Reuters documented at least 600 previously unreported workplace injuries at Musk’s rocket company: crushed limbs, amputations, electrocutions, head and eye wounds and one death. SpaceX employees say they’re paying the price for the billionaire’s push to colonize space at breakneck speed.

Through interviews and government records, Reuters documented at least 600 injuries of SpaceX workers since 2014. Many were serious or disabling. The records included reports of more than 100 workers suffering cuts or lacerations, 29 with broken bones or dislocations, 17 whose hands or fingers were “crushed,” and nine with head injuries, including one skull fracture, four concussions and one traumatic brain injury. The cases also included five burns, five electrocutions, eight accidents that led to amputations, 12 injuries involving multiple unspecified body parts, and seven workers with eye injuries.

SpaceX, founded by Musk more than two decades ago, takes the stance that workers are responsible for protecting themselves, according to more than a dozen current and former employees, including a former senior executive.

Musk himself at times appeared cavalier about safety on visits to SpaceX sites: Four employees said he sometimes played with a novelty flamethrower and discouraged workers from wearing safety yellow because he dislikes bright colors.

I wonder what "limited lifetime warranty" means.

I've been issued a work laptop with Windows 11, running the Sophos Endpoint Agent, which monitors all web traffic and processes running on the PC and blocks malicious stuff.
If I install a Linux VM on it and access the web from inside it, will the Endpoint Agent see what I'm doing and be able to block access the same way as it does on the host?

I guess what I'm asking is, how does accessing a website from inside a VM work, actually? Does all the traffic get routed through the host OS unencrypted?

The purpose isn't to try to circumvent any security measures or go over the heads of the IT department, but rather to find out if I can make a case for using my favorite OS on this thing without compromising security.

shared from: https://feddit.org/post/1848262

I like the Slackware approach of installing the kitchen sink by default. Disk space is cheap.
But I find that the cluttering of the menus in KDE is a bit annoying. I use search to start my applications, and a lot of the time I have to type almost the full program name to get to the app I actually use.
What's the easiest way to hide a large number of programs from the menus, which is also easily reversible?

My first idea was renaming the .desktop files in /usr/share/applications to .hidden
But they seem to be recreated automatically.

Another idea was to copy .desktop files from /usr/share/applications to ~/.local/share/applications and then do:
printf "\nHidden=True" | tee -a ~/.local/share/applications/*.desktop

But I tried to add this manually with one test file and it didn't seem to have any effect.
Is there a config file somewhere that specifies in which paths .desktop files are parsed?

Or is there a better way?

Thanks a lot, and happy slacking!

[Solved] Slackware comes with kmenuedit which can be accessed by right-clicking the app menu.

Blog post alert

Let me start off by saying: If you just want to have a working system to do your thing with minimal effort, Slackware isn't for you (anymore).

Running Slackware today is like being gifted a Ford Model T by a weird, bearded museum curator, and then finding out that after some minor modifications and learning how to drive it, you can keep up with any modern car on the road. Only it has no ABS, AC, power steering, starter motor, crumple zones, airbags or seatbelts.

Most people who still run it (by any realistic estimate, fewer than 10000 people in the world now) have been running it since the 90's and follow the advice not to change a running system to the letter. So why should anyone who hasn't studied CompSci in Berkeley in the 90's try it today?

First of all, the most widely known criticism (it has no dependency resolution) is a bit of a misunderstanding. Slackware is different. The recommended installation method is a full installation, which means you install everything in the repository up front. That way, all dependencies are already resolved. And you have a system you can use equally well on a desktop or server. It uses 20GB but disk space is essentially free now.

What if you need something that isn't in the repo? Well, do whatever the fuck you want. Use Slackbuilds, which aren't officially supported but endorsed by Slackware's dev. Use Sbopkg, a helper script with dependency resolution very much like Arch's AUR helpers. Use the repos of sister distros like SalixOS that include dependency resolution. Install RPM packages. Install Flatpaks. Unpack tarballs wherever you want them. Go the old school way of compiling from source and administering your own system yourself. Slackware doesn't get in the way of whatever you want to do, cause there's nothing there to get in the way.

It's the most KISS distro that exists. It's the most stable one, too. Any distro-specific knowledge you acquire will stay valid for decades cause the distro hardly ever changes. It's also the closest to "Vanilla Linux" you can get. Cause there really isn't anything there except for patched, stable upstream software and a couple of bash scripts.

Just be mindful of the fact that Slackware is different (because the Linux ecosystem as a whole has moved on from its roots).
One example:
Up-to-date Slackware documentation isn't on Google, it's in text files written by the guy who maintained the distro for 31 years, which come preinstalled with your system. Or on linuxquestions.org, where the same guy posts, asks for input from users, and answers questions regularly.

It's still a competent system, if you have the time and inclination to make it work. And it's a blast from the past, where computing was about collaborating with like-minded freaks on a personal level. And I love that.