I don't think dismissing anyone as an agitproppist or foreign agent who expresses a dim view of the EU's tendency toward overreach and habit of asking the same question over and over until it's answered "correctly" is fair. Not when McCarthy did it, and not today. And I can promise you that nobody's paying me to post online, anyway!
Even if the law included the literal phrase "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed", there would still be carve-outs and exceptions deemed acceptable and non-infringing because at the end of the day it's the government, and they'll do what they want, because who exactly is going to stop them?
It's nice, and special, and purpose built, and quasi-production, and so on. Not just a Peugeot hatch or BMW 2002 or VW Golf or some Aixam quadricycle bejaardewagen with an electric drivetrain crudely crammed in, but a proper car designed by a major manufacturer from the ground up as an EV. I think it's pretty cool. I wish somebody would take molds off an EV1 and sell a kit car or Miata body shell.
CLIs have been passé for the non-nerd set since Windows gained a foothold in computing oh 35+ years ago. They haven't gone away, nor will they. Windows is actually more CLI-friendly now than before, with powershell, Windows Terminal, WSL, and that almost GUIless Windows server core thing. Macs gained a command line in 2000 by eating OpenStep. And of course, Linux.
Anyone who wants to continue using a modern, actively-developed desktop environment. GNOME has dropped X11; KDE has announced the transition. I would consider being told "use Wayland, or find a different desktop environment" being forced, even though nobody has actually put a gun to my head.
I have managed to make Wayland work for me, but only by patching away the hardcoded gestures. I also developed a means to start and stop XScreenSaver, although that is thankfully now obsolete thanks to some work by JWZ. Just yesterday I still had issues with an entire window of text gibbering up and down in VSCode at a certain scaling level (used to have that in Firefox, as well, but it was evidently fixed).
To put a positive conspiratorial spin on the recent Wayland push: maybe they think that taking away the option to fall back to X11 will finally get enough eyes on Wayland to fix its remaining issues.
Paint me crazy but for last ~10 years I'm having this weird feeling that FOSS embraces corporate-style of management, development for projects too much. The ethos of having a choices is slowly and steadily being replaced by "comply, adapt or begone" tactic. And if you try to voice your opinion or heavens forbid - criticize, you are committing a crime against the coding humanity.
The changes are being done by small steps and I'd say this removal of fallback to X11 option counts as such.
It definitely feels like there's a dedicated core of people insisting on removing choice from the Linux ecosystem. RedHat, Gnome, fredesktop.org ... they have an ideology and a strategy to make it dominant in the Linux world and it does not feel nice to many people.
> To put a positive conspiratorial spin on the recent Wayland push: maybe they think that taking away the option to fall back to X11 will finally get enough eyes on Wayland to fix its remaining issues.
Yes, and I also think it's important to focus on that part in particular: X11 is not a feature, it's not a user story, it's an implementation detail of the desktop environment / window manager.
There are certainly historical architectural choices that imply many aspects of what X11 can or can't do for the user, likewise with desktops' implementation of the Wayland protocol. The differences between these approaches is real, and substantial.
But in the end, X11 is not a cause unto its own. It's a component in service of the user experience at large. People criticize the removal of X11 support either because their use cases have been affected in some inconvenient way, or because they're afraid of future consequences one way or another.
It's important that desktop environments work on providing the features/UX/quality that users need and expect. It's also important that users tell their DE developers what their needs are, in terms of what problems they are trying to solve, not in terms of which components to use underneath. Choice of component stack is a developer issue and should remain this way.
In the end, the DEs/WMs that solve their users' problems to a high degree of satisfaction are the ones who will retain and gain the most users. Approaches will differ across the Linux desktop space regarding what problems to solve specifically, which problems to prioritize, and how best to implement solutions for them. Dependencies like X11 shape the ultimate user experience one way or another, in terms of features, constraints, development effort, and continuity.
And so do many other implementation choices that need to be made or revised along the way. Ideally most users will end up with DEs/WMs whose development philosophy is aligned with their personal priorities. Friendly bug reporters can help out with the awareness part at least :)
> It's also important that users tell their DE developers what their needs are
It's further important that relevant developers actually listen rather than ignoring, dismissing, or saying (and I quote!) "...Regardless, I simply don’t give a shit about you anymore."
