I feel it is important to look at the facts, not just vibes.

In 2020 [1] 48.1% went to "Packaging Work Group/Infrastructure/Other" (I assume because in person pycon was canceled).

I also checked 2021 [2], which was 32.7% pycon and 31.2% pip etc...

Also 2022 [3], 57.8% pycon, 26.6% Packaging Work Group...

In 2023 [4], 60.5% pycon, and Packaging Work Group expenses decreased to 9.6% because of fastly now provides the bandwidth/hosting: "We are grateful to Fastly for making the online services that the PSF provides possible, so that we can invest time and resources into advancing our infrastructure to better meet community wants and needs."

So your assertion seems to have never been true.

[0] https://www.python.org/psf/annual-report/2019/

[1] https://www.python.org/psf/annual-report/2020/

[2] https://www.python.org/psf/annual-report/2021/

[3] https://www.python.org/psf/annual-report/2022/

[4] https://www.python.org/psf/annual-report/2023/

[0] https://www.python.org/psf/annual-report/2024/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreach

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_monarchy_of_the...

[0] https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/society/2025/02/of-cou...

[0] https://www.sublimemerge.com/

Only Clion includes C++: https://www.jetbrains.com/products/compare/?product=idea&pro...

Only Rider includes C#: https://www.jetbrains.com/products/compare/?product=idea&pro...

1. He has a documented history of not paying his bills.

2. He does not listen to the advice of his lawyers.

Why would someone want to work for such a client?

"While I wrote much of the code for one of these pipelines, Katie was a huge contributor to the software; it would have never worked without her contributions and the work of many others who wrote code, debugged, and figured out how to use the code on challenging EHT data."

Btw lines of code != amount of contribution, sad to see this kind of take on a supposedly programmer focused site.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/internet-trolls-discredit-ka... https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/438617-white-m...

I never said or implied any of this.

> Morality is not simply a matter of acknowledging a shared universal material reality.

No, but without the shared reality is there even a point in debating morality?

What evidence should I provide? You concede that climate change is true.

> Yes. Both sources I posted are not anecdotal.

1. They are both the same source, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia emails.

2. Def of anecdotal: "(of an account or evidence) possibly not true or accurate because it is based on personal accounts". I would say emails are anecdotal if there is no evidence backing up that the claims made in the emails are true. My point is that these messages do not prove that models were manufactured, as your own source admits: "no direct evidence has been presented that indicates [Dr. Mann] fabricated the raw data used for his research" and "no evidence of inappropriately manipulated data". Maybe anecdote was the wrong word to use for this.

3. The emails provide no evidence that "fraud and political censorship run[s] amok".

> Ad hominem.

I would define Ad hominem as attacking a persons character rather than their positions. I believe that narratives can influence a persons position, and I am not commenting on your character, but how your position has been influence by a narrative.