Tootfinder

Nordic countries are serious about emergency preparations. We should be too.
https://apnews.com/video/how-norwegians-are-preparing-for-emergencies-1fb35749bdfa4905be8caef5feabb5d2

How Norwegians are preparing for emergencies
Local authorities in Norway have dusted off Cold War-era bomb shelters, installed a new satellite communications system and are working with the military on plans to help a deployment of Western forces in case of conflict.

Researchers confirmed that 29 devices from Beyerdynamic, Bose, Sony, Marshall, Jabra, JBL, Jlab, EarisMax, MoerLabs, and Teufel are affected.
Bluetooth flaws could let hackers spy through your microphone
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/secu

Bluetooth flaws could let hackers spy through your microphone
Vulnerabilities affecting a Bluetooth chipset present in more than two dozen audio devices from ten vendors can be exploited for eavesdropping or stealing sensitive information.

So #Gentoo #Python eclasses are pretty modern, in the sense that they tend to follow the best practices and standards, and eventually deal with deprecations. Nevertheless, they have a long history and carry quite some historical burden, particularly regarding to naming.
The key point is that the eclasses were conceived as a replacement for the old eclasses: "distutils" and "python". Hence, much like we revision ebuilds, I've named the matching eclasses "distutils-r1" and "python-r1". For consistency, I've also used the "-r1" suffix for the remaining eclasses introduced at the time: "python-any-r1", "python-single-r1" and "python-utils-r1" — even though there were never "r0"s.
It didn't take long to realize my first mistake. I've made the multi-impl eclass effectively the "main" eclass, probably largely inspired by the previous Gentoo recommendations. However, in the end I've found out that for the most use cases (i.e. where "distutils-r1" is not involved), there is no real need for multi-impl, and it makes things much harder. So if I were naming them today, I would have named it "python-multi", to indicate the specific use case — and either avoid designating a default at all, or made "python-single" the default.
What aged even worse is the "distutils-r1" eclass. Admittedly, back when it was conceived, distutils was still largely a thing — and there were people (like me) who avoided unnecessary dependency on setuptools. Of course, nowadays it has been entirely devoured by setuptools, and with #PEP517 even "setuptools" wouldn't be a good name anymore. Nowadays, people are getting confused why they are supposed to use "distutils-r1" for, say, Hatchling.
Admittedly, this is something I could have done differently — PEP517 support was a major migration, and involved an explicit switch. Instead of adding DISTUTILS_USE_PEP517 (what a self-contradictory name) variable, I could have forked the eclass. Why didn't I do that? Because there used to be a lot of code shared between the two paths. Of course, over time they diverged more, and eventually I've dropped the legacy support — but the opportunity to rename was lost.
In fact, as a semi-related fact, I've recognized another design problem with the eclass earlier — I should have gone for two eclasses rather than one: a "python-phase" eclass with generic sub-phase support, and a "distutils" (or later "python-pep517") implementing default sub-phases for the common backends. And again, this is precisely how I could have solved the code reuse problem when I introduced PEP517 support.
But then, I didn't anticipate how the eclasses would end up looking like in the end — and I can't really predict what new challenges the Python ecosystem is going to bring us. And I think it's too late to rename or split stuff — too much busywork on everyone.

🇺🇦 #NowPlaying on KEXP's #Audioasis
Alien Boy:
🎵 Cold Air
#AlienBoy
https://alienboypdx.bandcamp.com/track/cold-air
https://open.spotify.com/track/33jKMBE1XGYDe9BOzHmkdJ

Take, for example, permissions. We have an onerous permission model that stops a user acting as another, but sandboxing applications is mostly absent, except on mobile devices. This is because in the 1970s, you could trust the code, but you couldn’t trust the people! Now, computers are used by individuals, and we don’t trust the software, but the model hasn’t caught up.
I think the ideas in the essays are salient and really helpful in imagining what might have been, and what could be.

“Just over 100 graduates in the USAFA Class of 2025 are commissioning directly into the US Space Force.”
Dr. Troy E. Meink, Secretary of the USAF

new blog post: RSS Converter for Mastofeed
#Mastodon

Weaponized Storytelling: How AI Is Helping Researchers Sniff Out Disinformation Campaigns (The Conversation, 28 May 2025)
https://theconversation.com/weaponized-storytelling-how-ai-is-helping-researchers-sniff-out-disinf…

Weaponized storytelling: How AI is helping researchers sniff out disinformation campaigns
Disinformation campaigns are using AI to tell false but compelling stories. AI tools are also helping counter the campaigns by detecting incongruities in usernames, cultural references and timelines.