The point of the hereditary peerage was the same as the point of having a non-elected Senate. Now both will have been lost in the name of "democracy" - a system of government that constantly fails to do either what is the desire of the people OR what is truly in their interests. From here on out it'll just be whoever manages to connive their way into power through connections, payola, corruption, island meetups, and so on. I strongly suspect this will lead to a worse government, not a better one.
Read/watch this interview [1] with Ada Palmer on her new book about the Renaissance. Florence did this for a time.
> You put names in a bag. You examine all of the merchant members of guilds. You choose which ones are fit to serve, meaning not ill and dying, not insane, not so deeply in debt that they could be manipulated by the people whom they owe money to. Their names go in a bag. You choose nine guys at random. They rule the city. They are put in a palace where they rule the city from that tower.
> They’re actually locked in the tower for the duration of their time in office because if they left the tower, they could be bribed or kidnapped. They rule the city for two or three months. At the end, they are thanked for their service and escorted out, and then a different nine guys share power for the next three months. It’s a power sharing that is designed to be tyrant-proof because you need consensus of nine randomly selected guys to decide to do anything.
Venice's system also involved random selection, though in a very convoluted way.
There were multiple repeated iterations where they selected a random group of eligible people and then that group voted to select a group who would then have a random selection taken who would then elect another group and so on.
Perhaps you're joking, but Athenian democracy had a significant amount of randomness, with candidates being chosen randomly from the top vote winners.
Terms were also only 1 year for most positions.
These, and other systems, helped prevent any one person from monopolizing power.
Not joking, although maybe not terribly serious either. I could envision a random (filtered) selection of citizens being given a veto power over legislation, as another check against abuse.
Not quite the same thing, but in Ireland, it's become more common for Citizens Assemblies, which are randomly selected (this is disputed by some) citizens appointed to help word referenda on constitutional amendments and otherwise gauge public feeling on certain issues.
The assembly then passes it's recommendation to the Parliament who are free to ignore it if they don't like it.
Some people who actively seek positions of power are terribly unqualified or have other discommending properties, as well. This does not seem too great an impediment to their success.
It's interesting how people never even learn about any upsides to that. Even if the balance comes out on the side of elected officials, it's good to at least have some idea of why so many societies have worked like that (other than "they were dumb and evil I guess").
The main thing is long-term stability and limits on backstabbing and ruthless competition. Sure it doesn't bring it to zero, plenty of bloody examples from history. But when someone gets close to power for the first time and might be out of there quite soon, and have to watch out for being replaced quickly, they will behave quite differently than someone who plans ahead in decades and generations (if all things go well). If you have a short time under the sun, you better extract all you can while it lasts.
It's kind of like a lifetime appointment or like tenure, except also across generations. Tenure allows professors to ignore short-term ups and downs and allows them some resilience and slack (though funding is still an issue). Similarly a nobleman can "relax" and take a longer-term view on things. The failure mode is that they stop caring and become lazy and just enjoy their position.
You already get this in the UK, and also in other countries, most of which have royal families and associated aristocrats.
There are also - notoriously - foreign-funded influencer, lobbyist, and donor operations.
And the traditional industries - fossil fuels, property, finance, arms - also have a huge say.
The reality is most decisions aren't made in Westminster. Parliament is a device for packaging and legitimising decisions made by the oligarchy. And the House of Lords is largely ceremonial.
It's not there to shape policy, it's there to provide a reward for loyal service to the country's real rulers.
Being in the Lords is a very nice deal. You get up to £371 a day just for turning up, with the option to claim expenses on top of that.
You get access to high quality heavily subsidised food and drink. And you get the status of being a lord, which opens doors if you happen to be someone for whom they weren't already open.
371 x 250 days is about $100k...in London...that's pretty middle class if you ask me. Just look at how Congress makes out in comparison. They legalized insider trading for themselves and only themselves. What you describe is quaint by comparison.
If you are in a position to be appointed to the House of Lords, it is reasonable to assume that you were not hand-to-mouth before that happened. At worst, you had a good job in one of the classes that gets you access to British Costco. At best, you have an estate and staff.
It provides an additional check. Much like a monarch, a noble's interests are tied to the welfare of the country itself. Without the country, they're just a toff with some money and an overinflated sense of self-importance.
Your fortunes are not inextricably tied to your country any more than mine are. I've lived in four countries; am now a citizen of two. I have no passive incomes or sociolegal status which is tied to an estate or a title in a country that must continue to prosper or that status and wealth will diminish. If I see shit going sour, I'll sell my farm in Ireland for twice what I paid for it, move somewhere else, and still be a commoner.
It’s difficult for me to respond to these comments. I have to argue against the idea that there is virtue to setting up a hereditary parasite (passive income) who can do good for his/her country because they have, well, passive income.
Why can’t we just not do that? People, i.e. commoners, already have a stake in their country by virtue of living there. Even outlier globetrotters like you do.
I didn’t stutter. People criticize so-called democracy and then I take that as the charitable premise: we are indeed discussing genuine democracy, not just the fake and typical democracy of only politicians having any power.
The Senate is, while not the whole story, a significant part of the reason the government constantly fails to do what is either the desire of the people or what's in their interests. I wouldn't lament losing the Senate.
The US Senate is designed to check and balance the House of Representatives. But that often puts the Congress as a whole in deadlock, meaning it can no longer balance the other two branches.
When they could get anything done they delegated a lot of power to the Executive. Which worked ok, but eventually a "unitary executive" appropriated even more power, and the Legislature is powerless to prevent it.
Unpopular opinion: deadlock is fine. Most legislation is bad. What really matters is the budget. And the rule that failing to pass a budget can automatically force an election avoids the absurd US "shutdown" that isn't a shutdown.
This is now my second favorite idea, after a nationwide ban of first past the post voting schemes.
My third (previously second) is outlawing political parties. The problem with that one is it would be really difficult to implement in a way that doesn't run afoul of freedom of association and freedom of speech. Probably worth figuring out though.
Voting system reform would probably mitigate the worst aspects of political parties.
Egypt after ousting Mubarak held an election where a third of seats were reserved for independents. Most winning candidates were just Muslim Brotherhood affiliated. I suspect the military interim government did that deliberately to justify their later coup.
This is where the intra-party coalitions become important. Every party of significant size has them. Labour is effectively a coalition between a rightwing faction (New Labour/Blue Labour) and everyone else who is more leftwing. The internal and external debate is the question: should they focus "right" (immigrant and queerbashing, welfare cuts) to appease the right wing of the party and try to pick up Reform/Conservative voters, or focus "left" on their base and people who are switching to Green?
On the other hand, voting needs to mean something. If voting doesn't mean anything, because the whole system is held in a vice grip by a sclerotic institution playing power games with itself, then the broader system eventually collapses.
My personal opinion is that Mitch McConnell's intransigence and unwillingness to do anything lest Obama get credit for it led directly to an increased desire for a "strongman"
The Senate was fundamentally from the start a compromise in favor of the slave-owning ogliarchy. You just have to look at free and slave states being admitted in pairs to preserve the status quo of slavery to see how that went.
The Senate gives a rather disproportionate democracy in which the votes of a small number in small states take on disproportionate significance compared to the votes of a large number in populous states.
That still does nothing to refute the parent's complaint about democracy. Lopsided representation is still representation (as opposed to a council of nobles or military generals or whoever).
Also the thing you're objecting to is literally the entire point of the senate from day one. It was intended to give less populous states an equal voice in contrast to the house of representatives. Unfortunately history happened and the house of representatives hasn't been proportional for a long time. But if you're going to complain about something it should probably be the latter rather than the former.
Extraordinary, and disgusting, to see monarchism touted by literate professionals in the 21st century.
The "point" of hereditary peerage is, from the perspective of the nobility, to preserve privileges with only self-interested regard for the welfare of the public—which very obviously resolves into tyrannical despotism at the earliest opportunity!
Utterly unconscionable to carry water for the literally medieval political economy that brought us, eg the calamitous 14th century.
Countless—countless—examples of the hideous cruelties of hereditary nobles abound since the institution's inception. You'd have to be a blind pig to ignore the myriad failure states. My God, man, do you want your children to be slaves??
Highest[1] base electricity price in the EU, some of the worst conditions for solar generation, a war in Iran, and now they've closed the coal plant. Great. Guess I'll just go bankrupt.
Edit: instead of downvoting my post, feel free to pay my electric bill, lol
Officially via Apple? Absolutely not. Unofficially? A risky affair that mostly will end up losing the warranty on the device. However if you plan to keep the device longer with you, it's a path worth exploring if the cycle count is high.
> Some folks lament that its not as UI feature rich as KDE, but for me thats a bonus.
Yep, I know it is opinionated and I really like a lot of their decisions. Most of what he says in that is "it doesn't clone Windows therefore it breaks my muscle memory". I don't care about your opinions and it isn't the same as mine.
reply