ricecake

It being the same species as me. There's no objective reason I'm "better" than a chicken since value is a subjective measure.

Since it's subjective though, it's not unreasonable to say that as humans, we value humans more than chickens.
We'll never escape the subjective nature of value judgements, but as long as we're honest about their subjectivity we can work with it.

A moral system that requires me to pretend that when you, my child, and a chicken are trapped in a burning building that I'll be unconcerned about who gets rescued first is a non-starter. Likewise, when it's me, your child, and a chicken it's a non-starter to assume you'll have the same priorities as me.

I know you're going for the joke, but it's way to close to why a lot of these people want to outlaw reproductive healthcare.

In reality, humans have more children in bad circumstances, and less when we're educated, have life options, don't need children to work as labor for the family, don't need them to provide for us when we get old, and have confidence that they'll survive.

In bad times we have a lot of children for better odds and more hands to do work, and in good times we have fewer to concentrate our resources on.

It's why they want to ban reproductive healthcare and tank the economy: in 20 years there'll be a wave of economic demand and labor supply. That the individual will be broke, have no future, and no education is irrelevant.

Copying a bunch of unsourced text at someone without context is a great way to get them to not bother reading it. Why don't you type the point you were hoping to make?

What do you think profit is? It seems like you're conflicting profit with income.

Heh, "revenue is not profit".

Non-profits are specifically not allowed to have revenue in excess of expenses. If they take in too much money, the excess has to be put back in for operational expenses in the future, an endowment or something like that.

I'm not sure that's entirely true.

Most of their money comes from retail, either the site, subscriptions, or the seller services they provide. AWS, while massive, isn't what's keeping them afloat.

You're entirely correct though that competition with Amazon is difficult because of those additional sources of revenue. Having additional stable sources of income gives them the ability to accept lower margins in retail with less risk.

The way they make money selling things with no profit or at a loss is to ensure that someone else is always paying the difference. "Free shipping" with a paid subscription means that rather than providing shipping for a loss, they just need to do it for less than the subscription. Turns out "guy with a van" can deliver a lot of packages for quite cheap. So many that he'll be out delivering from 3am to 9pm, and for $5 they'll drop your package off first and call it overnight.
In some cases they can get the seller to pay for shipping as a promotional incentive, since Amazons conditioned people to look for free shipping as a precondition to considering a product.

Only give away for free what you got someone else to pay for.

If you spend the same amount of money to get more things that you were going to buy, you've saved money.

If I need bread and cheese and one store sells bread for $10 and cheese for $5, and another sells $10 bread half off if I buy $5 cheese with it, I save money going to the second store, even if I only came into the store looking for bread.

Amazon is using dirty tricks to ensure you buy from them even if it's at a lower margin. A smaller profit is better than no sale. It also gets consumers more accustomed to just buying stuff on Amazon, and increases the sales producers see through the Amazon platform. Some producers entirely offload their commerce to Amazon since enough of their sales come from there it makes running their own less viable.

That's all fine and good, but that's not quite related to the "everything is a file" metaphor. The data is still stored in files and accessed using conventional io and the command itself is routinely piped to other commands.

Everything being a file is extremely pervasive in unix, and I couldn't think of what systemd was doing that went in opposition to the metaphor.

It wasn't the crypto key pair part I was referring to, it was the part where fido is geared towards interactive user auth, not non-interactive storage.
It wouldn't have surprised me if the ssh devs hadn't put implementing fido support for host keys high in the development list, or that it was tricky to find documentation for. Using something like a tpm is the more typical method.

There's no technical reason it can't work, and the op got it to work so clearly the implementation supports it, but that doesn't mean it's the most expected setup, which means it might have unexpected gaps in functionality or terrible documentation.

Pretty sure they meant the whole "do one thing, do it well, and prefer composition" part.

But I'm more interested in what parts of systemd don't follow the file metaphor, and what things you think shouldn't follow that metaphor? How would you interact with those things?

Unfortunately, I think you're going to run into trouble because fido authenticators are geared towards working as user authenticators rather than as device authenticators.
It certainly should be possible from a technical perspective, but implementation-wise, it's very likely that the code focuses on making fido devices work with client keys, and using tpms for host keys, since that's much more focused on headless server functionality.

Oval peg in a round hole.

Two! Now you do yours! What's two states a human can be in, plus one additional state a human can be in? I have such faith in you little guy!