Rowan Thorpe

That makes sense too. I guess it’s a very difficult balance to hit, for all concerned. I think a lot of the famous outbursts that happen on LKML are probably an inevitable side-effect of that balancing-act, and of maintainers being stretched in multiple directions.

Yeah, maybe just a good steward quality-testing the Bus Factors?

For a powerful and resilient LaTeX experience, having used many editors and IDEs, I really feel nothing comes close to a properly configured Emacs with the right packages installed (there are various blogposts and walkthroughs online for that).

I long ago stopped getting caught up in “that discussion” about recent trends despite a stream of people lobbing leading questions to get the ball rolling. Because I also try to not do so more rudely than necessary, I have developed several diplomatically worded (or at least ambiguous enough to float opaquely off to the side of the offense spectrum) ways of essentially saying the following: The simplest and cheapest way of [A] learning the “computer science” end of software is by becoming proficient in Lisp, [B] learning the “engineering” end of software by becoming proficient in Forth, [C] learning how “busywork” is a dangerous and demoralising thing to confuse with “actual work” by maintaining some Java code, [D] learning how insidious and self-sabotaging “expert beginner syndrome” is by reading a lot of the relevent code-reviews and blogposts when maintaining Javascript & Python projects, [E] learning how mob-mentality and populism can lead to selective blindness and architectural stubbornness by working with large volumes of C & C++ code, [F] learning how it is all really abstraction-layers over something akin to an old-shool phone switchboard by working with Assembler, [G] learning how the only work with longevity is that which stands on the shoulders of giants by using Fortran libraries, [H] learning how the mere act of developing using languages with baked-in discipline can be inherently educational by using DbC/TDD/BDD/dependent-type/formally-verifying/etc based languages (SPARK-Ada, Haskell, Eiffel, ACL2, Rust, etc), and then [I] learning how - after a certain level of experience - the languages, frameworks, and tools become less important than the engineers’s mindset and the work that happens both before and after the fingers hit the keyboard…by finding semi-performant techniques for implementing masochistic things like a VM and a network stack in Bash script (as hobby tasks, not for real use). If they are coming from a more hands-on/hardware background I also recommend [J] how eye-opening it is to maintain your own customized LibreCMC image flashed onto an open router (the older/smaller the HW the better, because you have to be increasingly creative with your kernel & OS configs), and [K] how educational it is getting a RISC-V working on an FPGA. I top it off by saying that [L] despite coding on-and-off since my start with z80 assembler on an Amstrad in the mid-80s I still feel like a beginner with so much to learn, and [M] that fact is by far the part I love most about the field (not just field of “work” but of “mental endeavour”) - far more than status/seniority/raises. I find I don’t get bombarded so much with JS-framework-du-jour zealotry and expert-beginnerism after that.

Are we really supposed to believe it was a threatening show of force to cow the entire world into throwing away profits and using our currency?

I don’t think it was as much about “making an example of them” as it was about getting them back to accepting USD (and “recycling” those back into the US economy) ASAP. Installed Iraq administrations switched straight back to USD since the invasion.

I sympathise with your “TL;DR” feeling (why oh why do academics - including the extremely knowledgable ones - so often make their otherwise-valid points soooo long-winded and self-referential? …which is why I love the project started by Alan Alda - https://www.aldacenter.org/ by the way). In the author’s partial defence though the initial “note to readers” text is follow-up to responses and updates, before the guts of the essay which follows (I think he could have more clearly formatted those parts differently in coloured boxes or such, so people could easily/quickly see where the “the original content” starts),

Firstly I say persevere with the essay if you can bear it (even if you need to skim initial verbiage) - there are a lot of profound insights, especially considering it was written 20 years ago as events were happening, and it ultimately answers your questions comprehensively. However for some quicker on-ramps about its primary tenet I was able to find from a quick DDG-search of “petrodollar currency war” that the rest of the reporting world is slowly catching-up (in many cases only now, 20 years later). Some top-links I found from that search (which I mainly just skimmed the beginnings of for context, so don’t necessarily endorse entirely) are:

