20% is an interesting number, though. The percentage of Palestinians who were Arabs in 1918 was around 90%. I wonder if that might have something to do with why the Arabs are upset?
Oh right, Israel _has_ destroyed nearly all the entire Arab society that lived in Palestine. As opposed to your claim that "Hamas and Iran and Hezbollah _want_ to destroy Israel in the name of Islam".
You think a hypothetical backlash to an ethnic cleansing is worse than the ethnic cleansing itself?
It seems you're the one who seems to be ignoring the factual crimes against humanity that Israel commits, and only care about imagined ones that Israel would be victim to.
For me, the only one who has ever used the standard terms as a floor has been the employer. The union has always backed me up when I wanted higher pay.
I'll give an example. I've had managers switched on me, and they've then said my salary has to be reduced because it's higher than the median. The organisation I work for also has a salary policy where every level you advance, your "personal additional percentage" is cut. This eventually reduces everyone to the same, lower level. This is the employer, not the union.
The union, otoh, backed me up when I wanted to keep my existing extra percentage.
Those legal protections are easily eroded without unions.
Just look at Finland. Here, the current government first made it illegal for unions to strike when the government takes action to weaken employment law, and then they significantly weakened employment law.
The only protection left is collective bargaining agreements, which can still uphold some of the old legal protections through contract law.
This was also only possible after decades of work by industry lobby groups to significantly weaken unions by targeting them with tax code changes, splitting up unemployment funds from unions (with the employers then founding their own unemployment fund, so that union membership is drained).
Unions are the only defense that workers have. If there are no unions, the employer can have their pick among desperate job seekers, and give them the lowest wage they can live on.
Was this in the US? In the US, anti-union action by the government and employers has been extra egregious historically. This has obviously impacted unions in the US.
There's also LOTS of anti-union misinformation spreading in the US.
"Singapore has one of the highest home ownership rate in the world, due to the commitment of our founding fathers since the very beginning of nation building. Today, there are more than 1 million HDB flats across the island, home to close to 80% of Singapore's resident population. The schemes highlighted below help Singaporeans meet their housing needs at different life stages."
So the dictionary says that HBD housing is public housing, wikipedia says that HBD housing is public housing, and the Singaporean government says that HBD housing is public housing.
I would appreciate it if you would respond to me directly rather than suggest vaguely that I'm inexperienced and don't understand the realities of software distribution.
I would also appreciate it if you actually talk about something concrete rather than simply claiming to be right. You shouldn't pipe stuff from the internet into your shell.
Are you claiming that's about some highfallutin "technical purity"? Is it technical purity to check inside the bag when you buy a pig in a poke? No, that's common sense. It's common sense to have some degree of knowledge about what programs you execute on your computer. As root, at that.
The fact that people do something doesn't make it good.
I am arguing in good faith about the merits of the approaches. I am engaging with the points of argument being brought up from the opposing side of the argument (see above). I am not veering off on side-tracks, unlike you, for example.
There' a simple good faith argument (that I have been making) which you can try responding to: Running arbitrary code from the internet without checking is bad. There is some effort needed to package software, but that is not that much effort in the grand scheme.
In what world does a user have to choose between 10 package managers? Each distro has exactly one. There are also only about three, maybe four main package managers out there.
A shell script being piped into bash has so many more ways to break than a package. And if yhe theory is that package managers are fickle (they aren't), then how does adding more complexity help?
It is much simpler, much safer, and easier to maintain a package than an install.sh, eapecially for a big project.
Configuration can be handled by a script, yes. Here's a crazy idea: Your package can include scripts for configuring the software. It's almost as if most packages do. The scripts/utilities could even restart a systemd service for you.
Unless you're talking about configuring your build, in which case we're dealing with an experienced developer who will have no trouble just cloning the repo and building from source.
My biggest issue is: if we're dealing with someone who can't use a package manager, we're dealing with someone who doesn't have the capacity to judge how safe a script downloaded off the internet is. This does not drive linux adoption, it drives botnet adoption.
99% of developers are most definitely not comfortable piping a script into the shell.
I would never runa script without reviewing it. I would install a package from a distros repository without reviewing the contents, however, because I can trust that a distro maintainer has reviewed it, that anyone else in the community can review it, and that that the bytes I'm downloading are the specific bytes I'm supposed to be downloading.
If you run a script off the open internet, you're being massively irresponsible. There are so many attack vectors that could be used here, and they are much easier to implement than something like the massive social engineering attack that was XZ.
I've been thinking about self-hosting myself, but for my purposes (open source), I'm worries about scrapers and other sources of DOS-like traffic.