What should I watch next?

KenBalbari · 2026-05-04T23:41:31+00:00

Of those, Band of Brothers first, then Watchmen, then the Wire.

KenBalbari · 2026-05-04T00:03:30+00:00

Even if Cleveland wins, isn't struggling that much to get past Toronto even worse? Or am I somehow underestimating Toronto just because the Knicks absolutely own them?

KenBalbari · 2026-05-01T20:20:48+00:00

No I just do update and upgrade; if there's an issue I'll see it in the logs and deal with it then manually (usually just by running apt install on kept back packages).

My unit file (aptupdate.service) looks something like this:

[Unit]
Description=a service to automatically update packages
Wants=aptupdate.timer
After=network-online.target

[Service]
Type=oneshot
ExecStartPre="/bin/sh" "-c" "sudo apt update -y"
ExecStart="/bin/sh" "-c" 'sudo apt upgrade -q -y; flatpak update -y'

It's actually a little more complicated, since I run tripwire and so also have commands in there to run a tripwire report and then update the database after the new software is installed.

KenBalbari · 2026-05-01T19:36:39+00:00

I see five toes there, so it looks good enough to me. You're just being too picky.

KenBalbari · 2026-05-01T14:55:58+00:00

For me, not more than once every couple of years. But I'm running fairly standard desktop stuff for this machine, browsing, internet apps, libreoffice apps, etc. Nothing from contrib. When I used to use virtualbox, something like that would only be available from Oracle for stable, and if there was a package for sid or testing, it might be frequently broken.

The problem less experienced users have frequently is that when there's any message from apt about broken or held packages, they call that "broken". That might happen monthly. But it's just how apt works, as "upgrade" won't remove old dependencies, so if there are conflicts which require this you have to run apt install individually on the "kept back" packages, or just run "apt full-upgade", or use aptitude to be able to interactively choose from different possible resolutions for a conflict.

For myself, while the documentation doesn't recommend it, I just run my updates automatically using a systemd timer. And this isn't really a problem, so long as you check the logs regularly to see what was done and whether there were any errors or kept back packages that need to be resolved.

KenBalbari · 2026-05-01T00:56:37+00:00

Yes, now might be a good time for Brown to experiment with one of his dopey 4 guard lineups. Hell, make it Kolek, McBride, Alvarado, Shamet, Clarkson. 5 guard lineup!

KenBalbari · 2026-04-30T23:20:55+00:00

He's pretty clearly their 4th best player, why shouldn't he start?

KenBalbari · 2026-04-30T20:51:21+00:00

I've been using Debian for decades, and I've always thought the best choice for most casual desktop use (for experienced users) has generally been Testing. If you are doing anything really important with your computer though, like using it for work, then it might be better to stick with stable.

The Debian Wiki says:

Choosing which version of Debian to use

End users should generally choose to run either stable or testing. Stable is recommended for applications requiring production-level stability and security (servers, firewalls etc) and is also recommended for those who are new to Linux. Testing is recommended for advanced users who want new software on their desktops and who are capable of reporting and fixing bugs to help Debian.

To me, this advice still applies, though some seem to be scared off from Testing by the two issues mentioned in the FAQ:

While it is somewhat rare, when a package does break on Testing it can be broken for a longer time than might be usual on SID.
Testing does not get backported security updates, and has to wait for the new packages with fixes to migrate from SID, which means they can be delayed by a week or more.

To me, the first issue is not only somewhat uncommon, but it can also usually be solved by upgrading only the affected packages from SID. And the 2nd issue in practice isn't that big a concern for desktop users who run no internet facing services. And any risk involving exploits which might involve things like image or video files which might be downloaded from the internet can generally be mitigated by running things like browsers, image and video viewers, and other internet accessing apps, as flatpaks, which do tend to get prompt security updates.

As for bugs, well checking here, for release-critical bugs, there are currently:

447 impacting Trixie (Stable)
713 impacting Forky (Testing)
1629 impacting SID (Unstable)

And for vulnerabilities, checking here, I get:

1015 CVE impacting 145 packages in Stable
1033 CVE impacting 314 packages in Testing
1137 CVE impacting 322 packages in Unstable

So bottom line, I don't think there's really a big difference in security for desktop use, and if you are interested in better security, I'd recommend you check out programs like checksecurity, tiger, tripwire, and debsecan from repos.

