> I heard the reason was that NL doesn't know if SUSE will be sold off again and might end up in the hands of some US PE, but here's the thing, you're the government, you can just block the sale of companies
The Dutch government can famously prevent sales of German and Luxembourgish companies yes.
I meant the EU, at EU level, not the Dutch government. Also it's not like the Dutch government can't cooperate with the other EU members like Germany and Luxembourg on such vital topics. Unless of course trust inside the EU is so lackluster that the Dutch government can't be sure where Germany and Luxembourg will stand, in which case it's already over for the EU.
Does the EU have the power to block sales of companies on national security grounds? Or to get member states to standardise on software?
Its probably a good thing they do not have a standard, or at this point it would be Windows and pushing change through at the EU level would not be fast.
>Does the EU have the power to block sales of companies on national security grounds?
Not on defense and national security, that's up to individual EU member states, but the EU does veto corporate mergers and acquisitions on Competition Law (Antitrust). So just find a loophole in that and use it to prevent SUSE be taken over by non-EU nations.
The governments "just" doing this or that, are typically the tyrannical or unhinged variety you don't want to live under. If your law is written decently and you have a functioning judiciary, chances of a loopholes surviving scrutiny will be very low.
The European Commission could definitely ask governments (the European Council) to agree a new treaty or protocol that grants them veto powers on "federal security grounds", for sure. The European Parliament would likely rubber-stamp it too. Considering the current (and increasing) right-wing majorities across the continent, though, I find such scenario very unlikely.
>The governments "just" doing this or that, are typically the tyrannical or unhinged variety you don't want to live under.
You can always "just do things" whenever you want by interpreting or changing the laws first to fit your desired goal. And so there, now it's legal, because I just changed the rules to make it so.
Same how the "we'll now have to accept all those migrants illegally crossing our border without asking our voters if its what they want" was done, they decided overnight that its legal. Or how they can just block the right wing from winning elections in order to "just protect democracy".
We're already under tyrannical rule, except the system abuse just acts on the wrong topics.
As an American, EU politics is such a fascinating bizarro world. Imagine the right wingers being a bulwark against unhinged expansion of executive authority on grounds of national security! It would be like statehouse Republicans blocking the Patriot Act. Unthinkable.
Well, the same in the other direction: imagine the free marketeers by definition, installing an autocrat big on isolationist policies, the dismantling of judiciary separation, and on picking winners in the market... Absurd! And still, here we are. Humans are funny and inconsistent like that.
Right back at you: Imagine being a European getting fined/arrested for memes(UK), or that you called a politician a dick on facebook(Germany).
How are those rape gangs in the UK this time of year? Did the UK government ever get in trouble for covering that up that scandal and calling the whistleblowers pointing it out "racist white supremacists"?
Those are all historical offences, dude. For all the disproportionate attention it gets, it's not really been a problem for some time.
And anyway, this has nothing to do with the item being discussed, which was about the mismatch between declared party orthodoxies and actual everyday practice.
Yes, they are neoliberals, which are hardly left by international standards. European social-democratic parties, which are the traditional Euro center-left, are generally on the back foot right now.
TBH this whole left-right thing is pretty new in the US. The political science term is "ideological alignment" (we didn't really have it for a long time due to our weird party system) if you want to read about it. This is changing now to an extent, but there was also a taboo for a long time against identifying as being a leftist, what with McCarthyism, COINTELPRO, etc.
For context, the US once prevented that a German company AIXTRON was sold to a Chinese investor in 2016 (perhaps for good reasons). To me it would sound like a good deal for the Netherlands and Luxembourg/Germany if Netherlands would uses SUSE and the Luxembourg/Germany would step in to keep in in the EU.
Isn't it odd how Germany needed the US to stop them from committing a(nother) suicidal mistake regarding their industry sovereignty?
I wonder, is anyone left in the German government now (that isn't a paid lobbyist) that is even remotely interested on covering their industry sovereignty?
Every so often I hear about new footguns Germany used on itself.
Yeah GPT 5.6 models did it a lot and Opus is absolutely awful on this. It's clearly encoding it's thinking/context into the comments. GPT-6 models seem to be better about it.
Are we talking, like, a ton of verbose comments? Because “what were you thinking here?” is kinda-sorta what I want in comments. As opposed to the old “telling me what I can already see.”
