Re: [bug]: xfce4: xfpm-power-backlight-helper alway let me input password.
tumashu writes: > Hello: > > When I update my guix system today, I have found that run xfce4: > xfpm-power-backlight-helper alway let me input password, how to avoid input > password? No answer yet, my understand is that: 1. xfpm-power-backlight-helper need to run with 'pkexec'. 2. 'pkexec' will always ask for password unless some polkit rules allow the action. 3. '/etc/polkit-1/actions/org.xfce.power.policy' allows the action, but its executable is something like '/gnu/store/vsnzjhjm37cd42w7vv7mxgy8hi8w6zi0-xfce4-power-manager-4.16.0/sbin/xfpm-power-backlight-helper'. So run 'pkexec xfpm-power-backlight-helper' will ask for password while 'pkexec /gnu/store/.../xfpm-power-backlight-helper' will not.
Re:Re:Re: [bug]: xfce4: xfpm-power-backlight-helper alway let me input password.
>At 2022-02-22 15:04:22, "宋文武" wrote: > >>tumashu writes: >> >>> Hello: >>> >>> When I update my guix system today, I have found that run xfce4: >>> xfpm-power-backlight-helper alway let me input password, how to avoid >>> input password? >> >>No answer yet, my understand is that: >> >>1. xfpm-power-backlight-helper need to run with 'pkexec'. >>2. 'pkexec' will always ask for password unless some polkit rules allow >> the action. >>3. '/etc/polkit-1/actions/org.xfce.power.policy' allows the action, but its >> executable is something like >> >> '/gnu/store/vsnzjhjm37cd42w7vv7mxgy8hi8w6zi0-xfce4-power-manager-4.16.0/sbin/xfpm-power-backlight-helper'. >> >>So run 'pkexec xfpm-power-backlight-helper' will ask for password while >>'pkexec /gnu/store/.../xfpm-power-backlight-helper' will not. > >no, need input password when run "pkexec >/gnu/store/.../xfpm-power-backlight-helper" > >I do not run this command by hand, when I start xfce4 with slim, a window pop >and let me input password many time, >when I press Fkey, ask password again. When I test gnome and mate, have no this problem. > > >
Re:Re: [bug]: xfce4: xfpm-power-backlight-helper alway let me input password.
At 2022-02-22 15:04:22, "宋文武" wrote: >tumashu writes: > >> Hello: >> >> When I update my guix system today, I have found that run xfce4: >> xfpm-power-backlight-helper alway let me input password, how to avoid input >> password? > >No answer yet, my understand is that: > >1. xfpm-power-backlight-helper need to run with 'pkexec'. >2. 'pkexec' will always ask for password unless some polkit rules allow > the action. >3. '/etc/polkit-1/actions/org.xfce.power.policy' allows the action, but its > executable is something like > > '/gnu/store/vsnzjhjm37cd42w7vv7mxgy8hi8w6zi0-xfce4-power-manager-4.16.0/sbin/xfpm-power-backlight-helper'. > >So run 'pkexec xfpm-power-backlight-helper' will ask for password while >'pkexec /gnu/store/.../xfpm-power-backlight-helper' will not. no, need input password when run "pkexec /gnu/store/.../xfpm-power-backlight-helper" I do not run this command by hand, when I start xfce4 with slim, a window pop and let me input password many time, when I press Fkey, ask password again.
Re: better error messages through assertions
Hi Ricardo, I too would like to see much better error checking for our services, though I don't know what the best way to achieve that is. Type checking alone may not be sufficient. All types in a configuration record could be valid, but some combination of field values in the record may not be valid. For a quick and dumb example, it may not be allowed to configure a service to listen on a TCP port and a Unix socket at the same time, and we should error out if it is told to do so. For these use cases, we need to support more complex predicates that take the whole configuration record and check if it is valid. Regards, Arun signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[bug]: xfce4: xfpm-power-backlight-helper alway let me input password.
Hello: When I update my guix system today, I have found that run xfce4: xfpm-power-backlight-helper alway let me input password, how to avoid input password? Thanks
Re: Excessively energy-consuming software considered malware?