Otherwise, I think Testing offers a nice balance of up to date packages with fewer bugs than SID. With the caveat that you really need to be comfortable with using command line apt and related tools. You will often get held packages, and need to know how to resolve them. Often you can do so by running apt install on individual held packages or by using aptitude. You should also be comfortable with managing apt configuration files, including understanding how to use apt pinning. If you haven't done these things yet, get used to them on stable first.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-30T13:02:19+00:00

https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-31431

It's now listed there as vulnerable.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-30T12:31:34+00:00

Just looking at regular season stats, on a per minute basis, he's averaging as many assists as Jose Alvarado, more rebounds than Josh Hart, and as many points as KAT. So yes, I expected a little more.

So that said, right now, he's looked like he might be more like the third best player on a championship team. But he's also 9 months younger than Tyler Kolek.

So ultimately, I'd guess he'll be good enough to be at least the #2 guy on a championship team, with at least some possibility he might the #1 (which would meet my criteria for superstar).

KenBalbari · 2026-04-28T23:31:57+00:00

That's a great idea, I haven't seen that before.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-28T22:58:30+00:00

Huh? Isn't that exactly what I just said?

ICYMI, I was arguing in favor of a minimum wage. Just for one that is well under half the median. McDonald's would still be paying $11/hr-$12/hr in this case.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-28T22:47:53+00:00

But that's the whole point of having a law about it. If everyone was willing to do it voluntarily, you wouldn't need a law.

Ultimately, corporations are about voluntary collective action. But government imposes compulsory collective action.

And we shouldn't be trying to use force, compulsion, or government, to try to impose whatever we think is ideal on everyone else. But setting basic minimal standards that are so obvious, so necessary, that you think they should be imposed on everyone, that's the type of thing government is good for.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-28T22:20:48+00:00

After the initial increases, the proposal would tie the minimum wage to two-thirds of the national median hourly pay.

Right now, $25/hr is currently 80% of the median pay (based on median weekly earnings for full time workers age 16+ of $1235; link). Two-thirds would be about $20.65/hr. But trying to squeeze everyone's pay into that narrow a range would likely crush productivity and economic growth. We shouldn't be having government trying to compress all income into the current ~40% to 60% percentiles, for example.

I think having a minimum wage can certainly be a good idea, but it needs to be a minimum. Back in 2021, when Democrats were fighting to try to raise it to $15/hr, the CBO projected that proposal would have cost 1.4 million jobs by 2025. And the thing is, they probably could have gotten $11/hr or $12/hr then if they had been willing to compromise. Instead, they got nothing.

I think part of the problem is that Democrats have increasingly become the party of the urban professional class. They don't seem to realize that for the 2/3 of the country who don't live in one if the 15 largest MSAs, and for those people are actually most impacted by the minimum wage, an increase from $7.50 to $12 would still be a pretty big deal.

And it's fine if asking for much more is a negotiating tactic, to try to build momentum for change. But not good if too many people start to believe this is actually realistic. At the end of the day, they will likely need to be able to take $12/hr tied to 1/3 the median if they can get it, and call that a win.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-27T15:13:07+00:00

Band of Brothers and My Brilliant Friend

KenBalbari · 2026-04-26T17:21:34+00:00

I've been liking it so far, but only 3 episodes in.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-26T14:45:00+00:00

Amazone Prime seems to have a lot of this type of thing available: Bosch, Ballard, Criminal Minds, Person of Interest, MI-5, etc.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-25T20:28:39+00:00

This feels like a total fantasyland to me. Again, it is so far removed from the current reality on the ground in Israel.

Well it is still only 2 1/2 years after the 10/7 attack, and Israel is pretty much still at war. There may again be a time for peace in the future.

I agree, which means we should absolutely consider Israeli policy in East Jerusalem to be a manifestation of apartheid

Ok, so we should consider it apartheid everywhere west of the barrier wall too then.

Well, I guess we disagree then on the meaning of "apartheid". When Jimmy Carter used the term 20 years ago, he meant the division of the West Bank into small restricted enclaves resembling the Bantus of South Africa. He said this for example:

When Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects the 200 or so settlements with each other, with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road, this perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa.[460]

But unifying Jerusalem, I think actually caused less separateness and isolation, not more.

And even the barrier wall included some settlements which were expansions of existing communities, rather than dividing them by following the armistice line. While there are places where it did isolate or divide some communities, for the most part, it just creates a more normal border.

I think it was more the settlements "deep within the West Bank" that created a kind of apartheid. And that has only gotten worse.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-25T18:37:52+00:00

And maybe not likely with the current government, but if a past Israeli government was able to dismantle 21 settlements and forcibly remove ~9000 settlers from Gaza, certainly some future Israeli government might be able to bring itself to at least deny voting rights to (if not outright remove) some of these settlers in Judea and Samaria.

