ormr

It really depends on the journal though.

When I read articles like this, I have to wonder: Either these people are complete lunatics or arms dealer lobbyists.

Why did countries develop their nuclear arsenals again, ensuring mutual destruction in case of war? So that we now stockpile stupid amounts of ammunition for imaginary wars between powers that can destroy humanity for good if such a war ever happened? We should again sacrifice millions for what? There'll be nothing left worth defending.

So no. I will never prepare am mindset for war. It's the utmost idiocy.

Sure everyone's free to use it or not, contribute to it or not. That's not related to my argument. I was only talking about making a connection between someone's political views and how much trust they deserve when it comes to e.g. security.

So you think you can draw a connection between someone's views on inclusive language and whether an individual or org can be trusted with software security.

I'm sorry but to me this line of thinking is bonkers. The two things have nothing to do with each other whatsoever. What if a conservative individual argued that they have trust issues with an open source project because it features inclusive language now? The person might argue that they don't understand why devs would devote their limited time to such cosmetics instead of focusing on code quality. How would you view this argument? On Lemmy it would probably be ridiculed, and rightfully so. Yet it's the same line of thinking that I see if I interpreted your comment correctly.