balsoft

The parties are not the same. One is an openly fascist party and the other is full of meek center-right neoliberals trying to keep the status quo for their wealthy donors. However neither is trying to "fix the damage" or "make it good again", except perhaps for the top 0.001%. Most working-class people are shafted either way. If the republicans get their way, most non-whites will be deported on enslaved in prisons, women will be enslaved at home, and the remaining working-class white men will struggle to sustain themselves and their (non-working) wives and families under the christofascist dictatorship of the capital. If the democrats somehow claw back from that, there will be less abject racism and sexism but the working class will still struggle to survive in an increasingly monopolized dictatorship of the capital.

Ask yourself this question: which democrat policies from the last decade directly benefit the working class? I can name maybe 3 very compromised policies that are about 60 years behind most of the world.

To paraphrase an old meme, republicans want 100 rich white men to rule over the entire world with an iron fist; democrats want 30 of those people to be LGBTQ+ women of color.

Are democrats better? Sure, a bit better. But it's not like just electing them will save you.

• You write tests for functionality before you write the functionality.
• You code the functionality so the tests pass.
• Then, and only then, the test becomes a regression test and is enabled in your CI automation.
• If the test ever breaks again the merge is blocked.

I disagree. Merging should be blocked on any failing test. No commit should be merged to master with a failing test. If you want to write tests first, then do that on a feature branch, but squash the commits properly before merging. Or add them as disabled first and enable after the feature is implemented. The enabled tests must always pass on every commit on master.

I concede that on a feature branch, before a PR is made, it's ok to have some failing tests, as long as the only tests failing are related to that feature. You should squash those commits after the feature is complete so that no commit has a failing test once it's on master.

(I'm also a fan of TDD, although for me it means Type-Driven Development, but I digress...)

There's nothing technically preventing using TPM without secure boot. This is a limitation imposed by OEMs. In fact I have a separate hardware encryption key that I encrypt my (laptop) drive with, and even I don't (can't) know the private key. I only know the pin that is needed to unlock it. If motherboard OEMs implemented something like this on the motherboard, with the ability to decrypt the bootloader partition before booting into it, this would solve everything.

It can be finicky to set up and mistakes can be made easily. Often you have to manually replicate the entire internal dependency tree of your project in the checks so that there are no false positive test results. There are some per-language solutions, and there's Nix which is almost built for this sort of thing, but both come with drawbacks as well.

Eww, no. You're doing tests wrong. The point of tests is to understand whether changes to the code (or dependencies) break any functionality. If you have failing tests, it makes this task very difficult and time consuming for people who need it most, i.e. people new to the project. "Is this test failing because of something I've done? Oh, it was broken before my changes too!". If you insist on adding broken tests, mark them as "expected to fail" at least, so that they don't affect the overall test suite result (and when someone fixes the functionality they have to un-mark them as expected to fail), and the checkmark is green. You should never merge PRs/MRs which fail any tests - it is an extremely bad habit and forms a bad culture in your project.

Not trying to diminish the Gaza situation. I agree Israel is committing deliberate genocide right now and it needs to stop.

It has already happened a few times with other repos. Although AUR is especially susceptible because there's no vetting at all, it's a free-for-all that everyone can publish to within a few clicks. This will for sure happen again within a couple months, but better hidden the next time.

That's almost true, the Brits did shoot and kill quite a few Irishmen, just not during the famine.

Yep. The Irish "potato" famine would be a better analogy - maybe that's a part of why Irish politicians are at least paying lip service to Gaza, when compared to most of the rest of EU.

It's hard for me to fathom living in conditions like this. I can relate to not having enough money for basic food, even though I'm fortunate enough that I was never in a position like that. But it's incomprehensible for my brain that there is no food at all in a place. Like, even if you had some money saved up, you can't get any food to eat. Even if some international orgs are willing to give you food for free, you can't get it because some armed guys a couple dozen kilometers away will shoot the lorry driver if they cross the border. Hunger is not even a "punishment for being poor", hidden away in homeless shelters, like it is in most places; it is literally everywhere around you.

Fuck the capitalists who gatekeep basic food items behind a paywall, but I can't even describe my feelings towards israel rn. It has turned the "open-air concentration camp" into an open-air suffering and brutal extermination camp. It's not a war of attrition, it's not a siege, it's an execution by hunger.

Honestly all that grime had a vibe to it that I enjoy a lot. Glad for you that you like the clean version.