> Here PetroDollar = US dollar and FED=US Federal Government? FED = Federal Reserve, the (private) central bank that issues the US Dollar for about a century now. interesting tidbit: originally 'a US Dollar' meant a specific amount of silver. and the 'petrodollar' is a unique keyword that you can chose to research. it's way offtopic here, but very briefly: if you want to issue more fiat money, *and* you also want to avoid it going worthless in short term, then you need to arrange for a proportional demand for your new tokens. one important pillar of that demand can come from making sure that most of the energy trade is settled in USD, and as a consequence of that, most of the large economic players will want to hold USD as reserves to cover their expected energy consumption. this can be an enormous driver of demand for USD (for a while). it's also worth mentioning here that blocking your account at the FED means getting cut off from most of the energy suppliers/consumers who cannot dare to risk a visit from the US military. this model nicely explains most of the US wars in the last few decades, and many, otherwise hard to explain political phenomena (e.g. US - Saudi Arabia relations). --- the monetary system is what facilitates cooperation among strangers, i.e. among a group of humans larger than the Dunbar's number (about 150 people). sound money is a kind of decentralized, anonymous reputation system (that can only track positive reputation, and the tokens serve as the proof). its primary role is to lock out non-cooperating agents from the fruits of cooperation. cooperation -> specialization -> efficient agents -> wealthy society. IOW, the monetary system fundamentally influences what our everyday existence looks like. and the more anomalies there are in the rules governing the acquisition of the tokens (e.g. someone is allowed to print it while others must work for it), the more twisted society will become. i have plenty more to say, but i doubt there's general interest in having this discussion on guix-devel. i hope though, that i managed to incite some curiosity, because this topic has much more depth than you seem to be aware of, and blockchains/Bitcoin are only one piece of this puzzle. essentially, it's a new battlefront between centralized command and decentralized consensus; between coercive hierarchies and voluntary networks. -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “Those who love peace must learn to organize as effectively as those who love war.” — Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929–1968, assassinated)
Re: Documentation of what is appropriate for #guix?
> On 21 Feb 2022, at 19:10, raingloom > By the way, I think it's kind of silly that that is completely banned > from discussion. When I wanted help on getting my GPU to work, I > mentioned for reference purposes that I tried the proprietary driver > from The Forbidden Channel - and was subsequently warned that I must > not do that. I understand that the position taken by guix is more nuanced than that. The project doesn’t seek to control what you run on your computer, but won’t support your choice to run non-free software in the official channels. > Which I find ridiculous. You can't even discuss results > obtained by running closed source drivers and firmware, so how do you > debug the libre firmwares and drivers, when you have nothing to compare > against? But you can discuss these results elsewhere. > Also, I think people who want to overwhelmingly use free software but > need proprietary drivers for their computer to function should be > offered better help than "buy a new computer". I kind of agree with you here. I don’t want to obsolete perfectly viable hardware, but instead want to use it for its whole life. Next time I am in the market for new hardware, then I will have the ability to run libre-software as a pre-condition for purchase. > I think The Forbidden Channel should be raised to a status similar to > the AUR: it's recognized and its existence is documented, but all > responsibility is very explicitly disclaimed and support is relegated > to special channels. Users will find it even the way it is configured today. I don’t think it needs any sort of official recognition or promotion, as that will go against the project goals/rules (as I understand it). We should always be aware of the insidious nature of proprietary firmware/software, and work to eliminate the need for it, rather than indicating that its use is acceptable as a first choice. Best regards, Paul
Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC
On 2022-02-21 22:03, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: let's look at some other ways of defining sex, shall we? Let's not! This is guix-devel, not trans-discuss. Any relevance to Guix or its CoC is long lost. (Regarding that: flawed as it indubitably is, I don't think the current CoC should be expanded with ever more examples of bad behaviour.) Kind regards, T G-R Sent from a Web browser. Excuse or enjoy my brevity.
Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC
Hi,
Am Sonntag, dem 20.02.2022 um 23:45 +0100 schrieb Taylan Kammer:
> On 20.02.2022 22:02, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> >
> > "Sex is distinct from gender" is a common transphobic talking point.
> >
>
> Like I said I don't actually want to argue, but I really feel the need
> to point out that what you seem to consider a transphobic talking point
> is seen as a fundamental principle of feminism by many others, and that
> long predates the contemporary transgender movement.
Note that the existence of transgender people predates 20th century
feminism by millennia. Your appeal to tradition is weaker than you
might think it is.
> "One is not born, but rather becomes, woman. No biological,
> psychic, or economic destiny defines the figure that the human
> female takes on in society; it is civilization as a whole that
> elaborates this intermediary product between the male and the
> eunuch that is called feminine."
