For anyone who is interested in knowing if she ever ended up shooting a fascist, here’s the relevant paragraph from Wikipedia:

As she was extremely nearsighted, Weil was a very poor shot. Her comrades tried to avoid taking her on missions, though she did sometimes insist. Her only direct participation in combat was to shoot with her rifle at a bomber during an air raid; in a second raid, she tried to operate the group’s heavy machine gun, but her comrades prevented her, as they thought it would be best for someone less clumsy and near-sighted to use the weapon. After being with the group for a few weeks, she burnt herself over a cooking fire.

I get it, giving the government the ability to randomly shift the boundaries of what’s considered a hate symbol can backfire if the government becomes fashy. We can see that in the US right now where they twist everything they can to make things happen that they want to happen, with no regard for process and how tools were supposed to be used.

But that’s historically not what happened with paragraph 86a, and I don’t see it happening without AfD coming into power. I might eat my words some day, but precedent has held strong with that one.

No, criticizing Israel is certainly 100% not illegal, what are you talking about. Being pro-Palestine isn’t illegal.

The only thing that’s even tangentially related and therefore might have been what you heard and misinterpreted is that Hamas flags have been added to the list of anti-constitutional banned symbols in Germany, so those are illegal. But clearly support for Hamas ≠ “criticizing Israel” lol

if someone cosplays as a Nazi or thinks Hitler didn’t murder 6 million […] then arresting them because of thought crimes is fascist behavior.

Hahahahaha no. It’s not “thought crimes” when you explicitly say through symbols: “I want Jews, disabled people, leftists, and traveling folk to be genozided”. Because that’s what that is. It’s not a thought when you wear it or carry it around.

The US “free speech absolutist” Musk and his hypocritical friends have gotten into your mind. Preventing intolerance isn’t intolerance in itself.

For something to be “criminalized”, it needs to be criminal. Antisemitism isn’t a crime in Germany, so branding something as such might be propaganda but has no legal consequences.

Only when there’s no professional playing a role. A self-help group with professional oversight is great.

Are you talking about Germany’s ban on fascist symbols and Holocaust denial?

If so, calling that “fascist behavior” is the dumbest shit I’ve heard in a while. Seriously below “what happened to the tolerant left” level.

Ooo damn that sounds exactly what I’d like to try.

On the other hand I feel like I’m too old for this shit. My system works fine, I understand everything, and things rarely break and never in an unrecoverable way.

Huh, I found it to be so much easier to set up than nginx that I wrote the devs a little thank you message

Yeah, the Nazis weren’t really subtle. If you instead maintain a civil front inward for public support, you can wreak havoc more effectively.

That’s why fascism is a different kind of danger. It wouldn’t leech off of other places for centuries, it would explosively and directly attack internal and external enemies.

Neither of these things can be risked.

Yes, that’s why I wrote the part after “I see what you’re getting at”

Fascism is a pretty specific ideology. If you want to learn more, Umberto Eco made a list.

I get where you’re getting at: the role of past and ongoing colonialism is still being downplayed. But you’re wrong. There are very good reasons why we should fear fascism in particular.

So you’re agreeing. “one does not simply stop, because one needs to be really sure that they want to stop for some reason or another”. The desire to stop doesn’t come from nothing, yet it’s the vital ingredient for stopping successfully. Unless you have it, stopping is really hard.

The contents of your message aren’t a “no”, they’re a “yes, and”

I mean, hippos are one of the most dangerous big animals

That was my immediate reaction here: one of the reasons the xz backdoor was possible is that nobody is going to question the idea of shipping a tarball to spare users from having to touch Autotools.

Of course I wouldn’t think of manually hacking together Makefiles since I come from languages that have either the One True Build Tool or a standard for packaging and defining build backends.

I think the author’s aversion to build tools trying (and apparently failing) to make everyone’s life easier is more a statement about how much C/C++ have suffered from not having a standard for packages.

I don’t think those are better or worse. My point isn’t about some ancient far too limiting standard, but about how easy it is to wreck everything by not knowing some obscure syntactical rule. My issue is about implicit conversion between strings and arrays, about silently swallowing errors and so on. And the only shell languages that I know aren’t idiotic are nushell and Powershell.

That KDE theme that nuked some user’s home directory? Used a bash script. That time the bumblebee graphics card switching utility deleted /var? Bash script. Any time some build system broke because of a space in a path: bash/ZSH/… script.

Why would anyone make an init system based on shell scripts these days?

POSIX shells are horrible unmaintainable bug factories.

shellcheck is not enough to make them safe programming languages. They are acceptable only in an interactive context.

Having anything encourage people to write POSIXy shell scripts is a design flaw.

Services are bash scripts?

Oh no. That’s horrifying. I’ll never go back to the bad old days where my system constantly has dozens of untestable buggy bash scripts running.

I currently have zero bash scripts running on my system until I open steam, and there’s no world where I’d go back.

I have a pixel 6 and notice some lag in scrolling. Could it be that you don’t use srcsets but instead huge screenshots no matter the device screen?

Yeah, and when you read a paper that contains math, you won’t see a declaration about what country’s notation is used for things that aren’t defined. So it’s entirely possible that you don’t know how some piece of notation is supposed to be interpreted immediately.

Of course if there’s ambiguity like that, only one interpretation is correct and it should be easy to figure out which one, but that’s not guaranteed.

No, you can’t prove that some notation is correct and an alternative one isn’t. It’s all just convention.

Maths is pure logic. Notation is communication, which isn’t necessarily super logical. Don’t mix the two up.