The data is stored in ~/.cache which has the contract that it user-wide cached data, which also means it can be deleted without severely impacting programs.
It seems the author has too high expectations of this feature, or vim is using an incorrect path to store this is they want to make it available more reliably
The feature that was broken is called persistent undo. The feature was inherited from Vim. In case it's not obvious from the name, nowhere does it state in the docs for persistent undo that data may be deleted at any time.
This reads to me like a case of blame on both sides. Putting data you don't want to lose in ~/.cache is PEBKAC, but if that fact is incidental and NeoVim would have removed the undo history regardless of its filesystem path, then the point remains valid that NeoVim is deleting user data that isn't its place to delete.
A lot of the comments here are getting caught up in legal arguments which may or may not be valid. Those are irrelevant. No one is taking the NeoVim developers to court; the post is merely warning that they knowingly accepted behavior which can cause harm. The question is whether or not that choice was responsible, not whether it's legally actionable.
What a weird straw-man. The comparison here is a program breaking compatibility with a file in ~/.cache/... and deleting it instead of providing compatibility. I'd do that without thinking about it twice.
I don't see it as a strawman. The comparison here is a program breaking compatibility with a file _used by another program_. If vim and neovim undo files are incompatible, why does neovim delete vim's file instead of using its own file name/extension and not caring about vim's undo? And why do they use the same subdirectory even? To me it is a case of a program deleting cached files of another program, which, as a user, I see as deleting user data that said program should have touched.
The thing is mainly there are no quality options available. It's mostly all cheap shit or slightly more expensive, but still equally shit.
So how can this reveal preference if there are no options?
I would argue the surge in vintage clothing ecosystems is an indication there is an unmet demand.
You can still go to a tailor and commission jackets, trousers and shirts, made with the same quality of fabrics and manufacturing techniques. With shoes, you can still go and buy hand welted shoes.
It all comes at a price but I don't disagree that we have a barbell problem here (ie cheap fast fashion or bespoke, with nothing in the middle).
There’s certainly options above temu junk. Maybe it doesn’t meet your bar but I’ve found the 100% cotton stuff from Uniqlo to be massively higher quality than the average. I’ve got tshirts from them I’d guess I’d worn and washed 80+ times.
Not just rich people, I pay maybe 3 times more for my T-shirts than the average person. I'm certain they last me at least twice as long, probably 3 times and they're way nicer to wear.
Not really related to this, but are there good non-IP KVM's left? I'm in the market for one so we can move two home office desks into 1, but all the ones I find seem kinda shit. Asking for USB-C + 2 hdmi or displayports is apparently unreasonable
The cheap alternative I use is based on a USB switch hub and a monitor that has enough inputs for all of the computers I want to switch between.
The hub is a very simple and inexpensive device that essentially just lets you change USB devices between computers. It has 4 ports for USB devices, and 4 input ports for USB hosts. There is a wired remote control that allows you to switch between the hosts.
The way you turn this into a KVM-like device is by having each host connected to the monitor/s indepentently. In my case, I have only two hosts, and each one is connected via HDMI cable to my single monitor. Each host is set up to detect when the USB hub is connected, and then send a DDC command to switch the monitor input over to itself.
The end user experience is: I press a button on the wired remote, which is mounted on my keyboard tray, and then after a short delay the corresponding computer is on my screen and everything works normally.
On linux, this is trivially accomplished with a udev rule + a script calling ddcutil.
On my work machine, a Mac, I could not find a simple solution that worked reliably on my specific Macbook Pro model that I would recommend, so I had an AI write a custom daemon for this purpose.
The major benefit of this "poor man's KVM" is that you do not need an expensive and finnicky piece of KVM hardware. You do not need to worry about the video chip supporting your setup, or firmware bugs. You buy one cheap, commodity product. The downside is the reliance on the hosts, and on monitor features, and having to set up the functionality manually. In my case, this is the sort of thing I basically just set up and then never touched again, so it was a fine trade-off. If I get new computers, or a new monitor, or I change which porta the computers are attached to, then I have to change the code.
Just hit a button the bottom and it swaps to the other input and I keep the keyboard / mouse plugged into the monitor and it goes where the input goes.
The "me too" drug still need to go through an R&D, clinical trail and approval process, so combined with patents the exclusivity period is at least several years. Abolishing patents would completely remove the exclusivity period
The Dutch government can famously prevent sales of German and Luxembourgish companies yes.