this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
34 points (97.2% liked)

Python

7584 readers
5 users here now

Welcome to the Python community on the programming.dev Lemmy instance!

๐Ÿ“… Events

PastNovember 2023

October 2023

July 2023

August 2023

September 2023

๐Ÿ Python project:
๐Ÿ’“ Python Community:
โœจ Python Ecosystem:
๐ŸŒŒ Fediverse
Communities
Projects
Feeds

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Those are DEI policies. Those are the types of inivitives this administration have vindictively gone after. The same admin has repeatedly gone above and beyond to legal agreements on orgizations not showing public compliance (and even for orgs that have but were politically convient to attack anyways). Its not worth the risk to stand in front of that gun, even if the first chamber is an empty threat like you propose.

We don't need to agree these are DEI policies. This is a risk vs reward issue. So comes down to the simple question of, where does PSF derive it's funding.

If PSF feels it's funding is sufficient, then it's safer to not take the funding. Pursuing the funding in the first place therefore must have been a easily foreseeable mistake.

The West however is in a hyper-inflationary or at least inflationary situation. So PSF traditional base will face financial pressure.

May have the luxury now to turn down the funding, but sit back and buckle in as the US and EU moves the dial way up to, hold my beer. During that period, securing funding may become super difficult.