> -- Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (1949), 2010 translation
>
> This is one of the most iconic passages from the book (especially the
> first sentence on its own), and the book is considered to be pretty
> much one of the most important works in feminist history.
You would have to take 70 year old books within the context of their
time, but even then de Beauvoir clearly states that there is no
biological essence of womanhood, that it is (as we understand today) a
social construct. I'd also like to point out how (ironically) de
Beauvoir mocks women as being somehow lesser or inferior to men within
this paragraph, which itself serves to depict how women are treated in
a patriarchal world.
> Given that, I find it somewhat baffling that distinguishing between
> sex and gender is now apparently considered transphobic. (This isn't
> the first time I'm hearing that claim, but I was under the impression
> that it's a very fringe position.)
>
> Actually, I could swear that only about 5 years ago, "sex and gender
> are *not* the same" was a very common thing transgender activists
> would say.
> I might actually have learned that principle from trans activists
> before reading up on feminist literature.
I think you are making some simplifications here that are not useful
for understanding. What transgender activists have been claiming for
years is that their gender can not be defined by whatever markers
biologists use to ("correctly" or otherwise) assign sex to humans or
animals, be it chromosomes, gonads, hormones, hair length, voice, or
whatever. However, science has progressed since five years ago and we
are now at a level of understanding that even sex itself is not as
easily defined as some would like it to be.
As a society, we have already progressed (in most parts of Europe and
the US at least) to a point where men can wear long hair and women can
wear short hair without needing to question their own gender identity
too much. This might sound completely revolutionary if you were born
50 or 100 years ago, but several peoples from 2000 years ago (or
sometimes a little more than 200 years ago) would be laughing at us for
having achieved less than nothing – consider for example the way heels
are now gendered and men's shoes try really well to hide them so as to
not threaten the wearer's masculinity. With that much out of the way,
let's look at some other ways of defining sex, shall we?
First of all, hormones: Let's say female athletes would in order to
gain a competitive edge in the olympics be taking testosterone en
masse. Regardless of the efficacy of such a doping method, would these
athletes now be male or should they be forced to compete in the men's
olympics regardless? If so, what about male athletes taking estrogen
in order to bend their legs better? Should they be forced to compete
against women? Are the olympics even separated by sex or by gender and
which matters in sports?
Next, gonads. Monkey brain can easily match penis = male and
boobs/vagina = female, but what if penis and boobs or even penis and
vagina or just vagina but no boobs. Monkey brain confused.
Finally, chromosomes. The last straw that transphobes can hold onto
because we haven't yet found a way of transferring our brains into the
bodies we want to have and are also still uncertain about what the
ethics of doing so would be. Still, using them as an arbiter would
still not hold against the simplest of thought experiments. Let's say
I was a mad scientist and I changed half/all of your sex chromosomes to
be XX instead of XY or vice versa (for the purpose of simplicity I'm
ignoring other combinations at the moment) without this change
affecting anything else about your body. Would you now have a
different sex? Would there even be a point in determining that? Could
anyone discriminate against you based on that fact if they had barely
any method of observing that there indeed has been a change?
As you will hopefully be able to see after honestly entertaining the
questions raised above,
Re: How to run a command before shutdown.
February 20, 2022 5:53 AM, "tumashu" wrote: > Hello: > > I want to run "rmmod mt7921e" before shutdown, how to setup in guix system? > > Thanks! I recommend you ask this question in "help-g...@gnu.org". You'll probably find more help there! Thanks! Joshua
Re: Dropping gzip-compressed substitutes
Hello, Ricardo Wurmus ezt írta (időpont: 2022. febr. 21., H 12:34): > > Maxim Cournoyer writes: > > > This week, I'd like to try the following to see if we could get past > > this: > > > > 1. Do the experiment again, now a 'rootdelay=20' kernel parameter was > > added to Berlin's config. This may well be enough. > > > > 2. In case mounting the RAID 10 Btrfs root partition still fails with > > missing drive errors, try the following workaround suggested in the > > #btrfs channel, which forces a 'btrfs device scan' on each device of the > > array, with the following mount option: > > > > "device=/dev/sda3,/dev/sdb3,/dev/sdc3,/dev/sdd3,/dev/sde3,/dev/sdf3" > > > > To make it more convenient to experiment with different values for the > > rootdelay or add the device option above, I'm planning to 'guix system > init' > > with the following patch applied: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/40998, > > which allows providing 'rootflags' directly from the kernel command line > > (thus by editing the GRUB config at boot). > > Good work, Maxim! Your persistence is admirable. > > > I'll try to synchronize with Ricardo in the channel and hope they > > weren't too frightened by our last experiment to not shy away from > > trying again :-). > > We can make another attempt this week. Do we need to sync anything > before trying again? Also: would be nice if we could do “guix system > init” without copying everything again and again whenever we try again… > > My toddler has been pretty sick for the past couple of days, and I > haven’t slept enough to be using my brain without hand-holding :) I’ll > try to be around long enough in the eaerly evenings to see to it that > the server reboots fine, but if things go awfully sideways I just cannot > commit to riding the bike to the data centre. Let’s hope it will just > work fine with your changes to the initrd. > Sorry to hear that, hope they get better soon. I there is anything I can help, besides taking the the bike to the dc which is a bit far from here feel free to contact me. Regards, g_bor > > See you later on IRC — I gotta have a nap :) > > -- > Ricardo > >
Re: Documentation of what is appropriate for #guix?
On Sun, 20 Feb 2022 11:41:23 +0900 Yasuaki Kudo wrote: > Or even better, create an alternative community of practitioners who > don't give a damn (for their purposes)... Let me know if other > people also want to create a corruption-admitted-community as well > . We can work together. -Yasu > > On 2/20/22 11:33, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > Every now and then someone stumbles into #guix and ask questions > > that I've gleaned over time are off-topic (e.g. non-free software). > > While I have a pretty good idea what is appropriate for the > > channel, it is not clear to me where that is documentated. > > > > I figured maybe it is referenced in the code of conduct, but then I > > see no reference to the code of conduct on https://guix.gnu.org, > > although it is in the toplevel directory of guix.git as > > "CODE-OF-CONDUCT". > > > > Still, the CODE-OF-CONDUCT doesn't really say anything about what is > > on-topic for #guix on irc... > > > > It would be helpful to have a link to be able to point to more > > easily whenever either subjects come up in the irc channel, ideally > > somewhere a little easier to find. :) > > > > > > live well, > >vagrant > Something like that already exists for The Channel That May Not Be Named. By the way, I think it's kind of silly that that is completely banned from discussion. When I wanted help on getting my GPU to work, I mentioned for reference purposes that I tried the proprietary driver from The Forbidden Channel - and was subsequently warned that I must not do that. Which I find ridiculous. You can't even discuss results obtained by running closed source drivers and firmware, so how do you debug the libre firmwares and drivers, when you have nothing to compare against? Also, I think people who want to overwhelmingly use free software but need proprietary drivers for their computer to function should be offered better help than "buy a new computer". Currently I'm a mostly happy user of an AMDGPU based desktop, which lets me create creative commons artwork in Blender, that I would not be able to do without proprietary firmware. I think The Forbidden Channel should be raised to a status similar to the AUR: it's recognized and its existence is documented, but all responsibility is very explicitly disclaimed and support is relegated to special channels.
Re: Excessively energy-consuming software considered malware?
On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:06:07 +0100 Maxime Devos wrote: > Attila Lendvai schreef op ma 21-02-2022 om 09:29 [+]: > > let me add, though, that a more apples-to-apples comparison here > > would be to compare Bitcoin to the FED, and PoW to the costs of > > enforcing the PetroDollar system on the entire world. > > Here PetroDollar = US dollar and FED=US Federal Government? > > > these costs not only include the direct environmental damages of > > wars and militaries. more generally, it also includes the costs of > > enforcing a certain economic structure globally, instead of > > potential better alternatives for facilitating cooperation between > > strangers that may very well promote peace and prosperity more > > effectively and efficiently than the current system. > > If the US Government enforces the US Dollar with wars etc., then this > seems more a bug of the US than a benefit of Bitcoin to me. Also, I > don't understand what you mean with ‘enforcing’ here. > > Locally, in Belgium, I can use the Euro as currency. The US isn't > forcing me to use the US dollar, in fact I have never seen a US dollar > in person and most (all?) local businesses accept the Euro as currency > and most physical shops wouldn't accept foreign currency(*). > > I can also use the US dollar as currency to buy from overseas (after > trading Euro for US dollar, this happens automatically when > e-shopping), even though the US hasn't stationed military forces > at the banks to force the banks to allow converting Euro<->US dollar. > > I'm not seeing any enforcement here, nor any need for enforcement to > make the US dollar a usable currency. > > While the US would (does?) wage wars to force countries to trade with > the US (and perhaps force them to accept US dollar maybe?), I don't > see how Bitcoin would change this -- Bitcoin might change the > currency used for the forced trade, but not the existence of the > forced trade. > > (*) at least, I think so, I haven't ever tried. > > > and from that perspective i don't see the use of 'absurd amount' > > justified, by a large margin. > > > > and the more some of us disagree with the above, the more > > appropriate it seems to have been to use 'controversial morality' > > by Martin. > > Greetings, > Maxime. For some reason, assholes like Peter Thiel (co-founder of Palantir among others) seem to love cryptocurrencies, so maybe remember to mention that next time in comparisons with the US government. I think something about the total