That's unfalsifiable conjecture. I could just as easily assert that dang is building secret dossiers on all of us from our IP-request logs - we just can't see it
I might be reading this wrong but doesn't it include four workflows, including Gitlab? The "manual way" section is grouped under the Github tab, which indicates to me that it's only explaining how the Github-specific workflow works?
> Support for automatic attestation generation and publication from other Trusted Publisher environments is planned. While not recommended, maintainers can also manually generate and publish attestations.
You're on a slightly different page: Trusted Publishing supports four different providers, but this initial enablement of attestations (which are built on top of Trusted Publishing) is for GitHub only. The plan is to enable the others in short order.
You are right, but everyone feels they are the one special exception. And unfortunately the public sector are especially rigid in sticking to their 40 year old processes, garnished with an organization-wide god complex that they are holding the world together with it
I managed a whole 8 months in a local government role (not UK) before jumping ship when I realized how futile trying to improve anything was
That's a good example actually - should criticism of Trump now be subject to restrictions due to the two attempts on his life? "Stochastic terrorism" must be applied equally in both directions
Seems like he was targeted by people of his own political persuasion in both cases. So, yeah, maybe Trump should in fact tone down his violent rhetoric.
Likewise, this contrasts with the (rightful) criticism of Google and other companies censoring anti-government material in China - which could also be described as "company complies with local laws"
An important part of democracy is that it proves its legitimacy to the citizens. Threatening citizens who are skeptical or critical of the process (whether reasonably or not) is the only thing here which is a threat to democracy
Yes, but the time to do this is not directly after an election in which your preferred candidate lost.
Okay :: "I think our electoral process needs improvement and changes to make it fair, secure, and auditable."
Not Okay :: "I think our electoral process needs improvement and changes to make it fair, secure, and auditable… and therefore I reject the results of the last election and believe $other_guy to be the rightful president."
> Threatening citizens who are skeptical or critical of the process (whether reasonably or not) is the only thing here which is a threat to democracy
Yet another thing the supreme court judge involved in this Twitter debacle is guilty of.
He opposed all attempts to add an auditable, anonymous paper trail to our electronic voting machines. At some point, he straight up declared that they were unquestionable. It's all "fake news", he claims. Then he started censoring and fining and persecuting anyone who questioned them. Out of all the stupid things our former president said and did, they banned him from politics over his perfectly reasonable criticism of the brazilian voting machines.
Does he have the balls, the sheer audacity to bring his unquestionable machines to defcon and offer them a billion dollars if they can subvert our elections? No. Oh you can audit the machines and the software... By appointment. You're allowed to bring a pen and a piece of paper. The thing runs Linux, good luck with that. Before the elections when I was really engaged with this, I read a report that said the software's makefile downloaded some libraries off the network and linked them right in. Yeah... Normal people protested the elections by actually asking for source code. It wouldn't have helped.
In that case the situations would be very similar, and the reporting should be essentially the same, with some word substitutions. If not, this would be indicative of double standards, which I'm glad you oppose
This is a good point. When we envision a scenario we are tasked to either imagine it playing out in a way that supports our sensibilities about fairness and justice or we picture it playing out in a way that offends and repels us. Heavy weighs the head of those that take up the task of contemplating the infinite minutiae of the multiverse
When I visited I think I spent more time looking at the architecture of the building than the collections. It's very nice. Similar story with the Louvre I suppose - I never went in, but enjoyed walking past the pyramid exterior in the evening
reply