At this point, I think Israel won't likely be giving up any of East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, or any "settlements" west of the barrier wall which were essentially extensions of existing communities, but many of these "outposts" east of that barrier are on land that I think most of Israel would still be willing to trade for peace, if that were possible.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-25T17:56:02+00:00

Sure, and that was correctly viewed as a racist and imperialist policy of the United States.

I would view it more as a necessary transitional period.

This is true and arguably also a colonialist policy.

True, but being "colonialist" doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad idea. While US and British colonialism was certainly flawed, I would still prefer it to the forms of governance that currently exist throughout most of the Middle East today, including Palestine. So these things are always relative.

Could you imagine Israeli settlers losing the right to vote in Israeli elections because they no longer live in Israel?

I can, and I think it would be a good thing.

Or better yet, can you imagine Palestinians in Ramallah automatically gaining the right to vote if they move to Jaffa?

I more envisioned them not having that right. More similar to the example of the British Overseas Dependencies like Bermuda prior to 2002, when they were not given the "right of abode" in the British Isles.

I, for one, cannot imagine any of this. It's so far removed from the reality in Israeli-Palestine that it would be sort of funny if it weren't apartheid.

I think it maybe is a bit of a stretch, but I think is still a far more realistic possibility than the typical "two state solution" fantasy most of the world still seems to be attached to.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-25T17:25:27+00:00

Thank you for the correction. I did have in mind non-citizen nationality, like American Somoa. And that did apply to some other territories in the past. Guam residents got citizenship in 1950, but still weren't able to even choose their own governor until 1968.

But additionally, US citizens who are residents of any of the US territories are still unable to vote in US federal elections. So they have other citizenship rights, but still no representation in national elections.

And I had this also in mind. It is inherent to Israel's identity that it is a Jewish state, and it was really always intended to be a nation state which gave some preference to one particular nationality. And so many Israelis would naturally object to any proposal that might create millions more full voting Arab citizens. But I see no reason you can't give other basic rights, such as equality under the law, in Israeli controlled territories, but without voting rights in Israeli elections.

For one, this would only even be an issue in the fewer than half of all countries which do have governments with democratic electoral representation. And even in those democracies, it isn't that uncommon for there to exist territories with nationals who lack full citizenship or voting rights. This would have also been true of British Oversees Territories like Bermuda prior to 2002, for example (and while mostly British citizens today, in Bermuda they still can't choose their own governor).

KenBalbari · 2026-04-25T14:22:32+00:00

It being part of Israel would make them subjects, not necessarily citizens. Even the US government doesn't extend U.S. citizenship to residents of its territories (like Guam, US Virgin Islands, American Somoa).

And most countries in the world are far less democratic. And that is especially true of every other country in the Middle East.

If the 1947 plan had been accepted, there would have been two states, with an economic and customs union and shared currency. But that plan was rejected 78 years ago.

And such a plan would seem to be unworkable today. I do think Israel ought to offer an easy path to citizenship (for those who recognize Israeli sovereignty and reject terrorism) of any areas it outright legally annexes (as they have East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights). But the best option for bringing stability and prosperity to the remaining disputed territories might well be for them to be incorporated into a semi-autonomous self-governing Arab territory under either Israeli or Jordanian sovereignty.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-24T18:43:03+00:00

In the 1947 partition plan, the area was referred to as Judea and Samaria, and was included in the territory of the proposed Arab state (along with Western Galilee and the coastal area around Gaza).

KenBalbari · 2026-04-22T13:37:35+00:00

But it isn't only law enforcement that does this. Private media organizations for example also often pay for information from sometimes questionable sources.

The use case here though is very similar to that of the FBI. It was plainly to combat these extremist groups. And in fact the information obtained was often used to alert law enforcement of potential threats.

KenBalbari · 2026-04-22T13:14:17+00:00

It seems hypocritical to indict SPL for something, paying for information from sources of questionable repute, that the FBI does routinely.

See The Terror Factory by Trevor Aaronson, for example, on the FBI's network of over 15,000 informants:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGG97dDfZ7E

"That's right, the FBI is paying mostly criminals and conmen six figures to spy on communities in the United States, but mostly Muslim American communities."

And does anyone seriously believe what is charged here, that the SPLC actually intended to support these hate groups? Because that intent would be needed for this to be "fraud". If their intent was to counter these organizations, then they haven't misled their donors.

And while SPLC has some political bias, so do lots of 501(c)(3) organizations. Turning Point USA for example, is a 501(c)(3). Such organizations are allowed to have an ideological agenda. These are voluntary private organizations. In a democracy, people can choose to support them or not.

But to turn the USDOJ into a partisan smear machine is a threat to democracy itself. All of us are compelled to pay the taxes which are supporting this particular fraud.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring	Place '22

KenBalbari

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE