Slaves nowadays usually refers to either American-style chattel slavery or Roman-style slavery, both of which were systems much different than Serfdom.

But yes serfs will likely have built it, or were involved with the build under direction of hired stone masons, on order of a noble and with resources a noble paid for, under the general societal rule that serfs were to spend a certain amount of days a year working on infrastructure stuff as part of their taxes. For more details you’d have to dig into the law at that time at that particular place but those kinds of arrangements were incredibly common in Europe in the middle ages. You tended to be able to buy yourself out of having to work, and also pay your way in silver or gold out of paying in grain, livestock, etc.

While we’re talking about Devil’s Bridges, Hamburg has one, too: It was built to make crossing the devil’s ford easier, so called because there were so many accidents there people couldn’t explain it otherwise. A carpenter was contracted, who is said to have made a pact with the devil, that the bridge may stay, at the price of the soul of the first living thing to cross the bridge. On inauguration day, then, the local reverend blessed the bridge and set off to cross it, when out of the bushes a rabbit appeared and sprinted across the bridge. A statute memorialises the occasion:

…the less exciting explanation is that back when Holstein was still under Danish rule there were two bridges close together, and the double bridge then turned into the devil’s one. dövelt -> Düvel in Low Saxon makes a lot of sense but is boring.

ok change 18 to 20, same argument

Not really, the one number at least implies “I don’t want to go to prison”, the other is “these are too young for me”. Anyway:

don’t tell me there aren’t any single 40yo women interested in him lol

How many of those 40yolds are jealous, and what what kind of social narrative could they be pushing to make him stop dating that young. Also, how many of them would themselves have dated him with a 30 year age gap, given the opportunity.

Maybe, instead of not asking those questions, he answers them in a way that you do not agree with? Maybe even based on factors that you overlook?

I’m not quite as old as Leo but that frontal cortex thing is a very hard cutoff. You seem to be very focussed on the “18” thing, that’s not how human development and attraction works. According to the chart he has not dated an 18yold since he was 26, and hasn’t shied away from 24yolds.

And, yes, he doesn’t want to found a family, doesn’t seem to want anything really long-term, at least not yet. Not for me to judge.

So you’re not blaming the women, you’re not saying that they don’t know what they’re getting into, either, everyone knows what Leo is up to, so you’re calling Leo creepy for – not questioning decisions the women make?

There’s also a weird characterisation of agency, here. You’re only characterising Leo as an active participant, not the women, you’re saying what Leo does is use things that he has, passively (fame, wealth), to actively “get” women. I’d be much more convinced if you said he’s a good flirt. Are women such passive creatures that when they see someone rich and famous, they just cannot help themselves but spread their legs? I find it hard to reconcile such a narrative with feminism, it’s absolutely regressive.

The frontal cortex matures from roughly 14 to the early 20s, characteristic of that age is to be both impulsive and confused, while the cortex is already fully functional you’re still figuring out what to actually use it for.

That is: In the early 20s you become fully adult. Not in the legal sense (that’s usually 18), but biologically. You’re a grown-up. To argue that they can’t make their own decisions is highly infantilising.

So there you have a guy who’s a bit older, but very charming and generally fit, probably good in bed, a gentleman all around, he’s famous and you have a modelling career that could take a bit of a boost. You get along well with each other. You enjoy the interplay between a fresh outlook on life and some more settled experience, it’s invigorating both of you. Is there a transaction in that arrangement? Sure. But it’s one that 20yolds are adult enough to enter with full awareness of what they’re doing. Is it for you? Probably not, from what I gather. Is it your place to judge? Neither.

That’s not going to work radarr is a daemon. Well at least it’s not going to work as intended, you might be able to start the thing as a user, but it’s likely not what you want to do, you want the thing registered with systemd and start up and shut down with the system. We don’t nix-shell -p sshd either.

The trouble with the *rr stuff isn’t libraries, it’s as far as I know all written in .NET, but system integration. Setting up users and permissions, starting the daemon, if necessary punch a hole in the firewall.

I, too, watched Linus’ rant about diving software and that neither distros should be required to package random-ass applications, and app developers shouldn’t be forced to package for random-ass distros. That’s why we have flatpak. There may or may not come a time where such a thing also exists for daemons but it’s not the top priority, also, if you’re running radarr you’re not just a random user, you’re at the very least a power user. Random users direct their browsers to a website, click a link, which then opens qbittorrent. Which btw also has a rss feature. You don’t need a daemon process to do all this stuff, I doubt radarr sets up a system process or whatever it’s called in windows, either, you can do it as a user. The whole design of the thing assumes that you run it on a server, and, therefore, know how to run a server.

As such, two observations: First, that radarr is not a good example subsurface is (and precisely what Linus was talking about), secondly, power users know even less what users actually want than devs.

And presumably you want that fixed. To do that, you have to figure out who needs to do work. In one way or the other, that’s going to be the devs.

We might be using different connotations of “blame”, here. Like, I’m using the git blame one.

The bottom line is that Linux is harder to use in a lot of scenarios.

And who’s at fault? The devs. To wit, the radarr devs. Really, the minimum there should be calling what they describe “manual installation” and saying “we don’t package our software for distributions, consult your distro’s package manager radarr might be available”. It’s a daemon so it’s not like they can ship a flatpak, deamons need system integration.

The whole sonarr/radarr/prowlarr/whatever-rr dev folks don’t seem to be particularly Linux-affine in general. I consider it windows software that happens to run under linux, developed by presumably windows users running linux on their seedbox because if there’s one thing that’s worse, even for windows-heads, than learning a bit of linux then it’s using windows in a server role.

revoking someone’s chosen name out of personal disgust

The tweet does not call Caitlyn Bruce, it’s telling Caitlyn than the president ordered the government to call her Bruce.

Mentioning a deadname is not the same as deadnaming, this is not like saying “Jehovah” or something. I understand that just bringing up someone’s deadname can be jarring to at least a portion of trans people but, like, that’s the point here. Shock her into realising what’s being done to, also, her.

Replace <deadname> with the N-word. Does your logic still hold up?

Yes. There is a difference between saying “The president ordered the government to murder you” and actually murdering someone.

Yeah that’s just radarr devs not actually packaging the thing.

Compare the nixos instructions. Which, mind you, is not a distro for beginners, the faint of heart, or generally people who are neither functional programmers nor devops, but that’s how easy it is when you package shit properly.

“The president just ordered the government to deadname you” is not deadnaming.

I think you should double-check what I linked to: To the xdg desktop protocols, that’s a dbus thing, it’s not a wayland extension much less the core wayland protocol. It’s the same protocol flatpack apps use to do stuff, figures that APIs that are useful if you’re in a sandbox are useful in general.

X does not handle global hotkeys. It gives everyone full access to everything and then expects them to not fight for control, which took decades to actually happen, before that the desktop would often break down as clients were fighting. Any client can warp the pointer, capture all keys, watch how you enter a password in another window, say it’s the one which should be on top of all the others, it’s a nightmare.

Judging by the types of misunderstanding you have I must assume that you’ve never written a single line of X or wayland related code. Know, therefore, that you are completely unqualified to hold the opinion you have, much less hold it strongly.

I’m not sure what you mean with “all of wayland”, here. The protocol is ludicrously small and minimal. It’s a way for programs to say “I have a graphics buffer, please display it and also give me some input like mouse motions plz”. Everything else is extensions because there’s devices (e.g. in automotive) that need only that, and nothing more, no windowing no nothing. You certainly don’t need global hotkey handling if all you ever run is one full-screen client.

Whether the compositor wants to implement windowing logic (say, tiling vs. floating, what happens when you right-click a titlebar) itself or outsource that to another process is not wayland’s concern.

KDE didn’t go that way because kwin was already an integrated compositor and window manager when it only ran on X, the smaller projects do seem to tend into that direction but they haven’t agreed on a common standard, yet.

…and Axel Springer blasting anti-Green propaganda because the neolibs understand perfectly well how dangerous soclibs are for their programme. Neolibs rely on the narrative of “small businesspeople getting shafted”, soclibs can solve the same issue for the same clientele, but by shafting the bourgeois instead of the proletariat.

Small private businesses are not a systemic problem. Sure there’s capital accumulation going on but the “vast” is missing. The accumulation curve is exponential, at the lower end where those small businesses are it basically looks flat.

Care still has to be taken when it comes to lobbying etc, there small business interests don’t necessarily align with soclib programmes. Ironically, currently SMEs are lobbying the EU to dilute the supply chain act requiring companies to monitor human rights in their supply chain, while Nestle and other big fish lobby for it to not be diluted. But so far from what I see the soclib parties here are firm on these issues.

I’ll quote myself, as you didn’t seem to have read it:

They can’t just log all your keystrokes globally because that’d be a keylogger. Also there’d be no way to resolve conflicts between shortcuts.

Go ahead, tell the X devs that their new protocol is worse than the old. That, instead of improving on things and creating a thing that won’t become unmaintainable, they fucked up royally and made things worse. I’m waiting.

If you want to go and continue maintaining X then go ahead, noone’s stopping you.

Or maybe you accept that the people who have been maintaining it for decades know a thing or two about the thing, and you’re just whining from the sidelines.

I’d be curious what liberal party in what country you mean.

AFAIK the liberal parties in Europe like Germany, France and UK want exactly what the US neoliberals want

Taking Germany as an example: The FDP, once upon a time, had a large social-liberal wing and was in coalition with the SPD, but that’s long gone by now they’re firmly neoliberal. The Greens are social-liberal, the Pirates are, and so is Volt. A social-liberal party that’s part of Renew instead of Greens/EFA would be Radikale Venstre.

The question is really who’s liberty? The liberation of the masses from economic exploitation? Or the liberty of the capitalists to exploit the masses? There is absolutely no doubt what is meant today with liberalism.

Part of the stated goals of the feed-in tariff system the German Greens cooked up was, aside from saving the planet by boosting renewables, to de-monopolise the market, to distribute ownership of the means of electricity production wider, and they indeed were successful we now have plenty of wind mills here that are owned by municipal-level cooperatives. Couple of farmers, the local machine shop, couple of pensioners, that’s enough own capital to convince the local cooperative and public banks to chime in with a credit, build the thing. Left to pure environmentalism they might’ve passed laws requiring the big monopolists to build more renewables, a more traditional leftist approach would be to build state-owned renewables, the Greens instead created, through smart regulation, market conditions that made it possible for small fish to get into the fray, out-flanking the monopolists.

That is, you missed something in your dichotomy: The liberation of the small fish from the accumulation power of the big fish. That policy is 110% ordoliberali: Regulate the market such that market failures are corrected. Neoliberals generally do the opposite, remove regulation that prevents failures because that pleases their monopolist overlords, or even regulate to fail though at that point it probably should be called straight-up kleptocracy.

And their virtue signalling you can mostly ignore. Why would they want to solve an issue they could run on next election?

Now you’re being a doomer. Yes, that happens, generally in politics not limited to any spectrum, but it’s also self-destructive as voters will consider you unfit to rule. It’s not like we’re limited to two parties over here, things can and do shift.

Liberals are pro-capitalism

That’s a completely US-centric view. All your liberals might be capitalists, elsewhere, various forms of social liberalism are very much alive and kicking. It’s one half of the ingredient in the EU’s compromise of “social market economy”: It’s a thing both social liberals and democratic socialists can lay claim to and, indeed, in policy terms there’s gigantic spaces of overlap. Parliament-wise it’s most directly represented mostly by Green/EFA but floats in various forms and shades in pretty much all parties, especially Renew though the neolibs are also part of that one.

It’s also ancient, dating back to the mid-1800s, bringing you things such as credit unions.

From a different angle: Marx was wrong, there’s indeed petite bourgeois who are capable of class consciousness. Also, understanding macroeconomics and how trickle down is bullshit. They may be millionaires but that’s still a billion away from a billion, they want people to have money in their pockets so you have money to visit their cinema or whatever.

Also once upon a time neoliberalism meant ordoliberalism but that’s a historical note. The current use refers to BS that indeed makes the word itself a pejorative, just as “shit” is a pejorative for shit.