• https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/the-us-is-facing-a-major-challenge-as-petrodollar-loses-force-1032063614
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar_recycling
• https://followthemoney.com/americas-petrodollar-system-a-timeline-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-us-dollar/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-petrodollars-rearranged-the-world/2021/08/11/3474aee2-ca09-11eb-81b1-34796c7393af_story.html

The Wikipedia link about Petrodollar-recycling seems to have a nicely concise summary to answer your question:

How does it help or hurt the US if Iraq makes its the Euro or Dollar?

…and my very quickly typed (therefore far from accurate but hopefully high-level enough) answer would be something like this:

Following 1971 when the US forced termination of the Bretton Woods system (abandoned “gold-backed currency” for “fiat currency backed by smoke and mirrors”), by 1974 they became dangerously vulnerable due to over-spending on war (and some other endeavours) but found a quick-fix through petrodollar recycling (“buy loads of oil and the oil-producing country in-turn invests their profits heavily back into the US”). That was initially setup with Saudi Arabia but ended up being with all of OPEC, and because oil became the yardstick for international trade eventually the situation became such that the currency the world trades oil in became the de-facto “world trade” currency, and therefore the “international reserve currency”. This creates a scenario in which “the US going under would take much of the world under with it” (generalising and summarising very crudely). That of course incentivised much of the world to protect the USD (and therefore protect the US from itself) in myriad ways and seemingly incentivised the consequent US administrations to hubristically spend wild/reckless amounts (especially on war) feeling like they are immune to “Consequences [tm]”. The mantra was always “If you switch your reserve funds away from USD you will tank your country”, but over time the expanding Euro-spending block of countries were becoming as big (eventually bigger) oil-buyers than the US, and Iraq switching their reserve to Euro turned out not only to be non-problematic but even “very successful”. The US knew this would cause a chain-reaction of countries wanting to try the same switch to Euros (or at least be less phobic of considering it) so they needed it stomped out, while also finding other soundbite-friendly “reasons” for the stomping - screaming “look over here, look over here” so the mass-media would not notice the “petrodollar hegemony preservation” reason. WMDs was their gambit and it largely “worked” due to most people only listening to hot-button soundbites and retrofitting manufactured narratives to justify exceptionalism-fueled superficial knee-jerk responses. I think vanishingly few people would disagree with the fact that Hussein was a terrible, unforgivably criminal dictator, but not enough people asked “why are they suddenly only doing something about him now?”.

Regarding Iraq: Because he cynically played enforcer for a lot of very rich (AKA influential) people who were scared that the US petrodollar hegemony was about to be supplanted by the Euro once people did the maths on Hussein’s recent successful pivot to Euro as reserve currency https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html - notice how the puppet government that was then installed made it one of their first tasks to switch the country’s reserve back to USD. The ongoing currency war was and is the actual war behind the “war” (wars).

Regarding Afghanistan: Everyone knew there was just too much “fog of war” to build a slam-dunk case against him for it. At best it would have ended up being framed by media as hand-waving about “wrong country” or “not just that country”. I remember scratching my head wildly though when he was spouting his “with us or against us” and “bomb them back to the stone age” rhetoric (and going unilateral - with the help of his Blair poodle - when the UN disagreed). He raced straight past “un-presidential” on his way to “extremely childish” when conflating “surgically remove some known terrorists from their hiding places” with “go all scorched earth on the entire country where they might have last been hiding”. There might have been some chance of making a case for recklessness (similar to the distinction between “manslaughter” & “murder”) - on the part of a jumped-up cowboy-wannabe playing “war president”, all hubristically drunk on the power he effectively inherited from his dad. As mentioned in many of the other comments though the US would never “allow” the ICC to bring such a conviction (undermining what the ICC is for), and any legal attempt within the US would just trigger screams of “you’re not a patriot” and “too soon” (still).