trompete [he/him]

  • 4 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 16th, 2021

help-circle








  • I mean he praises EFI as being a modern BIOS replacement thingy with “features”, but I recall a bunch of complaints about EFI from Linux dev Matthew Garrett, which I don’t exactly remember in any detail, but it was extremely buggy shit when Linux first tried to support this and is definitely overengineered as fuck.

    Probably the correct thing to replace the BIOS with would have been something actually way more minimal. On many ARM devices, for example, the built-in ROM basically just initializes the CPU (maybe not even fully?), serial interface (for debug logs) and whatever storage it needs to boot from. No USB, graphics, keyboard support or whatever. There it hopes to find a bootloader that is also just minimal enough to get Linux into RAM.

    This way there’s only really one driver for almost all the hardware, the one inside your OS. EFI has it’s own drivers for all sorts of shit. These drivers are separate from the actual drivers your OS is going to use, which is duplicate effort and it causes problems and bugs.

    If you really really want to have networking, keyboard, mouse, graphics or whatever before booting into your final OS, which I guess people might want to do, you could just use a stripped down version of (say) Linux, and have that act as a sort of BIOS replacement, and use that to chainload your real OS. That way you can just use the drivers inside Linux and people wouldn’t have to write special shitty EFI drivers which will just run for one second during boot. Which I think is the idea behind LinuxBIOS but I haven’t looked at that to closely.










  • https://archive.is/HBCM2

    Federal culture minister Roth commissioned an opinion from a constitutional expert, Christoph Möllers from Humboldt-University Berlin, about the legality of having recipients of art grants sign antisemitism provisions (like propsed in the state of Berlin for example). Yes, Claudio Roth is the one that clapped at the Berlinale during the anti-apartheid speech and then was hounded by the Springer press. In her defense she put out a statement about how she was clapping for the Israeli Jew, forgetting to mention there was a Palestinian on stage as well. That one.

    So he looked at the legality of having artists and institutions declare their commitment to diversity, and against racism and antisemitism (in general and also according to something like the IHRA definition, which conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel), if they want to receive government grants.

    Findings:

    • Since basically everyone receives these grants in Germany, this is pretty delicate, because it de-facto impacts artistic freedom. The vast majority artists and cultural institutions cannot realistically get out of these pledges, even if they can in theory.
    • A commitment to diversity is too vague and would leave the signees unsure about what they can and cannot do.
    • A commitment against racism and antisemitism is more concrete, but the IHRA definition is subject to scientific debate, and the state weighing in on this violates academic freedom.
    • In order to enforce this, a new control mechanism would have to be implemented, which would be rife for abuse and might narrow the space for artistic expression.

    So basically he thinks this would be unconstitutional and a bad idea.


  • Nazis left most of them alone as long as they kept their heads down, so they survived the war. Western allies put some of them in positions of power when they formed the first occupation governments, because the liberals and conservatives had all pretty much joined the Nazis. This didn’t last long of course, denazification was called off and fascists that swore they were now democrats got back in power almost immediately. But the class-collaborationist and anti-communist SPD was, unlike the KPD, not repressed at all, so they became the default and only workers’ party. Then they gave up on being a workers’ party in order to appeal to bourgeoise media, social climbers, and the industrial sector, and became a generic leftish-liberal party in what was (almost) a two-party system.


  • Macron apparently put sending troops on the agenda (The Guardian | archive).

    France’s President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday he refused to rule out sending ground troops to Ukraine, but said no consensus existed on the step, at a meeting of 20 mainly European leaders in Paris convened by Macron to ramp up the European response to the Russian military advances inside Ukraine.

    Protecting France’s strategic ambiguity he said “there is no consensus to officially back any ground troops. That said, nothing should be excluded. We will do everything that we can to make sure that Russia does not prevail.”

    He doesn’t know when to stop.

    Russia, he said, “cannot win this war. It is the sole aggressor. It is the sole country that instigated this war. Russia is now clearly affecting our own safety and security through both traditional and hybrid war.” But he added “we are not at war with the Russian people”.

    Macron found a way to passive-aggressively declare war. Or maybe he’s declaring a passive-aggressive war, which would be a lot better than an actively aggressive war.