lack of regulations and customer protections appeals to his ilk, but what do I know. :) As Folding Ideas put it (paraphrased): the problem is patterns of human behaviour, it's what people do to eachother, not that the building they do it in has the word "Bank" written on it. If you haven't seen it, I really recommend it: https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g I'd much rather see Spritely's OCAP money and LETS take off than the "everything is a stock market" future that cryptocurrency fans envision. Anyways, IMHO a blanket ban on blockchain based cryptocurrency in Guix is not necessarily the best step to take, but I also don't think we should welcome all such packages with open arms. But if others want to ban some of them, I won't complain.
Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC
Taylan Kammer writes: > On 20.02.2022 22:37, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: >> >> Taylan Kammer writes: >> >>> Just one remark for them: most women I know would think twice before >>> spending time trying to get into a community whose rules intentionally >>> don't acknowledge sex-based discrimination. >> >> Honest question, because (IIUC) this is the whole point of having a CoC: >> >> Do those women believe that “… harassment-free experience for everyone, >> regardless of … gender identity and expression, … or sexual identity and >> orientation.” would not cover any potential harassment that they could >> be subjected to while participating in Guix’s community? > > If no characteristics were listed at all, it wouldn't matter, but if there's > a long list yet 'sex' is explicitly excluded, that seems rather hostile, > even if it doesn't mean that Guix maintainers would actually ignore > harassment that happened on the grounds of someone's sex. > > Happy to talk more about this off-list. As it stands I'm rather embarrassed > that this thread immediately blew up and wish I hadn't posted it at all now. Ah okay, hadn't seen this post before I replied. It seems the issue is closed then. Look forward to everyone getting back to hacking. :)
Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC
Taylan Kammer writes: > On 20.02.2022 19:05, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: >>> Note: The upstream Contributor Covenant wouldn't want to include it >>> because the author seems to have a peculiar world-view where they >>> don't acknowledge that humans actually have a sex. I hope the Guix >>> maintainers are more reasonable than that. :-) >> Sorry, but tracking down the issue you submitted towards the >> contributor covenant, it appears to me that you are the misguided one. >> The CoC already prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, >> sexual identity and sexual orientation. If you identify your gender as >> your sex, whatever that might be, you are thereby already protected. >> >> The wording you chose (intentionally or otherwise) tries to invalidate >> other people's gender identity and thus violates the CoC. >> >> Cheers > > I had really hoped this would be an uncontroversial suggestion... > > It might be useful to provide a link in case others want to take a look at > the debate as well: > > https://github.com/EthicalSource/contributor_covenant/pull/548 > > I've said everything there I'd say now if I were to argue back, and I really > don't want to argue about this on a Guix ML anyway, so I'll leave it to the > maintainers to decide what to do. Just one remark for them: most women I > know would think twice before spending time trying to get into a community > whose rules intentionally don't acknowledge sex-based discrimination. My first thought when looking at the top of this thread was, "well I would be okay with adding a word if it isn't an *entry point* for debating trans experiences on list" but it looks like it's likely to be so: https://github.com/EthicalSource/contributor_covenant/pull/548#issuecomment-399692924 So I share Liliana's concerns. I think it looks like the conversation on-list is already going in that direction. It looks like it did on the referenced pull request already too. I'm a transwoman with intersex characteristics. I've certainly read a ton about sexual and gender therory, have read plenty of books on it and I can say without a doubt that I really just don't feel comfortable debating these topics on a technical mailing list. I don't want to put any assertions of intention in here either, but just state that it looks like this is already opening that kind of experience here, the concerns that this could be an "entry point" for that kind of back and forth already seems to be playing out, and I that makes this not a "minor patch" to me. At any rate, the CoC already says "gender identity and expression" and "sexual identity and orientation". Seems that already covers a broad ground to me. - Christine
Re: Excessively energy-consuming software considered malware?
