78
Systemd adds age verification (github.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/privacy@programming.dev
81 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Not to mention that they locked the unpopular pull request from reactions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

I don’t see edit markers on either of your responses, so I must conclude you had no technical questions regarding this breach of commit.

That would be a natural conclusion given that neither you nor i have made any reference to that article until just now, but congratulations, a correct conclusion still counts...i suppose.

That article has no bearing on any of my questions or any position I’ve taken, which you would know if you had read/understood anything that has happened so far.

If/when you do, let me know. In the meantime, I suggest you read up on esr’s essay on how to ask smart questions

Similarly , that essay is for technical, code-related questions, of which i have asked none.

Keep going though, I’m interested to see if you figure out what’s happening.

You've got this, i believe in you!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Then we have nothing further to discuss.

    Now, if you want to learn how to engage others in the threadiverse, ALA created a wonderful guide when dealing with multi faceted discussions regarding potential breaches of conduct, like we saw Dylan here gravely commit.

    If you want to engage me in earnest, I do suggest you open another thread in another community or direct message on what you may perversely believe is a red flag.

    Do note I have a busy schedule dealing with my bloc activities, so I will be limited on how and when I choose to respond.

    This privacy community is not your political platform to demand libre developers comply with your personal choice of engagements.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    There was no discussion to begin with, that would requires you to understand enough to respond to the text being presented, there had been no evidence of that so far.

    I can and have been engaging just fine, you seem to be the one having trouble with this particular interaction.

    As I stated initially ( it's still there, feel free to review ) the terms themselves aren't the red flag, it's the approach to using them.

    I did engage you in earnest, with my contextual perspective and then with questions somewhat related to the subject.

    You went with a slight as a response, didn't read the rest of it and then proceeded to guess incorrectly multiple times about information easily available.

    If you don't want to read, that's fine, suggesting reading materials for a context you don't understand however, makes you seem incompetent.

    I demanded nothing, which again you would know if you had read or understood the response.

    I don't think further communication will be to anyone's benefit, you've shown no indication of being able to follow along with basic conversation.

    Not a single response has been relevant to the text to which it was replying.

    I'd be genuinely surprised if you could actually compile an OS. Which means your opinion on related topics is suspect as far as I am concerned.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    I’d be genuinely surprised if you could actually compile an OS. Which means your opinion on related topics is suspect as far as I am concerned.

    So what do you actually want to discuss regarding SystemD?

    Because how I premise my rules of engagement irt Zionist false equivalences has nothing to do if I will engage you in an earnest discussion of this breach of access by fascists.

    Do you perhaps know of another venue of which Dylan shouldn't have committed these PRs as to never have initialized this thread of discussion to begin with?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    That make sense, I see why you have the list now.

    It's an escape clause for when you don't understand what's going on, just claim "Zionist false equivalence" and you don't have to actually figure out what's going on.

    I have to say, I find that terribly disappointing.

    "Everything I don't understand is Zionism" is almost as bad as "everything I don't like is woke".

    There is no Zionism or any equivalence of any kind in my replies. If you wish to try again, my questions are in the first reply (where they have been the whole time), if not, no need to try and drag it into something unrelated.

    I'll give you a hint, its the parts that end with '?'

    Bonus points for any section you can point at that has any Zionism or False equivalence.

    Im out for now, you got this!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •