Lady @Lady@cat.family

@aschmitz i mostly only listen to albums or EPs so i have not listened to the new CHVRCHES singles yet; perhaps i should

KIWANUKA DOESN¦T MISS

https://officialmichaelkiwanuka.bandcamp.com/album/fudge #np

every year i make a playlist of music that released that year that i loved and this year that playlist has. one song. it is October send help (good music)

has good music finally released in 2026?? or will these two albums by artists i reliably love both disappoint me???

as somebody who spent years browsing the internet on a DS i do not understand why your foldable device cannot simply have two screens

@platlas @gaditb what i am suggesting is that they do not trust their users to do that moral calculus on their own. of course there are moral reasons not to want to use Windows, but there are also moral reasons why one might have to use Windows. when i talk about engineering being a discipline of compromises, this includes moral compromises. and i am calling Hare paternalistic because they do not provide a space for people to go “okay, i am aware of the ethical concerns here, but i have evaluated things in the context of my particular situation and this is the lesser of two evils”. instead, they have decided that their analysis must apply to every situation, and you must go outside the community if you encounter a situation where their analysis does not apply. this does not give me confidence that they will be good at tactfully navigating other situations where their analysis‐in‐general does not match specific users analysis‐in‐particular

@gaditb @platlas well, if you are developing a programming language that is not suitable for engineering that is a good thing to know, but my assumption was that they did intend Hare to be useful for engineering, and thus the community of users would include engineers and need to respond appropriately to engineering concerns

@platlas @gaditb The difference between computer science and software engineering is that sofware engineering involves compromises. The job of the engineer is to evaluate compromises and make a determination on which ones are most workable for solving a particular problem. If an engineer makes a determination on a compromise, like “I think it would be good to use Hare, but I would need to do it on WSL”, and you reject that determination out of hand, what you are saying is that you don’t respect them as an engineer. You disrespect them as a professional; you are saying you don’t believe in their ability to make their own determinations. That may be warranted in some cases, for example if somebody makes the decision to outsource important aspects of their work to AI. But it should be a judgement of last resort. A healthy community assumes that participants know what they are doing and are qualified to make their own determinations about whether something is a good idea.

@gaditb @platlas If a number of engineers have made an educated decision that the best move for them is to build Hare for their WSL‐ or macOS‐based UNIX system, why would you stand in the way of them doing that? Unless you hate software engineering?

The response of the Hare team here would be “we are not standing in the way; we are simply not facilitating”, but when an engineer shows up at a community of engineers and says “does anyone know the solution to this engineering problem”, saying “we don’t talk about that engineering problem here” is more than just not facilitating a conversation; it is actively shutting it down

@gaditb @platlas The “you cannot discuss Windows or macOS on the mailing list” thing is a bit of a red flag to me in general. Of course the goal of it is to reduce mailing list noise by filtering out platforms which the development team has no interest in supporting. But this is a limitation of the mailing‐list development model where every message has to go to everyone. The fact is that the project has no interest in supporting use‐cases outside of its own prescriptive scope. This level of paternalism implies a software community which does not trust its own users to make their own determinations about engineering decisions.

@gaditb (re: edit: yeah, my guess is that is the justification)

@gaditb the Pope does not outrank your conscience

this is why if you listen to Democratic Catholics (Tim Kaine as running mate for Hillary Clinton comes to mind), they will often say they believe abortion to be a “matter of conscience”. they may believe, with the Church, that it is wrong in most cases, but they also believe that if your conscience tells you it is the right thing to do, that trumps the Pope. and that is how they can support decriminalizing it even when the Pope says it should be banned, and the Pope does not excommunicate them for this

@gaditb to take an example of the Catholic Church being obviously wrong, they used to excommunicate people for getting divorces. this is because they thought getting divorces was morally wrong, but more importantly because being divorced is a perpetual act and they believe you should not give communion to somebody in a state of sin. you obviously cannot confess away your divorce-sin when you are still divorced, ergo, no communion

HOWEVER, many Catholics even at the time disagreed with this opinion and thought divorce did not leave you in a perpetual state of sin. and these people were not excommunicated for thinking that. the Church doctrine was legitimately questioned and this was allowed. the line was drawn at the point where the Church itself would become complicit in something that went against its values—offering communion to a person in a state of sin—not at the point of disagreement

the Church was wrong, of course

@gaditb i think “being socially positioned as a metaphysical authority, above what can be legitimately questioned by an unpositioned individual” is where you start to get into it being a cult. in Catholicism for example, the highest moral authority is your own conscience. people are excommunicated when their actions go against the understanding of the church, but this is not a moral condemnation of the individual so much as an organizational insulation against facilitating evil. (and you can be evil and remain in the Church so long as you do not make it complicit.) and i think many noncult Christian organizations follow a similar perspective. they offer experts, but the ultimate moral judgment does not rest with them but with Christ, and it would be sinfully presumptuous to presume oneself to be on that level

i mean Canada did invent a Thanksgiving but the goal was religious nationalism and not opposing Christmas, which was really their mistake

long ago in the history of our Nation, a group of Calvinists decided that celebrating Christmas was gauche. so they invented Thanksgiving, as a bulwark against there being too much Christmas. in our Northern Neighbour, this never happened, so they have too much Christmas up there

@gaditb @Satsuma but that would just be an argument against American Civil Religion as a religion instead of a political institution

if you want to argue it is a religion, under the American constitutional understanding of religiosity, you have to argue it is not political. the aspects which are political obviously can be made subject to politics