Crazy people used to gun down schoolchildren who could be conveniently ignored. You can be sure that the ownership class won't just be sending thoughts and prayers here.

I'm of the view that it's violence of the non-political kind that is never justified*. Political violence can be legitimized, as an option of last resort. There's plenty of historical examples where groups of people were denied every avenue of redress until they turned violent. As an example, read up on the history of most labour unions.

* one exception being defense of life and limb.

"This is unconstitional because Trump doesn't like it" is not a very strong argument. The position he's holding is called "Public Office" (not private office) for a reason.

> "This is unconstitional because Trump doesn't like it" is not a very strong argument.

So far, it appears to be a very convincing argument to the supreme court most of the time.

Putting it in the hands on the GNOME foundation will just result in a lot of new soon-to-be-mandatory APIs and numerous configuration variables with only one allowed value.

> the device uses FDE and the key is provided over the network during boot

An example of such an implementation, since well before TPMs were commonplace: https://www.recompile.se/mandos

Do you expect the EU to insist on a different solution once the US solution is in-place in all US-based operating systems?

Yes. They haven't had a problem implementing their own specific regulations before - like alternative app store requirements on iOS or the European editions of Windows.

It was the Clinton administration that started regulatory proceedings against Microsoft, but it was GW Bush that was president during the conclusion of the case. And, true to form:

> The Department of Justice, now under Bush administration attorney general John Ashcroft, announced on September 6, 2001, that it was no longer seeking to break up Microsoft and would instead seek a lesser antitrust penalty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...

There's no inherent contradiction with a majority of drivers rating themselves above average: each driver is free to prioritize "good driver"-traits differently; e.g. if I value road safety and my neighbour values total travel time, we are probably both objectively better drivers according to our own metrics.

That said, 93% of car drivers are worse than me. Obviously.

> I am the administrator of that computer and I want the thing I installed to be available to a specific run-user

Are you saying you use root access to install something to a specific user's home directory? That's gross.

A user installing something for themselves should not need administrator access. You only need admin access for making system-wide changes.

I never understood that eugenics criticism of the movie. They make zero references to genetics in that opening sequence, and the nurture side of that argument is readily trotted out as a truism even here on HN: "people from affluent parents have easier access to education".

The introduction describes it as a "turning point in human evolution", and that "natural selection ... began to favor different traits". These are some of the very first sentences of the movie.

The thesis is given: "Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species". The characters dramatizing the inciting incident in the introduction are introduced with their IQs. It's very explicitly a dysgenic apocalypse narrative, which could have been avoided with earlier eugenicist intervention. (They attempt "genetic engineering" later on, but they fail, as the unintelligent are able to win by sheer numbers.)

It's okay to like the movie, and it is fiction. But it's certainly a dysgenic narrative which has eugenicist implications.

That's not a eugenics argument, that's merely an evolutionary argument (identifying a change in selection pressure). The eugenics argument would first have to make the case that the people are stupid/intelligent because of their genetic lineage rather than their upbringing.

To repeat, in narrative, they attempt genetic engineering to fix the declining intelligence.

On top of that, it is explicitly a dysgenics narrative, which comes with an implicit eugenics argument unless it's explicitly addressed.

I'm not trying to argue you can't like the movie (it is fiction, after all), but the eugenics argument is right there in the text.

This is one of those threads that's making me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Like, I don't think enjoying Idiocracy makes someone a bad person or anything like that, but it's pretty clearly making a eugenics argument without any mitigating counter-hypothesis.

It's particularly amusing because there are people quoting Neal Stephenson in this thread, ignoring the fact that when Stephenson tackles similar subject matter, he's very careful to make it clear that he's talking more about the cultural axioms which have a long-term effect on how people value learning and intellectualism. It's not even subtext, I've been reading The Diamond Age recently and very early on there's a line where a character clearly states that there's no coherent genetic theory of human intelligence, and the entire thesis of the book runs counter to that notion that intelligence is primarily genetic.