Compared to other Linux distribution's package tooling Arch's is pretty nice and painless, I think.
Agreed with namcap/chroot - I think there should be even more mandatory checks on pushing stuff to AUR. But even so - regarding your last point: you absolutely need to check all PKGBUILDs from AUR or potentially get malware.
So you're basing it all on your willful interpretation of "don't enforce federal immigration law" instead of going with any other interpretation that would not enrage you so? That seems unhealthy.
How about the following very likely interpretation: "abolish the government agency ICE through democratic process (including protesting and voting)" followed with one of "move immigration law enforcement to another agency and better qualified agents with different, more humane rules" or "also reform immigration law to be more humane than allowing the executive arbitrary deportation of people in a legal process of gaining legal visa/citizenship/etc"
or any of the other less ridiculous takes than your interpretation or Stasi comparison.
The world demonstrates in many instances, that you do not have to have empathy with people suffering from oppression, rape, murder, etc in order to "succeed" in terms of wealth and power.
Meaning: if you can't accept that someone publishing words/code/etc on the web at the same time also offers their own strong opinions (that you directly claim to be hate) about their own such issues, there's plenty of "communities" in which this kind of unempathetic approach to other people and their lives is celebrated and normalized.
If you barely know what ICE is, how can you claim his opinions to be "hate"? How can you claim that Andrew may hate you without thinking you identify with what you understand about ICE?
What ICE does is unmistakenly fascistic and authoritarian, far beyond the powers they have been granted by law and democratic processes. It's utterly disgusting to try and compare protesting and fighting against that with "abolish people with tattoos".
ICE is an institution, a government agency among a dozen+ law enforcement agencies in the US. You compare advocating for abolishing it through democratic process (what Andrew expressed) with calling for the murder of many millions of people with a private hobby.
And while Andrew may have some responsibility towards the community he founded; if he has the responsibility to include different political opinions, he most certainly has the responsibility to exclude fascism. Fascism is the destruction of different opinions, it is not a political opinion that can stand among others and be compared on the same basis: that of human rights at the minimum.
Ask yourself and reflect: why does this very simple and inoffensive call by Andrew make you scared, especially if you don't know what ICE is and does? Could you have been influenced into this feeling? It is certainly not a rational reaction to a few characters of text viewed on a screen.
In the long run https://github.com/google/crubit will very likely solve this for Rust even if it's a bit specific to Google's use cases right now as per readme.
Germany in its constitutional law has protections against that data being used for any other purpose or government agencies. Does that help if a new antisemitic party would take over? Not likely for long, but hopefully long enough for other constitutional protections (like banning the party), anti-fascists or people working there themselves to intervene.
On the other hand folks like the CCC or other data protection NGOs have been trying to teach politicians data minimalism for a while, but in this particular case religious conservatives don't want the state to get out of collecting church tax and the churches don't want the state to get out of it.
In particular, Jewish communities could request the state not to collect taxes, tell their members to not enter that data into the tax forms and collected tithes/donations/similar on their own.
DB is only in its current state (company organization, leadership failures, organizational failures, underfunding for decades, etc) because of previous governments' failed attempts at privatization decades ago. Full actual privatization would not likely have yielded any better results - especially regarding the actual infrastructure itself. (There's enough examples worldwide)
It's also been used for cushy post-politics jobs and lots of other incompetent meddling - such as requiring and extracting profits, etc.
You're right that it's not privatized, but the root causes of current misery still are the privatization attempts and a significant neoliberal/conservative political force that caused decay and blocked progress/improvements.
On the on hand you claim that a government-run railway company is better off than a privately run (Japan tends to disagree here).
On the other hand you admit that the problems of Deutsche Bahn stem from the fact that politicians have had too much influence on it.
Guess how you can keep politicians out of companies? By keeping them private.
I will never understand why so many people think that companies are magically doing better because the government is running them. That’s just a myth.
Both the government and private entities can be good or bad at running companies. However, the huge advantage with private companies is that customers have options thanks to competition.
Anyone who still has memories of telephone companies run by the government knows what I’m talking about.
As for Deutsche Bahn, the government has full control over it meaning the company is run by the government. Whether it’s officially a German Aktiengesellschaft or not, doesn’t matter at all.
Your argument is often brought up by proponents of a government-run railway so that they don’t have to admit that Deutsche Bahn isn’t doing well despite being run by the government.
Japan isn't really disagreeing. Japan had decades of tight control and infrastructure investment led by the government. Only pretty narrow rail operations are done privately. And in a system where those companies know pretty well that if they try things that go to far, they will have political issues.
And japan is also an exception, as most other system that do work well are not like Japan at all.
> I will never understand why so many people think that companies are magically doing better because the government is running them. That’s just a myth.
That's not really the claim. The reason government running them can work well is because you can run it like an integrated system for the public good. You can actually do system wide planning and implementation and transformation. You can do targeted investment across the whole live-cycle of the system and all its components. You can drive standardization.
