In this particular instance they are trying to attract academics, and in particular in Humanities, which aren't the kind of people attracted by personal money; they are attracted by grant money instead (to fund graduate students).

Words have meaning. Authoritarian means society imposing its will onto individuals. In their text, they say: no public criticism of Catholicism, and imply death to those who challenge moral order. These are authoritarian.

Abortion laws aren't imposing a society will onto unwilling citizen. Because Abortion law applies to women, and they do not oblige women to anything. You certainly can choose to say abortion laws are barbarian (because they allow women to dispose of the fetus), but they aren't authoritarian.

scared -> sacred

I just say they're inconsistent. The logical options are:
* Human life is scared as the Catholic Church is saying. No abortion, euthanasia, suicide, death penalty. Consistent!
* "old things good, new things bad" which they invoke everywhere in their text, justifying death penalty as something that used to be accepted and needs to be accepted again by the Catholic Church. Alright as long as they accept abortion, as the early Christians would.
* accepting both death penalty and abortion, but strangely it's not very popular

Then there is also modern science which developed methods to assess whether it is morally acceptable to suppress lives in certain limited cases.

"absolutely horrible". Let these facts be judged by the justice of God, if any. The justice of men is guided by 3 principles, ever since Cesare Beccaria founded the Penal law: 1) principle of legality 2) principle of necessity 3) principle of proportionality. The "principle of necessity" comes from a general rule about any government action, which is to intervene the minimum necessary to reach the objectives of society. It is a fact that death is never* necessary, since holding a prisoner in jail is enough to reach the objective of justice, which are: 1) protect society, 2) create deterrence, 3) promote reintegration. (*to the very rare exception described by Beccaria as the Deposed Prince whose mere existence creates trouble in society for as long as he lives) Since then all sentences not strictly necessary are tyrannical, so is death penalty.

Ah right I misread, yeah I agree!

That's just because these guys are nuts. They're against euthanasia and abortion, BUT in favour of capital punishment ("for the protection of the moral order"). Fking authoritarians.

Of course death penalty has existed for long time, and was accepted by the primitive Church. But if they go that way, then they should also accept abortion, which was at the time allowed until 40 days (until the soul enters the body of the unborn baby).

"No member of the faithful must be allowed with impunity to express public dissent from Catholic dogma." Of course, no dissent from *their* Catholic dogma. But *their* dogma isn't what the current Catholic Church is saying, and therefore *they* are the dissidents.

Also totally inconsistently cherry picking what they like and don't with each Pope. E.g. they criticize Pius X ("revision of the psalter of the Roman breviary"), criticize Paul VI (Lithurgy. 4 mass in latin), then praise the Pius X ("Anti-modernist Oath"), then praise Paul VI (Doctrine 24. Marriage). They praise John Paul II, but criticize "Popes in recent times". An incredible level of arrogance.

"the Catechism of the Catholic Church made in 2018 should be corrected." They literally believe they're more Catholic than the Pope.

I think God's representative Jesus (supposedly, right). The Pope is the successor of Apostle Peter, who founded a Church in Rome, and to which Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19). (I can't believe I just quoted the Bible. Fortunately on the internet nobody knows I'm a dog.) So the Popes, who inherited from Peter, get to decide what's a sin and what's not. If Pope said it's ok for Catholics to go to religious service with non-Catholic Christians, then it's ok right up to heaven (where Peter awaits at the pearly gates). [don't take me too literally]

I'm not sure if the correct wording would be "boundaries of faith", I think more important is the message that what matters is the core belief (e.g. the divinity of Jesus). The Churches founded in Ethiopia, Armenia, India, each by a different person (Matthew, Thaddeus, Thomas, respectively), parted ways 17 centuries ago, yet have always been considered as legitimate as the one founded in Rome (by Peter). It would makes little sense to consider accept the Oriental churches as ok but paint the Lutherans and Catholics as irreconcilable, while they share 12 more centuries of common doctrinal evolution as compared to the Oriental churches.

So I looked it up... Francis (then Bergoglio in Argentina) attended evangelical service, had bible reading sessions with the pastors, said focus should be on what they both agree on. Later as a Pope, he commemorated the 500th year of the Lutheran reformation, performing religious service together with the president of the World Lutheran Federation. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...

N.B. The cited news item is paywalled, but readable in full if one deactivates javascript.

They did not base the character on Wikipedia, they based it on the account from an actual specialist who teaches the subject at Dartmouth College.

Also you perhaps misunderstand how Wikipedia works. You don't have to believe what is says there, you just have to follow the pointers given as reference. In the Yasuke page, several of those references are paper books written by specialists. Others you can consult by clicking on them yourself.

You have good points but you also go into caricature. Nobody expects KDE users to run from git. KDE releases monthly bugfixes an a new Plasma version every 4 months. I don't know why you would call KDE a minefield. It works great.

That's perfectly reasonable. Now what's your plan to have this funded? Best I can suggest is for everyone in this room to buy suse.com support subscriptions, then they might have extra money to support another KDE maintainer.

And it's not. Which one could guess by 1) absence of source and 2) use of racial slurs. The facts:

* Romania used to have excellent vaccination coverage (96%) because Caucescu encouraged it
* After the end of that regime, it stayed very high due to inertia
* When Romania joined the EU, many new vaccines were introduced, along with rumours leading to increasing distrust.
* As vaccination was never compulsory, rates fell to today 62%
* Antivax rumours are now widespread. As example, during COVID pandemic, the a broadcasted intervention of the Archbishop of Bucharest was needed to convince people to get vaccinated.
* Proposals to make vaccinations compulsory are in the hands of politicians, but none want to touch the subject because the public doesn't like the idea. It seems people join antivax as a means to "oppose the System", in a country much marked by strong political polarization.
* As contrast, other countries from the former Soviet bloc e.g. North Macedonia, Montenegro, have used popular sportsmen to promote vaccination, to much success.

Source: interview with Dr. Mihai Craiu, pediatrician at Carol Davila Medical University of Bucharest. (in French) https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lexpress.fr%2Fscienc...

It's not going to work with donations. Mozilla make the bet of becoming a big corp: hiring lots, making noise, headquarters in one of the most expensive cities in the world. This only works with big bucks from B2B services. They'd now need millionaires queuing day and night to feed the bottomless pit. Their only product is for consumers, which famously won't give a cent, and their only source of money comes from a "pact with the devil" (a deal with their main competitor).

The hybrid corp/non-profit status is blurring the lines. Mozilla went the "big boy" way, try make themselves look important, in hope of becoming too big to fail. But if the idea is now Mozilla needs to survive on donations, they have to make choices consistent with that status. KDE develops a desktop environment with zero people on payroll and a total budget of $50k a year, so you can occasionally donate $50 then someone at KDE can travel to a conference. Mozilla hiring developers $100k a year can't ask much poorer consumers to pay for that. Personally I make a monthly donation to a medical charity sending staff in war-torn countries for $40k a year before taxes. I wouldn't consider donating so a software engineer can WFH for $100k.

I think the editors do this purposely to create engagement. Or submissions with easily correctable mistakes, or missing information. If they made the perfect post, all information perfectly clear, there wouldn't be comments.

He modified code on github and later contacted the victim, so there're a bunch of IPs. We don't have to think very far. He probably didn't use a VPN, or the VPN cooperated.