I have a few cheap TLDs because as an individual I didn’t want to pay a lot of money for the dot com versions. But I’m not a company.

You’re right. There are multiple definitions of the word stable, and “unchanging” is a valid one of them.

It’s just that every where else I’ve seen it in computing, it refers to a build of something being not-crashy enough to actually ship. “Can’t be knocked over” sort of stability. And everyone I’ve ever talked to outside of Lemmy has assumed that was what “stable” meant to Debian. but it doesn’t. It just means “versions won’t change so you won’t have version compatibility issues, but you’ll also be left with several month to year old software that wasn’t even up to date when this version released, but at least you don’t have to think about the compatibility issues!”

Debian aims for rock solid stability

To be clear, Debian “stability” refers to “unchanging packages”, not “doesn’t crash.” Debian would rather ship a known bug for a year than update the package if it’s not explicitly a security bug (and then only certain packages).

So if you have a crash in Debian, you will always have that crash until the next version of debian a year or so from now. That’s not what I’d consider “stable” but rather “consistent”

What exactly? That they’re moving to zero hour contracts

This isnt what the headline says though. “Discovered zero hour contracts” isnt how normal people speak. I have no clue if a mass teams call means they discovered some people were already on contracts, or that they were moving everyone to them, or some people, or (not knowing what a zero hour contract is) that the company has new contracts with game publishers.

You took your own understanding of the headline and even in your “its simple” added details that weren’t there originally.

The archlinux-keyring package will install a few gpg keys.

But also, the AUR also uses gpg keys to validate things.

Just searching the AUR for one of the repos that Jaffa linked to in another comment…

https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=librespot

Here is the PKGBUILD. Note line 24:

validpgpkeys=('EC57B7376EAFF1A0BB56BB0187F5FDE8A56219F4') ## Roderick van Domberg

And I’m sure if you got through the AUR there are plenty of packages that use this

Many AUR helpers (like paru, or yay, etc), will either auto download these keys for you, or prompt you. Even if you were to build this pkgbuild by hand, unless you removed that line, it would require you to import the key for the makepkg to work. So “how does a fresh arch install wind up with GPG keys that I didn’t manually import?” … the answer is AUR helpers most likely (or you did it manually for a makepkg and just forgot).

It’s also worth pointing out that GPG handles signing things, but also signature verification. These are all public keys in your system. Having public keys that have been used for signature verification is perfectly normal and kind of the point. If you had Roderick’s private key that would be weird.

When you’re a trans teen from OK getting beaten to death by classmates, the culture war feels a lot more urgent to focus on in the moment. Survival isn’t something you can be passive about.

Some people partake in the culture war as part of manipulation by the rich… Some people are forced into it by defending themselves from the first group. And some people are compelled into it to protect the second group.

While you’re not wrong about how we got here, it feels like it would be too easy for one side of the culture war to spin this as “Ignore my bigotry, Wall St is the real enemy!”

He saw himself having an epiphany about privilege in general, so he had to swerve and add race into the mix so he could say a true (albeit unrelated) thing and miss the point.

It’s like when anti BLM people say “All lives matter” … Sure, all lives DO matter, but they’re intentionally missing the point, so they don’t have to acknowledge that police brutality disproportionately affects black lives.

Saying unrelated “true” things to undermine the original statement is a bit telling about intentions.

My dad once told me my mom didnt feel safe walking alone at night in the neighborhood and asked if I felt the same. I said I didnt feel any concerns, but added the caveat that Im not a small woman, and Im a large man.

He paused for a minute, nodded and said “that makes sense.” Then after another few seconds goes “That’s not white privilege.”

These sorts of decisions can impact future decisions. It is to early to say that this is a trend, so people shouldn’t get all up in arms over things. But still, using other company histories as a basis, it is concerning about where this could end up.

Yes. And that is the point of ads. And we can agree that it’s not great to manipulate consumers.

but “you can never save by buying something. I save if I don’t buy” is NOT identifying the presupposition, and therefore not rejecting the presupposition. It’s just stating that the original statement has a logical flaw. Which it doesn’t have any logical flaws if you accept that language has subtext.

“I dislike that the implication is that you can only compare to buying at full price, when there are other options like not buying (which saves 100% vs full price)” identifies the presupposition and rejects it.

For sure. An implied sense of false urgency is the point of sales in general. There’s all sorts of psychology around manipulating people into buying things.

I just think that acting as if there is some sort of grammatical error or gap in logic is missing the fact that in language, people imply things. And an ad implying “you’re going to buy this, so you better do it while costs less” isn’t too hard to follow.

You’re playing a semantics game though. The assumption is that you ARE going to buy the thing. Society has decided that “save 77%” is a valid shortening of “save 77% compared to buying at full price” because that is the most logical comparison to make. Yes. “Save 77% compared to not buying the item” makes no sense, but that is clearly not what is being implied here. Implying and inferring things is a normal part of human communication, and refusing to accept the implications doesn’t make you clever.

That said, I agree that “pay 77% less to not even actually own the product that we will eventually lose the license to” is dumb.