Yeah, since OpenBSD doesn’t use systemd, that points to dbus origins for the file.

I would guess it’s because it’s likely very low cost and easy to build, but there are obvious environmental savings that fall out of it naturally.

the article says it’s recycled though…

Right, it’s not a serious exploit which would allow changing code, but it does allow compromising integrity because changing the id mutates history.

The whole context here is that Linux philosophy and principles are being gutted by companies trying to make a buck off it. In my view, benefits of wide adoption need to be balanced with actually retaining the principles which make Linux a good platform.

Again, Linux has been around a long time before commercial interests started fucking with it. And I don’t think chasing adoption for the sake of it is healthy. I’d rather it grows at its own pace. It’s already a big enough community to make it sustainable indefinitely, there’s absolutely no rush to gain market share here.

right, it only makes sense if you do it at large scale

Again, they state over 80% efficiency in the article. So, that’s your answer.

looks like it was a skills issue

A green “Verified” badge on GitHub is supposed to mean that a trusted author signed it, and its ID is a one of a kind fingerprint for that exact code. Turns out that the second promise of a unique fingerprint does not hold. It matters because security teams and package systems behind tools like Go, Nix, and GitHub Actions trust that ID as a unique handle for code. An attacker can reissue the same signed code under a fresh ID that’s still verified to slip past.

I’m not sure what was supposed to be leaving ground in your mind to be honest, or whose strategy you’re talking about. Linux used to be a community driven effort rather than some company trying to gain growth. Why is gaining adoption so important all of a sudden when Linux has been around for ages without mass adoption, and it’s been doing just fine. Seems like part of the issue is actually commercialization because a lot of the decisions are driven by distros that are backed by companies who do want to make profit off the platform.

Yeah excellent point.

Pretty much…

I mean, it’s not like concrete is scraping on the walls going up and down, it’s on a pulley system which would be efficient in terms of doing energy transfer. The article mentions round-trip efficiency above 80 percent, so I’m not sure pumping water could be much more efficient than that.

I’d see this sort of use as more facilitating efficient operation of traffic, but I agree some measure of control by the state is also necessary, and is not inherently a negative thing.

My view is that systemd was a mistake and I disagree with it on a philosophical level. I see stuff like machine-id getting baked in as a direct extension of this philosophy.

managing traffic and rail systems isn’t social control on a massive scale lmfao

I would expect it would be pretty similar, in each case you’re lifting a mass to create some potential energy and then draining it later. I can’t imagine the work involved in pumping up water is all that different in terms of efficiency from lifting concrete. The advantage with concrete is that you can do it in places where you don’t have huge amounts of water to spare though.

sure, there is that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urglg3WimHA