Aceticon

I've seen, again an again, deploying to Staging and integration testing in that Production-like environment together with the software of other teams, reveal problems that we did not saw in Dev, thus saving us from deploying into Production software that broke or, worse, corrupted the database.

This was certainly very important when I worked in environments such as Investment Banking where Production being down because of integration issues or, worse, sending bad data to other systems or the database having to be rolled back to the overnight backup, might mean the business losing millions of dollars.

It's not a foolproof mechanism but it certainly catches most integration problems, which are often most of the problems in complex environments where multiple teams are responsible for multiple highly integrated software systems,

Granted, little teams doing small software systems in simple environments were their software has little or no integration with other software, can probably get away with not having a Staging environment if their Dev environments has the same setup as Production (same OS, same database and so on) since they're going to have very little in the way of Integration problems with other people's software.

Man who is part of making the problem much worse tries to save his legacy by pointing the problem but claiming it is just starting to become a problem.

If by that you mean that some out of touch MPs can be easily swindled by members of the security apparatus working together with other MPs and higher level politicians who are smart enough to know what they're doing, I don't disagree with that.

What is less likely is that a majority of British MPs, repeatedly and over the course of 2 decades, have been deceived like that.

Maybe I'm wrong, but most British MPs don't come out as stupid (though some definitely do) - incompetent at anything but salesmanship and power-games, crooked, greedy, ethics-free, unprincipled salesmen types and people driven by objectives which do not at all match what they state, sure most of them come out as that, stupid, not most.

I mean, your point would make a lot of sense if this was some kind of one-off event rather than a repeating pattern of measure after measure increasing surveillance of Civil Society, for the last 2 decades, and if Civil Society (or at least the Media) had been silent about it or even supportive of it, but as things stand the theory that a majority of MPs are stupid as an explanation for this bill passing Parliament really stretches the laws of probability.

As the saying goes: "You can deceive some people all of the time or all people some of the time but you can't deceive all people all of the time".

PS: I accept that I might be wrong. I just don't think that given the Historical track record the odds favor the "they've been swindled" (a majority of them and again on a subject that has been steadily going in just this direction and with not so long ago exposés on the press of how previous legislation has been abused for surveillance) explanation over the explanation that at least the ones in leadership positions acted with full awareness and possibly the active intention and purpose of crafting and passing a bill that expands Civil Society Surveillance in Britain.

Back when the Snowden revelations came out the UK was worse than the US when it came to civil society surveillance and unlike the US, the Government there just retroactivelly legalized all that their NSA-equivalent (the GCHQ) did with no restrictions.

Oh, and the UK Press has a censorship mechanism called D-Notices.

In this domain the UK is already worse than the US, probably because the idea that the populus should know their place and be led by "their betters" is pretty old in Britain and, at least for the elites, the thinking about the relation between power and the people never significativelly evolved away from the original thinking in Absolute Monarchies, since the political and power structures there are still anchored on a Monarchy.

The UK has a History of intrusive civil society surveillance which the Snowden revelations showed was even worse than in the US, and whilst the US actually walked back on some of it back then, the UK Government just retroactivelly made the whole thing legal.

Also, lets not forget how the UK has the highest density of CCTV cameras per inhabitant in the World (or maybe it's just London: it's been a while since I read about it).

Their track record on the subject heavilly indicates that this specific measure with the characteristics it has, is extremelly likely to have been purposefully crafted to extend civil society surveillance and information access control.

Remember when the Snowden revelations came out?

Not only it showed that the UK was even more intrusive in their surveillance of their own citiziens than the US, but after those revelations, whilst the US walked back on some of the surveillance, the Government of the UK simply retroactivelly legalized all of it, the editor at The Guardian who published the Snowden revelations got kicked out and the entire British Press went quiet about it since then.

The chances of this being genuinelly about protecting children rather than about facilitating the identification of British internet users by the GCHQ, are pretty much zero.

Personally I lived in the UK back when the Snowden revelations came out, so switched to being behind an always on VPN and since then never lost that habit. (And yeah, it's of course not a foolproof mechanism, but it sure makes it way harder to be caught in the broad trawling done by the surveillance apparatus, plus it's also pretty useful for "sailing the high seas")

Nah, they look similar because they're both people very emotionally and tribalistically (as there's quite an element of feeling part of a group in it) wedded to an ideological bundle of pre-baked ideas they took in as "undeniable truths" and do not in any way challenge with rationality and skepticism.

Both have the same way of thinking and relating to politics but tankies have adopted one ideological bundle of pre-baked ideas and modern day "conservatives" (I use quotes because they really don't do conservation of much) adopted a different ideological bundle of pre-baked ideas.

Mind you, they're just extreme cases of people whose relationship with politics runs along the very same behavioural lines as sports club fans. For example, here in Lemmy you often spot Democrat Party fans, which you can spot by their "the figures of the party can do no wrong" posture and similar, in contrast with, say, people who might have voted for the party for tactical or strategical reasons but don't just take every word of their propaganda as undeniable truth.

I live in a country with a lot more political parties than the US and am even a member of a small party here, and you see that kind of mindset in al parties party and from my own experience I would even say that mindless unquestioning fans are majority of party members.

I'm sure buying them is generally easier, this being the United States Of America.

It’s literally the stupidest possible way to write it

Nah.

For example:

"UnitedHealth overcharged cancer patients for drugs by over 1,000,000,000μ%"

would be even more stupid and I'm sure using something else than base-10 would yield its very own class of stupid.

Stupidity is probably boundless.

Well, the Law is supposed to protect us from Bad People, or so they and the powerful tell us again and again (and again, and again, and again).

Of course, in reality as the Ju$tice System's reaction to Luigi's action compared to their reaction to abusive and even murderous actions done by those hidden behind UnitedHealth makes painfully obvious, the Law mostly protects powerful Bad People from our reaction to those people doing Bad Things.

The "Party" sits above the "Money" in their power structure, unlike most of the Capitalist countries nowadays were (after 4 decades of Neoliberalism) Money is a power above that of the State (and remember, the State is what the voters supposedly control in Democracy, so that means that Money is a higher power than Democracy, which is why many have pointed out that countries like the US are Oligarchies not Democracies).

And, for reference, in Fascism too (or, in fact, all other Autocratic systems) the State sits above Money, so I'm hardly saying that by itself that is enough to make that system good

The real hypocrisy of tankies, IMHO, is that the "Communist" nations they support in a tribalist way still have elites, they're just not chosen via Money but instead via ability of climbing up the Party ranks (so Cronyism and Sociopathy) whilst genuine Leftwing thinking is about Equality, the very opposite of there being people who get privileged treatment for any reason other than need (that reason being money as in Capitalist system or something else is quite irrelevant in Leftwing thinking)

If you just see them as tribalists wedded to an ideology shaped by a specific kind of elites who use a specific kind of slogans around Equality to support the continuation of the structure that maintains their elite privileges, (which is parallel to what's done in Capitalism which similarly has the whole bullshit about how wealth is the product of merit to justify discrimination based on wealth) you can understand why tankies would think what they do about China.

They're still mindless simpleton tribalists, but it's interesting to understand how using as foundation for ones own judgement an ideology controlled by somebody else without doing at the very least some analysing of it just as easily yields a tankie, a Fascist or a (Neo)liberal depending on which ideological bundle of slogans they've unquestioningly adopted.

Indeed.

Everytime we get a "should've voted 'us' to stop 'them'" take the source is a dumb simpleton tribalist no matter what American Party the 'us' and 'them' is referring to - same stupid, simple, tribe-wedded parrotinbg, different tribe loyalty.