Slackware was my first distro decades ago, and I have lots of fond memories learning Linux with it. How is it these days? What makes it your distro of choice at home in 2023?
I wonder as well. I've really enjoyed reading about all of the findings that have come out of Pompeii and Herculaneum in recent years: the graffiti[0], the fast food joint that looks like it could be a Chipotle or a Subway[1], and articles like this. It all feels pretty _recent_, even though it was 2000 years ago.
I think that people 2000 years from now will have a lot more information about our time to go on, though. We disseminate and preserve information at a scale that did not exist back then. The sole surviving written record of the Mt. Vesuvius eruption -- and perhaps the earliest written record of any volcanic eruption -- comes from two letters written by Pliny the Younger.[2] Today, news of the event would be spread near-instantaneously (and presumably preserved in multiple locations), like news of the 2020 Beirut explosion. Back then, there was just the dissemination of paper(-like) copies.
But nobody's saying to run "other people's terraform or whatever," or that you should be running a sensitive service that you "don't know anything about until you have to." Common sense doesn't go out the window just because we're talking about hosting Vault within your infrastructure.
You're whitewashing it. Your example of a "rape analogy," which itself might be in poor taste (let's agree to be agnostic on that for the moment), isn't analogous to the rape joke that was said: "No doesn't necessarily mean no." The OP blog post implies that people were either dead silent out of shock at the rape joke, or they laughed at the rape joke -- meaning everyone understood it to be a rape joke.
You mentioned a "slavery analogy," which makes things interesting: I'm sure if you think hard enough you could come up with a slavery joke that, if uttered, would be obviously inappropriate.
Nothing you've said even gets off the ground until your counterexamples are analogous to the joke uttered.
You've missed my point. I'm not saying that putting it in terms of cost and productivity isn't virtually unassailable. I'm saying that it's ridiculous that this experiment was necessary to convince management that ensuring the basic welfare of its workforce would improve that productivity.
Just as it's obvious that productivity isn't maximized if workers aren't permitted to sleep or eat lunch (and we don't really need studies to know that), so it should be obvious that productivity isn't maximized when working conditions include stifling heat with no air circulation while you're at risk of maiming yourself at a sewing machine. This is a sweat shop we are talking about.
I've explicitly couched my comments in terms of worker productivity, so I'm not exactly talking about ethics. But ethics is certainly the subtext here, because I think it's obvious that humans perform and live better when they're treated the way they ought to be treated, with their basic needs being met.
Commonsense ethical rules aren't arbitrary; it isn't a coincidence that people fare badly, and perform poorly, when they are treated badly and are made to work and live in squalor.
While I'm glad that this experiment was done, because it resulted in better conditions for the factory workers, it bothers me that experiments like this are necessary in the first place. I get that managers and owners, qua managers and owners, are concerned with maximizing productivity, but it should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of humanity and common sense that productivity will increase when labourers are treated as human beings, with basic needs being met for their general welfare, rather than as beasts of burden.
Color me unimpressed at the discovery that productivity increases when workers have something as luxurious as proper lighting and air circulation so that sweat isn't pouring down their faces while they're sewing blue jeans for H&M with the utmost concentration lest they break their finger or hand in a machine.
This strikes me as exactly right. There is no obvious way to formally guarantee that the content of a person's argument actually matches the formal structure that they claim it has.