throwaway54095

It's crazy that at this point we still keep with this delusion. Of course this is a lab virus. This info is getting old:

https://project-evidence.github.io/

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-origins-genome-analy...

Who was really behind this, and the whole history of it, is something surely we won't know for know.

"When war is declared, truth is the first casualty"

PS. I was expecting the kind of answers I received... as the whole subject stinks, talking about it stinks even more. What I wasn't waiting is to see people, in another time caring and loving this OS quietly yielding about such a big insanity. Thinking right now specially about Debian and ArchLinux mantainers.

My POV: SystemD is a software driven not really by technical, but political reasons by RedHat, to put the most important parts of a GNU/Linux system under their control. (Appart from the kernel of course). It is modular, but also dependant as a whole, so in the end, it spreads almost like an invasion, slowly leaving the admins not other option than accepting it. That's quite off from the Unix philosophy (do one thing, do it well, be really modular)... so my conclusion going back to the beggining, that didn't happen by mistake, but is a deliberate design choice, with shaddy political reasons behind it, so I reject it. And then we could talk about the convenience or not of putting such amount of tools and complexity under PID 1, the crazy binary logs, the weird behavior of the service utilities, and the possibility of being able to modify/add services using regular scripts instead of binary excutables...

The procedure should be: Parlaments make law, public/private agents file a complaint, judges decide if that applies, then the legal system shuts down content. NEVER EVER private parties, nor goverments, should be allowed to silence the free speech on their own criteria. As far as I know, that's how things work in Germany.

Private companies shouldn't be able to regulate content at their own discretion. That must be protected by free speech. There has to be law, and social consensus about what kind of content is not legal, and bringing down that should be done, not by private entities, nor even by the goverment, but by the judicial power. There's a reason for the separation of powers.

So then, can a restaurant refuse service, to filter what kind of customers would allow to let in, let's say on criterias like: only men, only white people, everybody but gay people? It's a private business after all. Especially if they are still available to deliver without any filter.