Attila Lendvai schreef op ma 21-02-2022 om 09:29 [+]: > let me add, though, that a more apples-to-apples comparison here would be to > compare Bitcoin to the FED, and PoW to the costs of enforcing the PetroDollar > system on the entire world. Here PetroDollar = US dollar and FED=US Federal Government? > these costs not only include the direct environmental damages of wars and > militaries. more generally, it also includes the costs of enforcing a certain > economic structure globally, instead of potential better alternatives for > facilitating cooperation between strangers that may very well promote peace > and > prosperity more effectively and efficiently than the current system. If the US Government enforces the US Dollar with wars etc., then this seems more a bug of the US than a benefit of Bitcoin to me. Also, I don't understand what you mean with ‘enforcing’ here. Locally, in Belgium, I can use the Euro as currency. The US isn't forcing me to use the US dollar, in fact I have never seen a US dollar in person and most (all?) local businesses accept the Euro as currency and most physical shops wouldn't accept foreign currency(*). I can also use the US dollar as currency to buy from overseas (after trading Euro for US dollar, this happens automatically when e-shopping), even though the US hasn't stationed military forces at the banks to force the banks to allow converting Euro<->US dollar. I'm not seeing any enforcement here, nor any need for enforcement to make the US dollar a usable currency. While the US would (does?) wage wars to force countries to trade with the US (and perhaps force them to accept US dollar maybe?), I don't see how Bitcoin would change this -- Bitcoin might change the currency used for the forced trade, but not the existence of the forced trade. (*) at least, I think so, I haven't ever tried. > and from that perspective i don't see the use of 'absurd amount' justified, > by a large margin. > > and the more some of us disagree with the above, the more appropriate it > seems to have been to use 'controversial morality' by Martin. Greetings, Maxime. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Dropping gzip-compressed substitutes
Maxim Cournoyer writes: > This week, I'd like to try the following to see if we could get past > this: > > 1. Do the experiment again, now a 'rootdelay=20' kernel parameter was > added to Berlin's config. This may well be enough. > > 2. In case mounting the RAID 10 Btrfs root partition still fails with > missing drive errors, try the following workaround suggested in the > #btrfs channel, which forces a 'btrfs device scan' on each device of the > array, with the following mount option: > > "device=/dev/sda3,/dev/sdb3,/dev/sdc3,/dev/sdd3,/dev/sde3,/dev/sdf3" > > To make it more convenient to experiment with different values for the > rootdelay or add the device option above, I'm planning to 'guix system init' > with the following patch applied: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/40998, > which allows providing 'rootflags' directly from the kernel command line > (thus by editing the GRUB config at boot). Good work, Maxim! Your persistence is admirable. > I'll try to synchronize with Ricardo in the channel and hope they > weren't too frightened by our last experiment to not shy away from > trying again :-). We can make another attempt this week. Do we need to sync anything before trying again? Also: would be nice if we could do “guix system init” without copying everything again and again whenever we try again… My toddler has been pretty sick for the past couple of days, and I haven’t slept enough to be using my brain without hand-holding :) I’ll try to be around long enough in the eaerly evenings to see to it that the server reboots fine, but if things go awfully sideways I just cannot commit to riding the bike to the data centre. Let’s hope it will just work fine with your changes to the initrd. See you later on IRC — I gotta have a nap :) -- Ricardo
Re: Excessively energy-consuming software considered malware?
