Veraticus

And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine.

What an absurd statement. Is invading Ukraine some kind of slippery slope that requires constant effort or else we'll just wildly slide wildly down it? No one forced Russia's hand here but their madman despot.

Lock her up!

I read your other response but this still feels like gossip at this point. Would you want to be gossiped about?

That said, yes, that would be fine. Or since you know the person doesn’t know, you can just say, “Brett Morgan is a woman now; her name is Sarah Morgan.”

Consider first whether or not this is really your news to share. Maybe the mutual friend would want to come out themselves?

If you feel you must, it’s okay to dead name informationally/correctively. (I.e., “let’s go meet up with Jack” “oh, Jack is Jill now, just so you know!”) It’s bad contextually, like when used to deny the person’s gender identity or transition.

It was tulips all along, but stupider.

Your day is coming soon, cryptocurrency.

Wow where in the world did this come from

Something I take heart in is the fact that Hitler, before World War 2, was considered controversial as well. A lot of people thought it was improper to mock or criticize a world leader, and that he had good reasons for doing what he wanted to do, and that America shouldn't be involved in foreign conflicts, and so on.

Of course, the judgment of history is (properly) that he is a racist, xenophobic, warmongering madman and we stopped him too late if anything.

I feel pretty confident Trump is gonna wind up remembered the same way.

Where to begin! The famines? The oppression? The lack of liberties? The persecution of queer people, or, indeed, any thought viewed as slightly aberrant? The megalomaniacal madman who keeps his people in chains while he lives the life of the ultra-rich? The gasping, desperate poverty of his subjects? Their inability to leave the country? The militarism? The backwardness?

Oh, wait, what we like?

Uh...

This title definitely makes it sound like this is a Democrat policy goal or that Democrats are actually responsible for this, when actually, as the article gradually makes clear, the people responsible for this are opposed to mainstream Democrat goals:

Democratic lawmakers and the Joe Biden administration have touted a wealth tax as a way to tackle record levels of inequality and fund programs that slash poverty and expand access to health care and education.

The people involved are not politicians. They are an advocacy group and apparently unaffiliated with the Democratic organization at large. The main guy seems as "Democrat" as Tulsi Gabbard, since he spent a lot of time and energy defending Trump and his policies on various talk shows.

Anyway, kind of a disingenuous framing.

I've run into this in Debian. Not sure what to tell you -- the base repo does not have an explicit contract that everything in it uses the same version of all available software.

Not really; they will try to automatically download dependencies, but they don't provide the application with resolution to the correct dependency. So upgrading libssl for one dependency could still break another.

It benefits the end-user.

People do not want to be in dependency resolution hell; where they have three programs that all use different versions of libssl and require them to install all of them properly and point each application to the correct one. Most users have no ability to resolve problems like that. By not bundling, the application developer is forcing them to either try anyway or just not install their software.

Bundling dependencies with Flatpak or Snap helps the end user at the cost of only a few extra megabytes of space, which most users have in abundance anyway.