So the queen is dead, and Twitter went berserk with all sorts of tweets. Some of the anti-colonialism ones were a little tasteless …
“Chief monarch”? Have we got additional monarchs scurrying around? Not that I’ve ever heard of.
Even if the queen was responsible for the crimes of the British Empire, wishing she would die in excruciating pain is tasteless in the extreme. After all, we didn’t torture Hitler’s henchpersons to death – they got a quick hanging.
And blaming the queen for all the evils of the British Empire shows a remarkable lack of knowledge about how power in Britain works. After all real power has been delegated to parliament, and has been since Charles II (in 1660 so it’s been a while).
Sure some earlier monarchs were involved in the slave trade and were directly responsible for the establishment of certain colonies. But the last monarch with that kind of power was Charles I who was demoted with an ax.
Blame the governments of the time, or the relevant person in charge of the atrocities.
Now I’m no die-hard monarchist – I certainly lean in the direction of republicanism, although I’m of the opinion that there are bigger political problems to solve first. And I don’t have a problem with republicans campaigning honestly and with legitimate issues.
Although expecting change on a monarch change is a bit unrealistic – the next in line becomes the new monarch immediately upon the death of the old one. Whilst parliament determines the rules of succession; once in place as law, the succession takes place automatically. All the ceremonies that take place are merely confirmation.
No the ones I’m irritated with are those who exaggerate the power of the monarchy to make their point. Almost all of the power of a monarch is wielded by parliament itself (with the exception of the King’s Consent which needs to go). These are either ignorant or are being dishonest.
The fact is that the undemocratic nature of our current electoral system is a far bigger problem that which puppet we stick a crown on.
I was following one of those Twitter threads posting their favourite command-line tools (specifically for infosec), and added my own entry – the incomparable tshark. Later it occurred to me that the best command-line tool isn’t really a tool at all as it is built into the shell – the pipe. Many of the command-line tools just wouldn’t be quite the same without it.
For those who aren’t familiar with the command-line, the pipe (“|”) takes the output of one command and feeds it as input to another command. And you can string such pipelines together to add to each other (which can lead to inefficiencies).
For example :-
» ls | wc -l
This takes the usual command for listing files and sends the output into the “word count” command to produce a count of the number of files in the current directory. To be more precise, it produces a count of the number of files that ls thinks is in the directory. You can get different results with different variations :-
» echo * | wc -w
» ls -a | wc -l
If you had a log file containing DHCP requests you could :-
» grep DHCPDISCOVER 2022.07.local0.info.log | head
2022-06-30T23:59:05+00:00 <local0.info> 2001:db8:bad:cafe::b/d-FCB dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 4D:6D:4F:55:59:B4 (esp32-D04CCC) via 10.72.0.1
2022-07-01T01:30:04+00:00 <local0.info> 2001:db8:bad:cafe::b/d-FCB dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 4D:6D:4F:55:59:B4 (esp32-D04CCC) via 10.72.0.1
2022-07-01T02:53:33+00:00 <local0.info> 2001:db8:bad:cafe::b/d-FCB dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from DF:69:AF:DC:79:3E via eth0
2022-07-01T02:53:33+00:00 <local0.info> 2001:db8:bad:cafe::b/d-FCB dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from DF:69:AF:DC:79:3E via 10.0.0.1
2022-07-01T02:53:39+00:00 <local0.info> 2001:db8:bad:cafe::b/d-FCB dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from a8:a6:48:92:9d:36 via eth0
2022-07-01T03:01:03+00:00 <local0.info> 2001:db8:bad:cafe::b/d-FCB dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 4D:6D:4F:55:59:B4 (esp32-D04CCC) via 10.72.0.1
2022-07-01T04:32:02+00:00 <local0.info> 2001:db8:bad:cafe::b/d-FCB dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 4D:6D:4F:55:59:B4 (esp32-D04CCC) via 10.72.0.1
2022-07-01T04:56:53+00:00 <local0.info> 2001:db8:bad:cafe::b/d-FCB dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 91:06:27:15:EF:DC via 10.72.0.1
2022-07-01T06:03:01+00:00 <local0.info> 2001:db8:bad:cafe::b/d-FCB dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 4D:6D:4F:55:59:B4 (esp32-D04CCC) via 10.72.0.1
2022-07-01T07:34:00+00:00 <local0.info> 2001:db8:bad:cafe::b/d-FCB dhcpd: DHCPDISCOVER from 4D:6D:4F:55:59:B4 (esp32-D04CCC) via 10.72.0.1
List out the first few DHCP DISCOVER requests (the astute may notice that I’ve done some obfuscating). We can then pick out a field using awk to list just the MAC addresses :-
A certain bunch of … let’s call them idiots to be relatively polite … have been spewing forth idiocy in the online comments of various places labelling the heatwave warnings as “scare-mongering”. Mentioning the summer of 1976 and saying we all coped.