> (https://issues.guix.gnu.org/54068). At least for bitcoin, mining is > known to consume an absurd amount of energy (the footprint of a whole > country, and 1 Bitcoin transaction is said to be equivalent to 735121 the moral argument has been spelled out nicely already. let me add, though, that a more apples-to-apples comparison here would be to compare Bitcoin to the FED, and PoW to the costs of enforcing the PetroDollar system on the entire world. these costs not only include the direct environmental damages of wars and militaries. more generally, it also includes the costs of enforcing a certain economic structure globally, instead of potential better alternatives for facilitating cooperation between strangers that may very well promote peace and prosperity more effectively and efficiently than the current system. and from that perspective i don't see the use of 'absurd amount' justified, by a large margin. and the more some of us disagree with the above, the more appropriate it seems to have been to use 'controversial morality' by Martin. -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof.” — Richard Bach (1936–), 'Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah' (1977)
Fixing python-notmuch2
Hi Guix! python-notmuch2 is broken [1] since the upgrade of notmuch to version 0.35 (fb3508bb36). Looks like a Python file is supposed to be generated by the configure phase [2], but python-notmuch2 uses the python-build-system which, I guess, does not run configure. [1]: https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/467828/details [2]: https://git.notmuchmail.org/git?p=notmuch;a=commit;h=7b5921877e748338359a25dae578771f768183af I'm not sure how to fix the problem!? Any advice would be welcome! Regards, -- Tanguy
Re: [minor patch] Amend CoC
Hi, Can't help but chiming in because this conversation is great and I'm really glad we're having it as a community. Taylan, please don't be embarrassed you started it, the number of replies is witness to the interest it sparked. It didn't blow up, it bloomed : ) I find it all the more interesting to read in the same message you quoting de Beauvoir and summon "female anatomy". Though de Beauvoir's feminism is very much first wave, she wrote important things that still have an echo in today's understanding of sex and gender, because she early understood that her female condition had little to do with the shape of her organs, as also appears in the first part of her biography, "Mémoires d'une jeune fille rangée". I totally understand your confusion about being called transphobic for trying to separate gender and sex, and really I think this is not about distributing awards for feminism or punishment for transphobia. I'm pretty sure at some point transgender activism had to argue in the direction you remember, I'd have said longer ago but the specifics aren't that important: the reasons I see for that is that of course our common understanding of concepts evolves as time passes, but also that in term of communication some messages are more or less easy to get out into the wider social awareness depending on the era. I do remember, too, reading about "gender" as a form of "soft, rewritable sex", something additional that goes on top of sex, which would be a sort of "natural built-in" but I no longer think this is accurate or useful. If you read other authors from the third wave such as Judith Butler, one of the major result they've discovered is that if gender is a social construct, it's not something artificial that would go above a physical reality that would be sex: on the contrary, sex too is a social construct, built to erase the natural diversity which would contradict the social construct that gender is. Which is why though transgender people have always faced so much friction to get control of their bodies, intersex people are forced surgeries much too early to even be able to form an opinion, let alone give any consent, or why cisgender teenagers are almost stuffed with hormones each time their body slightly deviates from what is considered the "natural" characteristics of their "sex" (each time a girl gets her mensies too late, or too much hair, or if a boy has breast developing during his adolescence), while people actively organize to make sure transgender teens never get access to something that might relieve their dysphoria. Gender does indeed differ from sex. But it's not something additional, it is a generalization of sex, it's the framework used by society to justify sex as a natural evidence, and it's striking I think to see how consistent with de Beauvoir's writing that result is, almost half a century afterwards. Now gender identity is already covered in the CoC, so it would be redundant to add "sex" in my opinion. You seem to claim that some "natural true woman" (again, this is a caricature but it's not an attack against you, it's merely to get the cat out of the bag) would still be excluded by mentioning only gender and not sex in the CoC. Beyond the fact that we see again at play the asymetry that plagues this discussion (why do trans woman attract so much interest ? why not worry that poor cisgender males are going to feel unprotected by this CoC, if only trans men are protected by this "fake gender" thing ? can I harass a man within this community as soon as I'm sure he's cisgender ?), we see again the dichotomy between inclusion and personal liberty, which has been invoked in some other replies to this thread. I happen to be a lesbian. An acronym to refer to all gay people has been in the past "LGBT". What if something says that it welcomes not only "us gays" but also generally queer people, intersex and others by means of the "LGBTQI+" acronym ? If I, as a lesbian, decided that by welcoming "those people" who aren't like me, I'm being excluded because I'm "not like them", and because I, as a lesbian, suffer a specific oppression that other queer people don't face, that'd be my problem (and also queer- or intersexphobic, but that's not the point). Now if a code of conduct was modified to accomodate my hatred, and recognized that, okay, we like them, but they're not you know "really" gay like I am (again, I'm sorry for writing so many bigoted things, I hope I'm not hurting anyone's feeling because I don't believe a single word of it, this is just for the sake of the argument), now that would be a very hurtful and violent CoC. Likewise I know some cisgender people don't understand or like the "cisgender" adjective, but you can't remove it without implying "you, know, truly of the gender they claim, not like those transgender people". And that I think is not acceptable in our community. I hope to have clarified why the current formulation is already as inclusive as can be and to
