#Eritrea has been a pariah state for its conflict with all its neighbors and went through more than a decade long sanction that have started in #IGAD #AU & by #UNSC for its role of destabilizing the region; direct involvement in arms and contraband trading; &supporting #Al-Shabab

💥BOOM💥 Linn Wood!! They can't stop what is coming!
Chief Justice John Roberts must resign today. Over the past several weeks, I have met with a courageous whistleblower who has risked his life to tell you the truth. Jeffrey Epstein arranged for the...
Part 1.1

So, here's my contrarian take on Why Trunk-Based Development Is Great But Probably Won't Work For You. Buckle up, it's a long one.

From time to time I talk about, or boost someone else's discussion of, "classical" continuous integration/trunk-based development/push-to-master/whatever. I do this because I've personally worked like this and I genuinely think it's a marvelous way to write software.

I've also, at this point in my career, failed—a bunch of times!—to bring this technique into practical use on the teams and organizations I've worked with. As a result, while I still do it myself, I don't focus as much on encouraging it in others.

The technoculture that's presently in vogue is what I think of as async/individual—optimize for the individual, performance-manage the individual, decouple the individual from others so they can be their best, most productive, most heroic selves.

This is in contrast to what I think of as sync/team—a culture that leans into interdependence and collaboration. If you've never worked on a team that collaborates very closely every day for months or years on end (and likes it) you've likely not experienced a team like this.

After the 9/11 attacks, airlines and public buildings adopted a flurry of "security" measures, like taking away pen-knives from fliers or requiring visitors to office buildings to be photographed or present a driver's license.

1/

Bruce Schneier's seminal 2003 "Beyond Fear" called these measures: #securitytheater.

Schneier pointed out that these measures would be easy to circumvent, and were thus providing only the comforting appearance of security - not security

Security theater is worse than nothing. Security theater gives people the false impression that their risks have been mitigated, when actually things are just as dangerous.

After al, if you know that danger exists, you can take some steps to mitigate or avoid it.

3/

But if you have the false impression that you've been made safer, you might unwittingly engage in risky behavior.

4/

Like, if you know your car's brakes are flaky, you might nurse the car along to the mechanic at low speed on side-streets.

But if you don't know about the brakes, you're apt to discover their flaws at 75mph on the freeway.

5/

Some familiar figures are pushing the absurd and defamatory claim that Ken Loach supports Holocaust denial. The story of this bogus talking-point, which relies upon multiple layers of falsehood and guilt-by-association, makes for a revealing case-study. 1/

It dates back to the 2017 Labour conference. In a NYT op-ed, Howard Jacobson claimed that “a motion to question the truth of the Holocaust was proposed” from the conference floor—a crude fabrication, which the NYT sanctioned in its pages. 2/

If you follow the link supplied by Jacobson or his editors, you’ll see that he was wrong on 3 counts: it wasn’t a motion, it wasn’t at the conference, and it wasn’t in favour of Holocaust denial. Quite the hat-trick! 3/

At a fringe meeting, granted no official status by Labour, an Israeli-Jewish speaker, Miko Peled, had said that he didn’t think Holocaust denial should be a criminal offense (which it is in some European countries). 4/

This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold—that opinions, no matter how wrong-headed or morally objectionable, should not be a matter for the criminal law—and of course it does not mean that Peled himself questions the truth of the Holocaust. 5/