do actual police work. I say this as a former police officer myself.
reply