I see value in being uncompromising (look at Richard Stallman in Free Software). I also see value in giving a little in the right areas for a net gain.
I don't think McBride thinks that this is the ultimatum given at the moment (100% vs 50% of trans people die), that would explain why she is willing to compromise.
If she did see it that way, she would probably do the same as you.
Her wanting to compromise at this moment does not mean she would compromise in the worst of moments.
That sentence isn't making sense to me.
She's not saying anything negative about human rights at all. She's saying that to get what we want (human rights), the path forward is one not so simple that we can just support it unconditionally, "excommunicating"[1] those not in lock-step with our ideas, and get everything we want.
You may shoot for the stars, and get nothing. Or you may shoot for a more reasonable goal and make meaningful progress.
[1]: See the original thread comment. Nazi scum? Is that directed at the trans rep who wants to help? This is a prime example of something I would consider not helpful to the cause.
I don't think she's saying this because she prefers it, but rather because she sees it is necessary.
“If, for instance, we want to have a majoritarian coalition — not just electorally, but specifically on issues around trans rights — that, by necessity, is going to have to include people who have a range of thoughts,” McBride continued.
She is clearly arguing that its more effective to be open to a range of ideas than to not so.
“A binary choice between being all-on or all-off is not constructive for anyone,” she said. “It impedes the very needed path toward winning electorally, winning hearts and minds, and, most importantly, winning progress.”
Politics is a strategic war. Its very simple to be 100%, non-compromising, in-support of something. But is that the most effective path forward?
I don't think she's saying this because she prefers it, but rather because she sees it is necessary.
“If, for instance, we want to have a majoritarian coalition — not just electorally, but specifically on issues around trans rights — that, by necessity, is going to have to include people who have a range of thoughts,” McBride continued.
She is clearly arguing that its more effective to be open to a range of ideas than to not so.
“A binary choice between being all-on or all-off is not constructive for anyone,” she said. “It impedes the very needed path toward winning electorally, winning hearts and minds, and, most importantly, winning progress.”
It can be done if you mess with the initramfs.
The kernel starts everything else by unpacking an archive containing a minimal environment to set stuff up for later. Such as loading needed kernel modules, decrypting your drive, etc. It then launches, by default, the /init program (mines a shell script).
That program is PID 1. If it dies, your kernel will panic.
After it finishes setup, it execs your actual /sbin/init. These means it dies, and that program (systemd, openrc, dinit, runit, etc) becomes PID 1. If an issue happens, both could fail to execute and the kernel will loop forever.
These applications likely know they can get away with it, as people classify them as "too important" to uninstall.
The solution is to make them wrong: To uninstall. Who woulda thunk.
Very simple actually: don't use 100% transparency.
Just use something like 80-90% opaque (10-20% transparent) and use the background color as black so it just dims whatever us behind it.
You can have both function and form.
Gnome shenanigans.
The most hilarious part about how Anubis is implemented is that it triggers challenges for every request with a User-Agent containing "Mozilla".
If you have JavaScript disabled, this "challenge" is just a wall. They might've stopped bots, but they've stopped me too.
expired cert...
Yes. Bad example. Pick any other number of examples. You can probably put a useful time range.
Best option for the business
Already commented on that. They believe it to be so, I don't agree with that choice.
You can design your software for tech gurus...
It doesn't have to be either or. Error messages can have a baseline of mild computer knowledge, and stretch up to people who know what they are doing. You can cater to both.
Useless boiler plate error message
It doesn't have to be utterly useless. Just because you can't fix anything from where you are doesn't mean you can't benefit. If the error is deemed unfixable for customers, give a timeframe of when it should be fixed and the intended course of action (what should they do if its not back up soon and they need it to be up). Useless is a choice, but its also subjective. You may find "Something went wrong. Try again later" as not useless. I deem it so.
you are not going to fix the issue
Unfounded assertion. I have fixed server-client issues before as the client. Let me repeat it: I have fixed server-client issues as the client. There are of course issues I can't fix
I think our disconnect partly comes from the fact that I am discussing this from a point of view of server operators being fallible. If in theory they always know what is fixable only on the server and never make a mistake in that regard, then we fall back to make a useless error message more useful. But they do make mistakes (or are purposefully hiding information so you don't know how to get around the error). The Linux example. It would be very easy to justify that in the same way that companies could justify a useless error message for something which could actually be fixed. How many people are going to look at the initframfs logs and know how to chroot in, edit the initramfs init script, and then rebuild the cpio and shove it in boot? Probably less than those that don't.
You could use this as a justification to hide it completely, but also harm those that could fix it, and also harm error reporting as the users machines just don't boot the distro. I disagree with this decision.
PS
if that affected ChatGPTs popularity, I couldn't tell.
So I'll round it all off with this: improve the error messages as a whole. Add contact information, time till likely fix, course of action (try again later is vague crap). The messages feel like an unhelpful wall, the error equivalent of a chatbot responding to your pleads for support. Also, you might not always be correct in whether something is fixable or not. You could add the detailed error information near the bottom, if people don't need it then no harm. If people do then its useful. Not adding it and then it being of use could be worse than adding it and it just never being necessary.
I think this topic is wrung out dry.
The Gnome Gitlab link is locked up for me. Stuck here:
There is no time frame for these kinds of errors
If I was are able to isolate the issue to, for example, expired certs, I could absolutely give you a ballpark answer on how long it should take/when it might be back up. It doesn't need to be very precise, but I have accessed websites only to be shown an error with zero idea whether this is a multi-day event or something I can wait five minutes and it be fixed.
...they are written by designers...
Cooperation with a developer would help here.
They are written for the broadest audience
If you write only for a child, your usefulness ceiling is that of what a child could understand. You could have your obvious boilerplate message, and then under that provide more information.
...not easily construed as derogatory or malicious in any language.
I feel as if this is a simple problem to avoid.
We have to design systems as if every user is incompetent...
See the bottom of this post
there is almost nothing you can do when you hit an error like this.
If the company believes so, then write that part in. Otherwise, it isn't stated that such is the case. It would be one more sentence on the boilerplate section.
Overall this has to do with what you are optimizing for. Its clear to me that many businesses believe useless boilerplate error messages are most cost effective. If you want to be most cost-effective, then cutting corners on the error messages likely saves time with few financial downsides. But It doesn't have to be this way.
Designing systems for the lowest person on the totem poll isn't without downsides. I have used Linux systems that made the bootup hide all log messages. This means that people that can actually fix a broken system using the logs, are going to have a harder time, as you just hid away all the moving parts and complexity from the end user. Some machines I wouldn't have been able to fix were it not for the detailed logs.
Or we could talk about privacy. Nearly everyone can use a computer. Great right!? But how many people actually understand the privacy implications of using a machine that is controlled by a closed source corporation. Of entering load of data into that machine? Very few.
You can design a system for idiots. But you don't have to. There are things in life that have prerequisites. If someone comes over to my computer and asks "What's that" on a kernel log output, I'll ask them, "Do you know what a kernel is". If they don't, then I will tell them not to worry about it. My explanations are not for everyone. Neither are my software.
One could make similar statements (and some do), about voting for the democrats over a better farther-left party. The defenders of voting Democrat would likely tell you the same thing: "Its our only chance at winning."
Are you voting for genocide if you compromise and vote for the Democrats? Or are you merely making the best of a broken system?
You decide.