Does Microsoft do this in 2025?

Like seriously - I haven't heard of them doing it in quite a long time. I know they were atrocious in the 90s and 00s, I'm not disputing that at all. Are there any examples of them continuing this behavior in the last decade though?

Further, a huge percentage of the people making those decisions back then are no longer with the company, different people are in charge, etc. The industry has changed it's relationship with open source - company board rooms aren't scared of the consequences of loading open source onto a server, the legality and liabilities have been hashed out, and MS isn't really even capable of pulling those fear levers anymore. MS itself has repositioned in the industry - their dreams of total computing dominance have been shattered: there's no chance of a windows derivative owning the server market any more, there's no money in browsers or consumer OSes (heck even MS's domination in gaming is showing cracks due the the efforts of valve). Point being - would it even make strategic sense for them to try to EEE anything anymore?

Note: I have almost no ties to MS. I haven't used an MS os or desktop software since before covid (in any capacity, even moving the mouse on a computer running windows). I don't use any of their SaaS products personally or professionally. There are integrations between the products I help build and azure, however those are not a major source of revenue for my employer and I do very little work that even touches that stuff. Point being - I'm pretty non-MS in my life and don't have any sort of loyalty or incentive to defend them. I do abhor their EEE actions back in the 90s and 00s when they were doing them, and those still make me angry... but that's not a reason to assume that different people at a company are going to act the same as the old-school ones.

Just read this a few days ago, so maybe the behaviour is better than it was, but still. Here is the link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43750535

I downvoted you because it's politics, and there is always opposition, a plan worth acting on includes handling the opposition and having contingencies. This is true for every politician in every context for the history and pre-history of humanity.

The fact that the MAGAts are so utterly incompetent that even the idea of opposition sends them into chaos and whining fits while they control the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government is itself supportive of if the "these morons are too stupid to make a plan" type theories. Instead of planning they attacked anyone who asked how they would handle the obvious consequences, they deny that the obvious consequences that are clearly happening are actually happening. They attack anyone asking for metrics that the plan is working, make unbacked claims that they are in talks to fix the situation that caused the trade war (while refusing to even articulate what the goals are and attacking anyone who asks that too). They aren't even communicating with each other to coordinate something that looks like a plan: how many times have one group of lackeys been talking about plan X while another group or the president himself does the opposite to the surprise of everyone.

There is no evidence that one of the key bullet points of a campaign platform was ever more than a bullet point - no plan, no attempt to prepare for consequences, nothing indicative of a plan at all. They truly believed that imposing tarrifs would magically make factories appear overnight.

It's already started. Remember all those pardons for the Jan 6 terrorists?

Do you think those that have been opposed to current gun laws would be nearly as proficient at the use of their newly acquired weapon as opposed to those that have been collecting them for years?

This just made up militia will be woefully untrained to handle anything. At least those that have their meeting in the woods practice to whatever extent they do, but that would be so much more than this recent trip to the sporting goods store.

Whether you want to quibble over the words demonize, there are a lot of people that do not interpret the constitution to mean that just any ol' body can own a gun to the extent we allow today. The well regulated militia is part of that amendment, and gets left out quite conveniently. The local police departments are closer to the idea of a well regulated militia. The national guard are even closer of a match to me. The guys that run around in the woods believe they are fulfilling that role, but nobody really thinks they are well regulated other than whatever rules they choose to operate.

Personally, I do not think that what we have today with the NRA and what not is what the framers had in mind. So you complain about demonizing being wrong and clearly on one end of the spectrum. I think that the NRA refusing any limits on guns is clearly the other end of that spectrum

I've taught people who had never held a gun to shoot. It takes an hour or two to get them to the point where they can get a nice grouping at a reasonable distance.

I haven't owned a gun in 20 years (it's not my style). I go shooting every 3-4 years with some gun nut buddies who have big arsenals and go shooting often. I am a better shot than many of them.

Armies have won wars while being comprised mostly of conscripted people who hadn't held a gun prior to the conflict breaking out.

Point being - effective use of guns does not require deep proficiency nor long term regular training.

Being able to shoot a gun at a paper target in the safety of a gun range is one thing. It's a different thing to do that when it's a person in front on you. It's also a totally different thing when that person in front of you is persons plural in the form of a trained opposing force and the bullets are coming at you. It takes training to quell that fear and be able to react in a manner that does not end with you full of lead.

When I've discussed training in this thread in other comments, this is what I was considering. Not target practice. Not being able reload a weapon. Specifically about mentally holding it together to not freeze, or even loose your ability to aim at something not a paper target in a gun range.

> Being able to shoot a gun at a paper target in the safety of a gun range is one thing. It's a different thing to do that when it's a person in front on you

Sure. I’m saying that the physical condition of most “militia” members doesn’t make for a threatening force.

In any case, if America went low-burn civil war, you’d pay the drug gangs to do your dirty work. The reason that’s the 20th century playbook is it works.

As drug gangs are discovering drone solutions, I wonder how far the USA is from functioning guns being as useful as prop guns in a civil war.

You can have 20 assault style weapons in your gun safe, but if that's where they are they do not act as a deterrent. They are only a deterrent when they are ready to be used. The purpose of a gun is to be shot. Confusing this is just some very excessive bending of logic. The intent of the shooter is an entirely different matter. They were not manufactured and then sold/purchased just to be in a display case. That's just what someone decided to with their purchase.

In fact, If you have 20 assault rifles in your safe you are a target for 20 or so revolutionaries. Oligarchs aside, most people of the hoarding political persuasion mistrust others and couldn't social engineer their way out of a paper bag.

