You don't need them to be sent to Apple. And if errors in console get sent to Apple, it's surely filtered through a heavy suppression list. You can open the Errors and Faults view in Console on any Mac and see many errors and faults every second.
They could start attacking those common errors first, so that a typical Mac system has no regular errors or faults showing up. Then, you could start looking at errors which show up on weirdly configured end user systems, when you've gotten rid of all the noise.
But as long as every system produces tens of thousands of errors and faults every day, it's clear that nobody cares about fixing any of that.
The professor could have just insisted on `-std=c99` or a similar GCC flag which disallows GNU extensions.
When I taught programming (I started teaching 22 years ago), the course was still having students either use GCC with their university shell accounts, or if they were Windows people, they would use Borland C++ we could provide under some kind of fair use arrangement IIANM, and that worked within a command shell on Windows.
On the other hand, with tcc, you'd know exactly what you were dealing with.
I used it just the other day to do some tests. No dependencies, no fiddling around with libwhater-1.0.dll or stuff like that when on Windows and so on.
This would be a great point if antifa was some official org with fascist views.
It's not. Antifa is just a shortened form of the word anti-fascist. Anyone can call themselves antifa. And typically, only people who view themselves as fighting fascism call themselves antifa.
In short, saying "antifa are the real fascists" is like saying "vegetarians are the real meat eaters". It doesn't make sense.
I didn't say anything of that sort. North Korea calls itself "democratic people republic" and people who call themselves antifa claim they fight "fascists". In both cases, the claim is either completely made up or occasionally somewhat technically correct as they fight anything from corporations to corner store glass windows to journalists who happen to disagree with them and happen to find some fascist
Which often leads to this point, as in Lord of War:
> Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, the Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters.
Again, the DPRK is a singular entity. We can look at the behavior of the DPRK and analyze what its stance towards democracy is. We can see that it doesn't seem remotely committed to democracy, so being against the DPRK says nothing about one's views of democracy. Or even if the DPRK was truly committed to democracy, one could be against the DPRK for reasons completely unrelated to its democracy, and it would still not say anything about one's view of democracy.
Antifascism is just a political stance. It's shared by a wide range of disparate people who have nothing to do with each other. Just like vegetarianism is just the practice of not eating meat.
What does being anti-vegetarianism say about one's stance towards meat eating? Sure, you can look at any one guy or specific group of people who call themselves vegetarian, be against them for reasons unrelated to vegetarianism, and that doesn't say anything about your stance towards meat-eating. But being broadly anti-vegetarian?
...What does being broadly anti-antifascism say about one's stance towards fascism?
There's an old joke that 9gag* only reposts stuff from Reddit and Reddit only reposts stuff from 4chan and 4chan is the origin of all meme culture. This joke was widespread enough to reach myself and my friend group back in the day, even though none of used 4chan or Reddit.
If you radicalise the 0.01% of people who are prolific meme creators, you radicalise the masses.
Just to substantiate this a bit: I remember a gleeful consensus in certain circles being that /pol/ and /r/the_donald had "memed Trump into the White House". It's much more complicated than that, but there's certainly an element of truth there.
Then Reddit and almost all of social media went on to purge trump and pro trump content. The Donald was banned. Trump deplatformed across social media.
That's true, but not really relevant to this discussion. You can't really deplatform a president; yes he was no longer on Twitter, but roughly 8 billion people listen any time he speaks.
That subreddit was banned far too late. They had been urging for violence and hatred for quite some time. But action was taken only after the clowns inside of it were declaring they'd murder police officers executing a warrant (regarding legislators staying home to block quorum or whatever it was).
Of course in 2026 it is apparently fine to break into homes without a warrant and execute protesters. The same people are able to "believe" two literally opposite concepts.
2015 - 2016 reddit was exploited to hell by the_donald and other associated reddits. Things like coordinated up voting of a pinned post to get it to shoot up the front page, private chats to manipulate voting in a page.
There would be times when you would go to the r/all and half the page would be posts from them.
Not to mention a lot of the organized harassment a lot of the mods/power users of that sub caused in the years after. It was a mess.
Hey quick question, around January 2021, what would happened that caused Trump to be deplatformed? Anything stick out in your mind?
How isn't China playing by the same rules? Every country subsidises and supports industry it thinks is important, surely nothing would stop Germany from investing into Volkswagen and BMW or the US from investing into Ford the same way China invests into BYD?
Environmental regulations around rare earth minerals needed for the batteries. China loosens them thus making it cheaper to mine which starves out all global competition that actually has tighter regulations which protect the environment.
Then of course there is cost of living and salary; both of which are lower in China compared to where most legacy auto manufacturers are.
So China can pay their employees less and pollute the environment more in order to create an affordable, very high quality vehicle.
I can understand a small amount of tariffs to help "even the playing field" but not the 100% tariff or whatever was proposed against BYD
Hm, how are tariffs state subsidies? They're a tax on some products to give other products a competitive edge, but that feels different from a subsidy?
And what does that have to do with China playing by different rules than the west?
If not for the tariffs, the domestic company would have to charge lower prices to make sales. Thus tariffs provide domestic companies with additional revenue from domestic consumers.
Tariffs and subsidies both help companies succeed, but they're not the same thing. For one, tariffs can only really help your country's companies be competitive within your country. Subsidies can help your companies be competitive globally.
