"Far right" views are far right views. They are morally repulsive in the extreme. We've witnessed the consequences before.

Patroni has been around for awhile. The database-as-a-service team where I work uses it under the hood. I used it to build database-as-a-service functionality on the infra platform team I was at prior to that.

It's basially push-button production PG.

There's at least one decent operator framework leveraging it, if that's your jam. I've been living and dying by self-hosting everything with k8s operators for about 6-7 years now.

It definitely repays sustained attention, if literary fiction is your jam.

Like... I hate journalism that profits off of xenophobic fear mongering. A book from a genuinely curious and interesting author who did some moonlighting in more formal subjects, though? That seems harmless and kind of cute at worst. Maybe a little misguided, maybe not.

It's a weird energy to bring to a relatively innoccuous corner of the world.

Obeying illegal orders to attack American citizens on American soil is certainly something, but it isn't law enforcement.

If this were actually about law enforcement, we would have passed the bipartisan border protection / immigration bill that has been on the table for eons.

I can respect principled patriotism and fiscal conservativism, but voting for an icon of xenophobia, illiteracy, and graft and expecting anything but that is kinda...

Also if you actually gave a shit about containing China, it would probably be in your best interests to vote for a candidate who doesn't base their campaign on alienating the entire rest of the free Western world while simultaneously denigrating and disrespecting the armed services... but what do I know.

There are certainly bad judges that hide behind "the authority vested in them by the court," but reductively asserting that formality is about maintaining authority misses the point (and the operating philosophy behind creating a fair and impartial court) by a country mile.

Refusing to think critically and insisting "muh absolute rights must be real" isn't an argument, it's a (peculiarly male, American, sad) fantasy. Yeehaw, cowboy fantasy land.

The real work of governance and legislation requires carefully negotiating trade-offs between competing priorities in an ever-changing world.

Beyond that though, it is reasonable in our world for citizens of a state to view affordable access to a minimal standard of medical care as a bedrock right afforded to all citizens, and to build their state around this assumption. The same can be said of access to education, or legal representation or access to clean water and energy. It is then incumbant upon the legislating body to provide for those rights, which enter conflict the second there's a budget to consider.

The fact that positive rights are "leftist" in some parts of the world reflects a degree of deep ideological incoherence and immaturity in those parts, more than anything, I think.

Also I can't for the life of me understand why we'd craft policy in some kind of timeless vaccuum. We don't live in a timeless vaccuum. Some of us are fortunate enough to be born into states with stable, well-established educational, judicial, transportational, financial, medical (etc. etc.) infrastructure that is substantially owned and operated by the state or state-regulated monopolies. It's pretty natural to view fair and equitable access to these as baseline rights.

Same with leaving the shithole that is "X," but slightly less inconvenient.

(The debate was sparked by a runner proving that the trick was humanly possible, raising the spectre of someone actually pulling it off in a world record run, which would force all subsequent world record would-bes to replicate a trick that would kill 99.99% of runs, execution of which depending on the vagaries of how different controllers poll inputs in addition to nearly inhuman levels of sustained, frame-perfect inputs).

That said, it really makes me wonder at how insanely inefficient information transfer over the internet can become. This is like... doing OCR on screenshots of PDFs to send messages, rather than just passing around text. Nice, searchable, parseable, indexible, extremely compressible, editable, readily versionable text.

The experience is so overwhelmingly bizarre, frustrating, eery and depressing from a user pov that the only conclusion I could draw was that no one cared, that it was never actually tested, that no one actually was developing it for a user.

So I don't know. I don't think the company is functionally capable of developing usable, engaging products for people. If it were, it wouldn't have made that shambling abomination public, or it would have taken a very different form. I think it's just stuck enshitifying itself.

Frankly I don't really want to know more than I do about Meta, but it really does make me wonder whether there were actual voices ringing alarms from day one that the product was a dumpster-fire with horrific fundamentals, or if somehow the reporting on it came up all lilies from up-talking yes-yappers.

Given that I myself bought a house built in 1900 with original wood floors and loved it, I don't think it's unrealistic for someone thirty years from now to want the same. Our needs are unlikely to have changed much... if they don't want it, they can sell it or tear it down. That's up to them!