irotsoma

The title is a little misleading. She didn't resign because of the death threats against her. She resigned because the school's state representative forced them to fire her, but they had no cause, so they had to pressure her to resign to protect the students from defunding or physical attacks on the school.

Someone in charge is getting a kickback or is heavily invested in the company that supplies the facial recognition service.

Not offering a solution here exactly, but as a software engineer and architect, this is not a Linux only problem. This problem exists across all software. There are very few applications that are fully self contained these days because it's too complex to build everything from scratch every time. And a lot of software depends on the way that some poorly documented feature worked at the time that was actually a bug and was eventually fixed and then breaks the applications that depended on it, etc. Also, any time improvements are made in a library application it has potential to break your application, and most developers don't get time to test the every newer version.

The real solution would be better CI/CD build systems that automatically test the applications with newer versions of libraries and report dependencies better. But so many applications are short on automated unit and integration tests because it's tedious and so many companies and younger developers consider it a waste of time/money. So it would only work in well maintained and managed open source types of applications really. But who has time for all that?

Anyway, it's something I've been thinking about a lot at my current job as an architect for a major corporation. I've had to do a lot of side work to get things even part of the way there. And I don't have to deal with multiple OSes and architectures. But I think it's an underserved area of software development and distribution that is just not "fun" enough to get much attention. I'd love to see it at all levels of software.

That's just late-capitalism in general. No large companies are innovating anymore. They simply let smaller companies pop up and then either buy it or kill them with legal or market dominance based maneuvers. I mean if all that mattered to you was short term profit, would you take any risks? Easier to destroy than create of that's all you care about.

That's going to always happen when training data with the entire internet. The outliers will always skew thing more than the mainstream if the models are not designed to exclude them.

And there are a lot of contributing factors, for example with right leaning stuff being more available for LLMs to process as the platforms are generally less concerned about privacy and more concerned about policing and control (that's just what right wing is), of course the models are going to see more of it than the left leaning stuff where people are more on the repressed side, more likely to use more private communication methods, and less likely to be able to safely, publicly share outlier kinds of views to skew things the other way. Even the people who pretend to be extreme left-wing, like the USSR or the Chinese Communist Party, are usually, in reality, right-wing.

Rust crates manifest file requires a license be set to be hosted on crates.io and the example manifest file uses:

[package] 
license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0"

Something like the Java's jar manifest doesn't have a predefined license property for interpreters to parse. Maven has a property, but it's not required.

Try a few live disks out. See what works best with your hardware and workflows. I like Fedora with KDE Plasma, personally. But I prefer RHEL based to Debian based stuff and I don't like the direction Ubuntu is beimg taken for monetization.

Yes, but punish the government and those who support those governments. The majority of people who live in a fascist country do not agree with the government otherwise fascism wouldn't be necessary.

I live in the US and I don't agree with nor apologize for the anti-trans, anti-women, anti-immigrant, and racist policies the federal government has recently implemented. In fact many policies directly affect me and my wellbeing.

I voted against them, but unfortunately we weren't given an option to vote for something better because of the way things work here. And many of these countries don't even have that. Nor do I think anyone else who lives in or visits the US should be punished for the actions of its government. Same goes for any other country.

And in this case it looks like it may just be someone visited one of those countries sometime in the past, though details are scarce. I get then need to sanction people involved with the bad stuff, but people who just visit or live there with no other connection to the bad stuff is a little extreme. Especially since contributing to this project, for free, is not producing profit for or supporting any government.

I think its just that the language having built in licensing is a newer concept as opposed to just having a companion document. And MIT and Apache are the licenses the pieces of the language is licensed under, so they made those default. That way it's a conscious decision to make it more restrictive.

Yeah definitely makes sense to me in stomach and vagina and similar areas. Just wasn't sure if in was missing something on the face. Maybe in combination with something that was probiotic I guess, but I don't see any of that. So prebiotic without probiotic treatment seems risky.

I don't think it's Rust exactly. I think Rust is just newer and this attracts developers with less experience with licensing. It's not really something developers want to think about very much so they often just use the default. Heck, most code on github, etc., didn't have any licenses at all for a really long time until businesses realized they couldn't use the code without them due to copyright laws being applied by default but patents not being default in many countries, etc.

There are consequences to using copyleft as opposed to more permissive libre licenses, and vice versa, that may not be well understood by a lot of developers in general until they get into a situation where it matters. Either their code can't be used by people they wanted to sue it, or companies are abusing the code without proper attribution, etc.

Generally the key fobs have a circuit and antenna inside and the circuit has a code that it broadcasts when it is near the transceiver. Some systems are more complex, but at the lowest level the system disrupts a magnetic field around the transceiver in a certain way to generate the code or is powered up by the transceiver and transmits the code using that power. That way no battery is required and it can fit inside a thin card or fob. Some older ones have a very small battery to increase range or create a more complex or modifiable code or for proximity use rather than touch.

That code is then authorized or not to open the door in the security system. And yes every time the fob is used, it is logged. And depending on if the fob has a battery, it is possible it tracks leaving. If they don't have to touch the fob to a panel and just need to have it on them, then it logs any time they approach the door regardless of entering or leaving. If it requires touching or bringing it close to a panel and they don't have to do that when leaving then it probably doesn't log them by proximity.

Whether or not the log has the person's name or just the code or ID of the fob depends on how old or cheap the system is. But there's definitely some document somewhere that lists the peoples' names and which fob they were assigned if it's not in the system. So it's easy enough to find out.

Any system that has the same code in every fob would be either super old or super cheap and unlikely to be used on secure doors. Having unique codes means that if a fob is lost or stolen it can be deactivated among other things. Which is a no-brainer for security if there is no real significant cost. The only reason older systems didn't is because the tech couldn't create long enough codes on the circuits that existed. And super cheap systems don't want to create too many different codes since it's cheaper to mass produce the same one over and over. Basically why car fobs can often open other people's cars. Either they're old or the car company's too cheap and it's not their security at risk, so they don't care.