Technically, you are right. But this is due to the different release systems.
In Debian, security updates for the stable version are distributed via the security repository until a new point release is created. The last point release was two months ago.
However, in practice, on Debian Trixie, you get the fixed version by running a standard apt update & apt upgrade.
If you are speaking about the latest php bug, debian stable and old stable were updated days ago, see https://security-tracker.debian.org/
If that server includes the security repository in its source files, I disagree. In fact, the use of the security repository in Debian has a history spanning more than 20 years.
No, I think that there should not be a anti-AI rule. People can downvote those post if they are anti AI.
There is a poject, Surveillance under Surveillance, which has been mapping surveillance cameras for more than 10 years. They are mapped in openstreetmap and anyone can add them.
Surveillance map of Western Europe
Only a small fraction is maped in my western european country.
Yes, it is the same document I read a few years ago.
It explicitly states that the United States is not fascist.
But it also says: The fifth principle: Fascism and bourgeois democracy are theoretical extremes or archetypes; all real regimes contain elements of both types of bourgeois government.
However, I believe the relevant principle is the seventh one and its generalization: the laws passed by Trump against our trans comrades or migrant workers are fascist; the same applies to the law Biden signed depriving railway workers of the right to strike, or the economic and military aid provided to Israel to exterminate the working class of Gaza.
Those fascist laws were the work of the two major U.S. liberal parties, and anyone who does fascist things is usually called a fascist. BTW, I'm not MLM, but I think that their definition, with the generalization, covers the common usage of fascism.
For reference:
The Seventh Principle: Individual laws or actions by the bourgeois state can be categorized
as fascist if they correspond to the sorts of laws or actions typical of the fascist theoretical
archetype, and whether or not they occur in a regime which we overall categorize as fascist.
Strangely enough, there is a very common tendency to resist calling laws which are characteristic of fascist countries “fascist laws”, when applied to laws in a country which is overall correctly called a bourgeois democracy. The idea seems to be that there can only be fascist laws in a totally fascist regime! This is complete nonsense.
There are in fact many laws and government policies characteristic of fascism in even the most democratic bourgeois state, and it is by no means wrong to label them as such. In fact it is very important to label them as such, as part of the continuing struggle against fascism.
As we said earlier, every actual bourgeois regime has a mixture of fascist and bourgeois democratic elements. That means that of necessity there are always fascist laws, restrictions, policies, actions and the like on the part of the state. And these fascist elements should be labeled for what they are, and firmly opposed.
Are all repressive laws properly viewed as fascist laws even under a bourgeois democracy? This might depend to some degree on what is meant by a “repressive law” in the first place. But if the term refers to a law that actually restricts or prohibits what would otherwise be properly considered some democratic rights of the working class and masses, then yes, it can and should just as well be called a fascist law too. I see no reason to support the notion that there are “two categories” of the suppression of democratic rights: “ordinary repression”, and “fascist repression”. That would echo back to the old notion that something should only be called “fascist” if it brings all the horrors of Nazi Germany to mind. If there are two distinct categories, “repressive laws” and “fascist laws”, on just what grounds do we decide that a particular law is one or the other? There would need to be some principle which leads us to make the appropriate choice.
Moreover, if we arbitrarily decide to call a law or policy a fascist one only if it occurs in a fully fascist country, this would then force us to say that identical laws, with identical results, are fascist in one country and merely “repressive” in another country! Wouldn‟t that amount to using a euphemism for the law in the bourgeois democratic country? Wouldn‟t it be sort of a cover-up or implicit apology for the bourgeois democratic country? It seems much better to simply say that if a law or policy is a fascist one in a fascist country, then it is a fascist one anywhere else too.
You are wrong, there has been definitions of fascims that include libs and also social democrats.
Tips: Look for MLM definitions or the phrase 'social democracy is the moderate wing of fascim'
-- A not usian, like 95% of world population
I strongly disagree with your first assertion: Israel has forced us against our will. That is a convenient scapegoat[^1] for supporters of the sometimes-socially-progressive faction of the US bourgeois party. Destabilizing and interfering in other countries and regions has been a standard US policy for over 150 years.
I also disagree with the second statement: everyone knew that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz. At least the media in my country did not foresee such an outcome; Nor did I expect Iran to humiliate the United States in that way and for so long. Perhaps the USA, after seizing Venezuelan oil, became overconfident, believing that a worst-case scenario would not negatively affect the interests of its oligarchs. But to think that the US is acting against its own interests and in favor of Russia's is utter nonsense.
Edit to add this note: [^1]: and also for fascists, Nazis, and antisemites.
I've understood Zer0_F0x comment as «[The US/Trump] key objectives…». LOL, in any case, i it makes no sense at all.
Corrected:
I think the key objectives were to destabilize the region to the benefit of Israel and
RussiaUSA's oil sector.
[With my bot operator hat]
Thanks, I've reported upstream that is outdated.
I agree, PTB.
!manufacturingConsent@lemmy.ml was a nice community, it nows seems more buildingConsent for new progroms .
May be geneva will change their very expansive definitition of zionism, I like a lot of their posts, but I suspect that their definition is against instance rule 1 (bigotry....).
PTB & bigotry
1. Lemmy.world ban kids to use their instance, also users of other instances. (Or at least it was their policy)
Edited: The requirement is in the comm rules, not to protect kids, but for the level of complexity of the joke. I would suggest to the mod to rethink that rule when it can be use to hidden oppresed collectives.
Same here. Maybe the last subscribed ml user unsubscribed a year ago and it stoped to propagate here until OP added this comm.
Which are doubly exploited: by their own national bourgeoisie and by the imperialist West.
Downvoted for sexist and misogynistic language.
You can use the update-alternatives command with the x-www-browser key to create the symlink and let the system manage it.
It seems to me that having the symbolic link in /usr/bin would cause an error if you tried to install Firefox. It might be better to place the symlink in /usr/local/bin.
Obligatory: you have been able to record people without consent since the 80s.
Where? In my country (Spain) has never been prohibited in public spaces, except in recent years that record the police has been forbidden. ACAB