azertyfun

Without good and realistic answers to how the long-term maintenance of such changes would be managed, it is myopically unrealistic to propose those changes

Lina is talking about a minor change though. It challenges the dominant paradigm but her opinion seems to be that it doesn't have negative impact on the overall maintainability. To shift the discussion to maintainability is whataboutism; if these kernels maintainers can't accept patches that do not have a negative impact on maintainability or directly involve Rust in any way because they are related to Rust in general, that's disappointing tribalism regardless of your opinions on Rust or Rust developers.

I might be missing some context here as I'm only going off what Lina has said, but if half of it is true then we need to shift attitudes before talking about how to integrate Rust in the kernel ecosystem. It certainly feels very disingenuous and retrograde to present Rust as some kind of existential threat rather than a novelty or opportunity, as if no combination of processes and tools could ever possibly overcome the stated maintainability challenges.

The vibes I got in the other thread about Wedson's announcement is that the concerns may be valid but there are indeed a handful of contributors who are aggressively shouting down Rust contributor's efforts to set up the processes you outlined based on hard prejudice. The video Wedson posted was hard to watch. From the outside looking in it looks to be way more about ego than any particular technical roadblock.

Furthermore Lina's concerns here are only broader what you are saying:

When I wrote the DRM scheduler abstractions, I ran into many memory safety issues caused by bad design of the underlying C code. The lifetime requirements were undocumented and boiled down to "design your driver like amdgpu to make it work, or else".

My driver is not like amdgpu, it fundamentally can't work the same way. When I tried to upstream minor fixes to the C code to make the behavior more robust and the lifetime requirements sensible, the maintainer blocked it and said I should just do "what other drivers do".

Mainlining memory safety improvements, in C, for C code should be welcomed and it is very concerning if she indeed got shunned because the end goal was to offer lifetime guarantees (which to my admittedly non-expert eye sounds like it would be a good thing for memory safety in general).

The concern from those contributors (and we might soon see the same in QEMU) is that these bindings are essentially a weaponization which forces the great majority of contributors to learn Rust or drop out. Essentially a hostile takeover.

Seems like a moral panic over absolutely nothing (where are the Rust developers allegedly forcing people to learn Rust? all I've seen in these threads today is Rust developers asking for an open mind and a willingness to collaborate), and that the response to this "concern" is to block any and all changes that might benefit Rust adoption is really concerning (but unfortunately not unsurprising) behavior.

Israel dropping unguided bombs from 10k feet from prop airplanes is certainly an "entertaining" thought but so far removed from the reality of precision guided missiles hitting hospitals and snipers shooting unarmed civilians and journalists in the back that it loops back around to being funny in a very morbid way.

Yuuuuuuup.

"How much will option A cost? Dunno."
"What about option B? Dunno."
"My gut tells me B is much more expensive than A though." "Yeah for sure. But I prefer B."

Wanna waste a hundred grand a year? Go right ahead, who cares. Wanna hire someone? Woah hold your horses there bucko, don't you know we have budget limitations??

And if you think that's a weird hangup from the past, remember that Americans, including very educated ones, are still currently mad (like, actually mad) that Pluto got demoted to Dwarf Planet. Because it's the only "planet" discovered by Americans.

Pluto can be a planet if you want but then so are Ceres, Eris, Gonggong, and the several other dwarf planets, else your argument stands on nothing more than naked chauvinism. Which is usually how it goes.

By contrast I never personally heard anyone in the francosphere seriously complain about Pluto's status, nevermind keep including it in the list of planets as an act of defiance. Because who cares (the Americans, that's who).

That conspiracy theory is so dumb.

The government almost certainly doesn't need a backdoor as telegram is almost completely unencrypted (only one-to-one channels can be but aren't by default). The real (but more boring) conspiracy theory is that governments generally don't mind Telegram because its willfully terrible security model allows them to keep an eye on terrorists and activists' communications (I have a hard time believing that the NSA or even DGSE don't have their own backdoors already).

However the EU does have laws mandating the moderation of said unencrypted messages, especially when it comes to CSAM, which Telegram is notoriously poorly moderated. It's certainly reason enough to arrest and question this guy, at least until formal charges are brought or he walks free. Maybe there are additional political considerations, but there doesn't have to be.