You're right that the talk from EU about EU sovereignty is about increasing EU involvement, while decreasing US involvement. I don't agree that it's a misleading term: both "EU sovereignty" (EU independence from the US) and "EU member state sovereignty" (member state independence from the EU) are both valid uses of the term "sovereignty".
EDIT because I wanted to add some more thoughts: "Sovereignty" means "supreme power or authority". It is valid to say "EU member states should have the ultimate supreme authority and not be subservient to the EU". It is also valid to say "the EU (as in all the EU member states) should have the ultimate supreme authority and not be subservient to the US". The two ideas are not even in conflict with each other. If you think EU member states should be completely sovereign, you can still find it valuable to have EU-wide sovereignty initiatives which decrease the US's authority over EU member states.
There are two ways "EU sovereignty" can be read. One is "the EU and its member states should have the supreme authority over themselves and not be controlled by the US". The other is "the political body known as 'the EU' should have the supreme authority over its member states". I don't think these sovereignty initiatives are meant to be read as the latter.
I also think it’s futile to think member states can get sovereignty in these types of areas without collaborating together on an EU level. I don’t think anyone believes this would be possible.
Perhaps the grandparent is a sockpuppet account, as they have quite an extreme take.
Why are you continuing to behave that way? Flagging/censorship, insults, nasty accusations, avoiding engagement, why? My earlier comment was presenting a perfectly legitimate opinion and questions in a civil but opiniated way, why the hate?
You are viewing sovereignty as a legal status, but in this specific vertical (Space/SatCom), it is a function of scale.
The harsh reality of 2026 is that the "Minimum Viable Economy" required to maintain orbital sovereignty—meaning a native LEO constellation and reusable launch capability, exceeds the fiscal bandwidth of any single member state.
The choice is no longer "National Sovereignty" vs "EU Federalism." The choice is "Pooled EU Sovereignty" vs "Client State status to the US."
We are effectively trading local political control for a shot at operational leverage. You might dislike the deal from a governance perspective, but from a systems perspective, fragmentation guarantees irrelevance.
They are in conflict with each other, that's the problem. The US is only thrown in conveniently to muddy the water and as scarecrow but the aim is EU over member states in any case.
> the EU (as in all the EU member states)
No, it's the EU, not the member states independently as sovereign states. Note also that there is a huge difference between "European cooperation" and "EU integration".
Over time the EU has taken over significant levers of sovereignty away from member states. The single currency was a very big one (hence some countries decided to stay away). Now it is pushing into another very regalian domain, which is defence.
If there was a referendum in each EU country to ask the people clearly and honestly whether they were in favour of their country disappearing as sovereign state and becoming only a 'state' of a federal EU, my strong guess is that they would vote "no", but that's exactly what is happening little by little. That's my point, my problem with and fear about the EU (and of course the national governments that are in on it).
Quite disappointing to read the crass insults and accusations thrown by some commenters, as well as the barrage of downvotes. Unfortunately it seems to be an usual pattern (I'm getting uncomfortable 1984 vibes more and more).
I think this is a bit unfair. The EU is a combination of the member states and institutions: the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council of the European Union. These bodies are made up of either people elected directly by EU citizens or by politicians from EU member countries, not dissimilar to how the federal government in the US is made up of either people elected directly by US citizens or by politicians from US member states.
And just as it would be unfair to describe the US as only its member states, I believe it is unfair to describe the EU as only its member countries.
The EU at its very core is international contracts between member states. All that the EU is is contracts between states. Thus, the EU itself is nothing but the member states acting from their sovereignty.
From my perspective, the main structural difference between the EU and the US is that it's legal for a member country to leave the EU but illegal for a member state to leave the US.
This is a very significant difference and means that the EU is a consensual partnership between countries while the US is not. Still, if the US instituted a legal way for a member state to secede, I do not think it would be fair to call the US "only contracts between states"; I think it would be warranted to view the federal government as its own political entity which is more than just the sum of its member states.
Do you agree with my view of this hypothetical alternative US? If yes: what is the essential difference between that and the EU which makes one a political entity of its own right while the other is "just contracts between countries"? If no: why?
Had the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe succeeded, I would agree with your point.
Since it hasn't, it's all just a bunch of treaties between countries. Yes, there is European politican entities. But they all just exist by the power of the member states instituting them. They are not (yet?) established as powers in their own right.
There is a huge, crucial, and obvious difference here (the EU is made of member states but a member state's sovereignty is not the same as the "EU sovereignty", very obviously), but if you can't see it (or refuse to) after what I already wrote then I am afraid that I don't have the energy to even attempt to discuss this with you...
The modern versions of empire are showing off all of deviant proclivities of our species.
Humanity must find a way to move forward with individual soveriegnty, for which privacy, education, and financial freedom are keys, or live with the horrors of insane
people continiously gaining controll of state/empire aparatus and turning it to cults of genocide.
Liquid Glass really is that bad. Not because the visual design is especially bad (not my cup of tea but it's okay); but because all of macOS is now incredibly janky. Even Spotlight is a janky mess now with lots of broken animations.
I would avoid it for Linux and Windows. Even if they are "technically supported", Apple's focus is clearly macOS and iOS. Being a second- (or even third-) class citizen often introduces lots of issues in practice ("oh, nobody teenaged that functionality on Windows"...)
reply