>* Very few people demonize gun ownership. They just want some laws preventing criminals from owning guns.

Don't gaslight us. Democrats have been pushing civilian disarmament HARD recently.

Restricted magazine sizes, requiring all transfers to go through a FFL, basic features bans, permits to purchase, restricting ammo purchases to FFLs raising prices, and now repeated attempts at semi-auto bans.

This isn't focused on criminals, it's trying to discourage firearm ownership in general. When states ban the federal government marksmanship program from shipping firearms to civilians AFTER they have already been background checked by a federal agency it's clear there is no attempt to stop criminals.

> They just want some laws preventing criminals from owning guns.

Criminals - you mean like illegal immigrants and those who aid and abet them?

The courts are a bit split on this. Recently in illinois a judge found an illegal immigrant is not a prohibited person if they meet some standard of community ties/integration, although I've totally forgotten what criteria the judge used.

Remember that the McDonald case incorporated the second amendment to the states so the judges have to decide these sorts of questions for people who are out of status.

I mean criminals: people convicted of a crime for which one of the punishments is revocation of gun ownership rights.

The important word here is convicted. As we were all taught in elementary school - there is a process required by the constitution in which a person goes to a special meeting (called a trial) where a whole bunch of people examine evidence and ask a lot of questions about that evidence to determine if a person is a criminal. If the decisions is they are a criminal, then they have been convicted. HTH!

That's not true.

You do not need to be convicted, you do not even need to be charged.

Since this is a hot topic, look at Abrego Garcia. His wife filed a restraining order. The initial order was slightly different than the temporary order 3 days later, which added one thing -- surrendering any firearms (this is bog standard, they do this in Maryland even for citizens). No matter that she did not even bother to show up for the adversarial final order, so he had his gun rights taken totally ex-parte without even a criminal charge or a fully adjudicated civil order nor any chance to face his accuser wife. Even david lettermen had his gun rights temporarily revoked because a woman in another state claimed he was harassing through her TV via secret messages in his television program [].

But that's not all, you can totally have gun rights taken away without any civil or criminal process. If you use illegal drugs, you cannot own weapons either, that is established without any due process to decide if you use or not, simply putting down you use marijuana on a 4473 will block a sale as will simply owning a marijuana card whether you use marijuana or not.

[] http://www.ejfi.org/PDF/Nestler_Letterman_TRO.pdf

This is exactly my point, and what I've been driving at in this thread.

This could not possibly be a concern based on abrogation of due process - because there have been many similar due process violations concerning firearms, and I've never seen a single article submitted here about those.

Frankly, I don't see how immigration is any more relevant to this site than civil rights.

first knee jerk type answer is that there are a lot of people in the tech industry that are here on some sort of visa and are not citizens which means that they very much are subject to any changes to immigration enforcement.

How is Gnome in any way relevant to bring up in the context of the kernel networking stack?

I mean I get it, you dislike Gnome for whatever reason and want to cast some shade - that part is clear. What I don't really understand is how you decided this context is somehow going to be received in a way to further your view... it's just so illogical that my reaction is "support the Gnome folks".

Actually - due to this comment I just donated $50 to the GNOME Foundation. Either the guerilla marketing worked, or your mission failed - in any case I hope this was an effective lesson in messaging.

> But a corporation should exist to provide goods and services to end users and a return to shareholders.

What a naive and utterly incorrect statement. A corporation is a peice of paper that separates ownership from liability. Attached to that peice of paper are some special tax rules, rules about structuring ownership and governance (particularly important when there are multiple owners) and so on.

Any notion of how they should be run is just a random person's opinion, unless you happen to have some percentage of ownership - then you get that percentage say in how things are run. Although I will say any sort of mechanistic opinion on corporate interactions is a broken one - fundamentally there are people doing things to fulfill an inter-corporate agreement, and some of those people will find ways to be shady or lazy or otherwise not live up to the agreement. The inter-personal relationships are very important, as they help the people running one corporation gauge how likely the other corporation will live up to it's end of the agreement.

You talk a lot and don't say very much so I'll pass on engaging. FWIW check your spell checker.

Nah, you're just confusing the KPI with the desire.

You get different viewpoints by having people with different sets of experience.

Differing gender, race, and socioeconomic backgrounds are drivers of different experiences, and therefore viewpoints. You can't easily measure "did this company hire different experiences", but you can easily measure "did this company hire a bunch of different genders, races, etc", which doesn't guarantee differing viewpoints in individuals, but does strongly suggest it in aggregate/at the statistical level.

Yes, congratulations, you've understood why it's extremely difficult. Well done.

I suppose next you'll tell me that either you don't understand it so it shouldn't be done or that because it's hard people should give up.

Your argument dropped something - the self selecting applicant pool for Harvard.

I recently listened to a podcast episode he was on: https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id3692892/id372628820

It goes deep into his fq_codel work and why it was such a game-changer. It's an informal setting so his personality shines through - seems like we didn't just lose a great technologist, but also a heck of a human.

Thank you, this was a great listen.

This is sad news - fq_codel was a game changer. A lot of problems that used to be common on shared links have basically just disappeared as a result of Dave's work.

I never had the chance to meet him, but from what I've seen and heard, he had a wonderful personality too. This podcast has an interview/discussion with him about his work, and since the setting is informal his personality shines through too: https://castbox.fm/app/castbox/player/id3692892/id372628820

Rust has an Any type. It's rarely useful, but there are occasionally situations where a heterogeneous collection is the right thing to do. Casting the any type back to actual type is fairly nice though, as the operation returns an Option<T> and you're forced to deal with the case where your cast is wrong.