As a founder/CEO who started as a programmer, I have been running my second company for 15 years. I am not great, but I got the company to be sizable and profitable.

1. I will take five automated CEOs. If I can split my company into five distinct companies (one per product), it would be amazing. We are splitting the company into two to streamline focus on different/incompatible industries, and I am dreading the process of finding another CEO. It is very, very hard.

2. I know a lot of CEOs. It helps. I didn't know a single one when I started. It is no more a cult than my programmer's peer group was.

3. Did I tell you how hard it is to find a good CEO? It is VERY, VERY hard. Think of hiring a great product guy with agency to do whatever needs to be done, with people skills to attract talent, a sales drive, and a willingness to deal with finance & legal. Oh, and I am in the tech field, so I need him to be very hardcore technical. Your mileage might vary, but this is who I need. Anyone who has that is running their own companies. Oh, and the person has to have a proven track record. I cannot let someone unproven ruin the company and well-being of hundreds of employees and tens of thousands of customers.

4. I don't believe CEOs are special in any way other than that most other professionals are special. There are probably some underlying qualities, but they're all so different.

5. Some CEOs got there because they were lucky, but they didn't stay there for long because of luck. It is very, very simple to screw up as a CEO.

6. Growing someone within an organization to become a CEO is very hard. We are trying - giving some people more and more responsibilities, trying to involve them in more and more aspects of the organization. The filter is - repeatable success. You don't have to succeed all the time, but you have to succeed most of the time. Most people don't want the pressure, aren't interested in certain aspects, or are unsuccessful more often than they should.

7. Boards are not a cult as well; they don't have CEO's back. Boards are represented by investors (pension funds, wealthy individuals, etc.) - they will oust the CEO if the company's performance suffers. They are willing to pay a lot to the CEO because ... it is so hard to find a good CEO.

People wouldn't keep using old shoes, and I am old enough to remember graphic artists who wouldn't use computers. It takes time. At some point, it will be a no-brainer. Yet, it will not be simply because method A is so much better than method B. It will be because people using method B change, retire, or are fired.

California prohibits non-competes, which is one of the reasons why so many new start-ups are created here. So, while it is not the most 'business' state, it is actually very startup-friendly.

Does it include warehouse workers?

Yes

No one takes them to jail; companies and organizations can run however they want, unless they break laws. It doesn't mean that the government that runs and wins on an anti-DEI agenda should give them money.

> Note that requirements had nothing against diversity or fairness. It was fairly specific: "discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws."

Are we reading the same thing? You are quoting something that says that the PSF's standard DEI policies are a violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws, which the PSF does not agree with, and likely no court would ever agree with.

Compliance with law is always mandatory, but by signing a contract that misstates the law and in fact endorses a particular and incorrect interperation of the law, means that actually litigating the law correctly lately in the courts is harder.

Further, by carrying out the PSF's existing policies, the PSF is carrying ou their principles, rather than your derisive and inaccurate characterization of that as mere "optics."

> I am all for diversity, I am all for fairness,

If you were actually for those things, you'd be for what the PSF does! That's what they do! Instead you are supporting the oppression of those things with your comment.

> Yet, that is exactly what DEI did, and I have seen it firsthand many, many times.

Maybe I'm just exceptionally talented but as a white man I've never lost an opportunity because of DEI.

I was in Portland less than a month ago and had no problems. Sure, there was one time I crossed the street to avoid someone who was clearly homeless and mentally ill, but I never found myself feeling unsafe.

Unfortunately homelessness is something that can't be solved by one city or even one state. Feeding, housing, and getting them treatment is expensive and not something even the wealthier cities have the budget to do on their own. And the first major city that tries will have to deal with other places dropping more homeless people on their doorstep - that's one thing that both red and blue cities have been guilty of as you can read about at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...

> there was one time I crossed the street to avoid someone who was clearly homeless and mentally ill, but I never found myself feeling unsafe.

Seems a contradiction.

There's homeless and mentally ill people in all major cities. Or, at least, the ones that matter.

They're usually harmless, just troubled. You're not in much danger walking down the street; you're actually in much more danger driving down it.

In my experience, the largest predictor for how often you run into homeless people isn't city size, how much money the local police have, or how the residents vote, but how walkable the area is. Homeless people go where traffic is, foot traffic especially, because panhandling needs an audience.

There is a big difference between feeling uncomfortable and being in a genuinely unsafe situation, and the less you are used to seeing the homeless, the more out of touch with reality your gut feelings are.

You... want to bring in the US military to clean up some bums and garbage?

How much time do you spend in cities, generally?

Let's seriously ask ourselves here: even if we sit down and let ICE detain, say, 10k people (mind you, that's about 1.5% the population of Oregon, or 1 in 60 people): do you really think they are going to bother with the violent homeless person you complain about?

They aren't hitting gangs or any actually dangerous people, they are looking for weak targets. They aren't trying to clean up the streets, they are geting their rocks off playing GTA IRL.

The problematic part is usually the solution, not the assessment part of these regimes, politicians, ideologies. Are there issues in Portland? Certainly. Will Trump's actions lessen them actually? Highly doubtful.

Doubly doubtful for the following reason: these people need the problems to exist, so that they can write their narrative around them, and offer their "solutions" for them. Same as how cults target vulnerable people.

> I was just afraid or disgusted to walk on.

Sounds like a job for the Texas National Guard

X is much more fun now. I am not subjected to my own bubble, and I see opinions different from mine, which I often find irritating. Yet, given that I want to get out of the bubble and see opinions different from mine, X works wonders for me.

How do you get through all the Russian/CCP/Iranian $8 blue check propaganda bots and see any useful tweets? Twitter is only useful to me for checking on those people I actually follow. The firehouse is pure garbage, and yeah I did try to train it for a few days, I still only got garbage after Musk’s changes of promoting blue checks

I don't think there would be any guarantees, as it is a free product. So, it would be based on things like the availability of patches upstream (kernel.org), and how many people need the fix, as well as how much effort you are contributing to the fix (be it testing, willing to replicate the issue, etc...)

So to be certain, using these drivers in subsequent releases should be done with caution.

Are there any plans to add testing for these specific drivers/hardware?

If people donate hardware - probably yes. If people with such hardware would be willing to run tests, then probably yes. Otherwise - my guess would be no, no specific testing for such drivers would be made.

It is typical nonsense of a one-sided view of someone who wants to say: "My goal justifies any means." With all the typical justifications of such goals.