The heatwave of 1976 although it went on for longer, didn’t get as hot (36C was nearly reached). That’s 4C below this year’s heatwave peak. And people died during that heatwave too – there was a 20% increase in “excess deaths”.
So no we didn’t cope in the 1976 heatwave; at least not those of us who died.
A lot of criticism was aimed at the Met Office for the heat warnings, and mainstream media channels for repeating the warnings so endlessly. “Oh! We see such temperatures every year on holiday” the numb-brained drawl. No, you don’t; at least not often.
And when you do, it’s when you’re sleeping in air-conditioned hotel rooms beside a pool, with plenty of shade around. You aren’t stuck in offices with no air-conditioning, even hotter work-places (such as kitchens), or outside in the sun (nailing tiles to a roof). You’re not sleeping in a bedroom with the choice of leaving the windows shut (and building up heat), or opening them to let hot air (and noise) in.
When experts issue warnings, it is wise to pay attention to them. Whilst I understand an instinctive distrust of authority (I share it), subject specialists should be trusted – not blindly but (for example) when the Met Office issues heat warnings, it isn’t just one expert thinking it. If you want to question an expert, get as much education as they’ve had.
In short :-
That heatwave was dangerously high and justified the number of warnings issued.
It isn’t natural and was made more severe by climate change.
Being that guy who claims that we’re all snowflakes for being concerned about it just shows that you’re an idiot.
Not all shell aliases of course, but some. I’ve just seen a youtube video that suggested creating a shell alias to run rmtrash when rm is invoked :-
Seems sensible enough doesn’t it? This is in fact the classic example of how dangerous shell aliases can be, although the classic example was to turn on “-i” :-
alias rm='rm -i'
The problem is that you get used to “rm” being safe – either it asks before it removes files (“-i”) or it safely preserves what is deleted in the Trash folder. But what happens when the alias doesn’t get created? Perhaps you have a broken .zshrc and Zsh stops interpreting before the alias is declared. Or you’ve logged on to a remote server that doesn’t have your .zshrc installed as yet?
All of a sudden you are running the unadulterated rm command – deleting files without being asked, or preserving them in the Trash folder. See the danger now?
It is better not to replace standard commands but create a new ‘command’ :-
Perhaps you regard this as being excessively risk averse – fair enough. But just don’t say you weren’t warned – and I’ve encountered missing aliases every year over the last 30-odd years I’ve been using Linux and Unix.
The supposed resignation of Boris Johnson comes as a bit of a surprise to many observers – they felt that he wasn’t going to go voluntarily. But with an all time record of ministers resigning from his government, to the point where government business had to be suspended, there wasn’t much in the way of choice.
The funny thing is the number of misconceptions floating around about his resignation. I’m no constitutional lawyer (although I do at least know that the UK does in fact have a written constitution), but here’s some corrections :-
He hasn’t resigned as the UK’s Prime Minister, or we would have a new one by now – the House of Commons would nominate and the Queen would appoint. This is distinct from his place as the leader of the Tory party.
He may have resigned as leader of the Tory party, or potentially indicated his intention to resign once a new leader has been nominated and elected. In theory, he could simply refuse to stand down as Prime Minister – his position as PM is not directly contingent on his being the leader of the Tory party.
The House of Commons could have a confidence motion to force the resignation of the PM or the dissolution of parliament forcing a general election. That hasn’t happened so far but may happen next week. In normal circumstances there is no chance of a government with a majority of MPs would lose such a motion, but these aren’t ordinary circumstances. And Tory MPs may feel that removing a rogue PM is more important than the risk to their seats in an early general election; certainly you could expect them to vote in the interests of their country. Although if Tories really are self-centred sociopaths who are more interested in covering their arses than the good of the country then such a motion of no confidence will fail.
All the noise about the 1922 Committee is about the Tory party and selecting its leader – it has nothing to do with the government.
In all likelihood, Johnson will remain the PM whilst the Tories select a new leader – quite possibly sooner than the autumn even though Johnson is hoping for autumn. And the new leader will be worse than Johnson – Johnson is a lazy fool and his replacement will want to make their mark.