Also how would arresting this guy help with backdooring. He doesn't have access to the source code. Whoever he calls to get that done is out of reach of the French police. He has no reason not to disable that backdoor as soon as he gets out of the EU. If he can be bought off he already has been (Crypto AG style except way lamer because no-one clever&important trusts Telegram), you don't need to arrest someone to pay them. I'm no DSGSE bigwig but pressuring lower level engineers to backdoor their code seems like a 1000% more effective approach.

We need an app that keeps the gender ratios even.

Isn't that what Tinder is indirectly trying to achieve with its "Get Super Gold+++ insta premium" business model? To get a somewhat even gender ratio you need to get a bunch of men to drop out, and asking for absurd amounts of money is certainly one way to go about it. Though I hear even premium tinder users vastly outnumber the women.

A raffle could work in theory, but upwards of 80 % of men will have to be thrown out and as a woman I wouldn't see why I would settle for that instead of an app where attractive men will be falling over themselves to talk to me.

AFAIK the only proven methods for not-super-attractive men to get matches is to either go offline, or be bi/gay. Do with that advice what you will.

Fascists don't win on facts and logic, they win on affect.

He says one thing about guns, but means something about hurting minorities. His electorate only cares about the second part. Literally anything you could argue about the first part is worse than useless, because through sheer power of denial they'll revert to affect on this well-practiced talking point (”Trump love guns, Trump hate [insert slur here], Trump just like me"). You can't win on this battlefield, no matter how objectively and obviously right you are.

That's why "Trump is weird" is so unbelievably more effective than "Trump is a rapist", "Trump is a fascist", "Trump is a criminal" or "Trump is a traitor". Pointing out his weirdness directly undermines his affect. "We're not going back" calls back to the constant feeling of dread of his presidency. Ironically when dealing with humans, but especially when dealing with fascists, affect and core values are more important and less malleable than facts.

[citation needed]

Can you please give a definition of intelligence that does not correlate with IQ? Because scientists have been trying, and as far as I know, failing.

Or I guess we can keep pretending that intelligence is fully inquantifiable and therefore we won't be able to quantify how socioeconomic background affect people's wellbeing. I guess that does have the upside that we don't have to face the hard truths of our world, that unequal access to healthcare and education does affect people's cognitive abilities and that the worse life outcomes of poor people being self-inflicted is a myth perpetuated by the ruling class to justify their continued oppression. No, it must be the IQ tests that are racist.

Like I said IQ should never, ever be used as an entry exam or any other kind of social determinant. Not least because of the racist/classist history. However, it does have a signification and legitimate uses, and to pretend otherwise is scientific negationism. We do not have to listen to racist conspiracy theories about why some populations have a lower IQ than "us", when we have known and repeatedly demonstrated for many decades that differences in IQ at the population level is entirely predictable by education and health (the Flynn Effect). That's it, that's the necessary and sufficient counter-argument to the racist arguments you're referring to.

Put another way, education does not just make people educated; it makes them more intelligent. Someone who has gone through standard schooling is empirically proven to be statistically better at novel abstract thinking than someone who never went to school. Which is kind of obvious when put like that, but you can't prove or study that phenomenon scientifically without the use of tools like the IQ test.

Poor african countries have a lower IQ than the world average, and that is an irrefutable fact. Does that mean:
a) Life outcomes are not shaped in anyway by socioeconomic background, therefore [insert racist theory here]
b) I refuse to look into the possible causes and therefore IQ tests are racist
c) We can infer that poor populations would benefit from increased financing of childcare and education, it's a winning move for literally everyone.

The topic of IQ tests is really uncomfortable because it unearths the really uncomfortable fact that socioeconomic and geopolitical factors have not given us all an equal shot at life, even down to how intelligent we are likely to become as adults. It challenges the myth that anyone can just pull themselves up by the bootstraps, work at mcdonald's, and become a triple harvard graduate. But it's not neuroscience's fault that the world is unfair.

Controlling for confounding factors is, like, half the point.

Racists will tell you [x country] is lower IQ than [y developed country]. Which is probably true. What they won't say is that that average IQ is probably the same as [y developed country 100-200 years ago]. IQ being affected by education is the whole fucking point; widespread access to a good and long education provably leads to a more intelligent population, which we have seen time and time again with industrializing countries (including in the West since the IQ test is old enough that we can see the average IQ rising since the industrial revolution).