Sure if a single company owned everything, they could do that to. But to have a single monopoly normal private company running so much of a countries infrastructure would be patently insane. And literally nobody has or will ever run things that way.
Britain trying to privatize Network Rail is about as close to as you are going to get. And that lasted for a few years at most.
> However, the huge advantage with private companies is that customers have options thanks to competition.
In a perfect world maybe, but when we are talking about rail systems, you do not magically get many rail lines between places just because you say 'private'.
It takes 100s of years of infrastructure and investment to build up a rail network.
And to unlock the true potential of that infrastructure having competing companies run trains on it, is just one marginal potentially beneficial thing you can do. And of the things you can do, its far, far, far away from what actually impacts the consumer the most.
This is completely clear to all experts that study this topic. Complete integrated time-tabling, planning and standardization is far more important then marginal competition on few main lines.
> As for Deutsche Bahn, the government has full control over it meaning the company is run by the government. Whether it’s officially a German Aktiengesellschaft or not, doesn’t matter at all.
You are narrowly talking about legal technicalities. But you are ignoring the larger cultural and historical aspect.
The fact is, the way the German government created the DB was to be private and to make money. That lead the DB culturally to act much differently then traditional national railway companies, like SBB.
And like an actual company they started to invest widely in all sorts of stuff while not focusing on their core business.
So legally it might not matter, but historically it for sure this. It actually makes a difference if your railway company is primary a national instrument to bring affordable public transportation to the people, or if its designed to be a profit making company.
> Your argument is often brought up by proponents of a government-run railway so that they don’t have to admit that Deutsche Bahn isn’t doing well despite being run by the government.
Everybody knows that government ownerships isn't a magic pill. And most people admit that DB isn't doing well and that its government owned. What people dislike is how DB is organized and set up and how politics and DB interacts.
For all its existence it has been 100% state-owned and state-controlled, yet because it's a failure, it's still somehow "not state, but actually privatized", even though not "full actual privatization" (but only imagined privatization).
I understand the desire to have a scapegoat for failure, and to externalize it in some abstract capitalists/neoliberals/conservatives, but abandoning reality to create your own world has no predictive power and is not a long-term strategy.
We don't usually think of the board of directors as controlling a company, nor the shareholders. They appoint a CEO, and then are hands-off unless the CEO really fucks up. This principle still remains true when the shareholders are a state.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, but the fact remains that the German government has full control over Deutsche Bahn and any mismanagement can be blamed 100% on the German government.
Please read again and don't put your own ideological spin on my words, please. I fully blame governments and politicians for all failures. I did not write that it's "actually" or otherwise privatized, in fact I wrote "you're right that it's not privatized".
The root cause is still privatization attempts and politicians that don't like well run public infrastructure and sabotage it through underfunding and bad requirements/structure. These are the same people that always claim that infrastructure will work perfectly well when just sold off to the private sector for maximum profit extraction. The working long term strategy is to get these out of position of power - however as is common, people like to vote against their own interests for ideological and emotional reasons.
No need to abandon reality, austerity and idiotic state underfunding of basic infrastructure (not just rail) have been the norm in Germany for decades. This isn't some crackpot conspiracy, but well accepted reality.
When you want to distinguish `MyObj??` then you'll have to distinguish the optionality of one piece of code (wherever your `MyObj?` in the list came from) with some other (list find) before "mixing" them. E.g. by first mapping `MyObj?` to `MyObj | NotFoundInMyMap` (or similar polymorphic variant/anonymous sum types) and then putting it in a list. This could be easily optimized away or be a safe no-op cast.
Common sum types allow you to get around this, because they always do this "mapping" intrinsically by their structure/constructors when you use `Either/Maybe/Option` instead of `|`. However, it still doesn't always allow you to distinguish after "mixing" various optionalities - if find for Maps, Lists, etc all return `Option<MyObj>` and you have a bunch of them, you also don't know which of those it came from. This is often what one wants, but if you don't, you will still have to map to another sum type like above.
In addition, when you don't care about null/not found, you'll have the dual problem and you will need to flatten nested sum types as the List find would return `Option<Option<MyObj>>` - `flatten`/`flat_map`/similar need to be used regularly and aren't necessary with anonymous sum types that do this implicitly.
Both communicate similar but slightly different intent in the types of an API. Anonymous sum types are great for errors for example to avoid global definitions of all error cases, precisely specify which can happen for a function and accumulate multiple cases without wrapping/mapping/reordering.
Sadly, most programming languages do not support both.
Agreed with namcap/chroot - I think there should be even more mandatory checks on pushing stuff to AUR. But even so - regarding your last point: you absolutely need to check all PKGBUILDs from AUR or potentially get malware.
https://bertptrs.nl/2026/01/30/how-to-review-an-aur-package.... is a nice recent article by one of the maintainers that follows up on last year's AUR malware.
The final point sums it up, though: the AUR was built without the security mechanisms - technical and social - we want and need today.
reply