You declaring a debt isn't meaningful because you don't have legal authority to do so.

A licence statement is describing in what way you're granting permission for something you do have the right to control, which makes it meaningful

Nah, we're alright. I don't think anyone has clearly defined the requirements of earth citizenship, we can assume it's like Ireland who hand it out like candy

No it wouldn't. Whoever touched it last is responsible for it, that's entirely consistent with the metaphore

I'm pretty sure it means exactly what it says, but you lot are all misreading it.

I interpret it as "all rights, except the right to commit, are reserved" (which doesn't mean you surrender the right to commit, but rather that it's the only right you aren't depriving everyone else of)

You're mostly correct, but hilariously even all that wouldn't be good enough because water behaves differently at different scales. Surface tension would dominate in a miniature model, and the water would be trying to stick to everything in a way which oceans simply don't do

In principle they could have pulled out slightly, if there's jostling and tiny movements in skull then you'd expect them to work loose over time if they're not securely anchored

Well it's definitely alive, that's not a terribly high bar (plants and sponges qualify, after all).

The ethics question is whether it's a person yet (or should be treated like one)

He's the foreign secretary. I'm pretty sure that makes him the person who's permission they'd need, unless the prime minister immediately overrules him

GNU Terry Pratchet

The Artemis 1 launch was also staggeringly expensive, and yet to be repeated.

In the time it's taken to develop that rocket, SpaceX has gone from it's very first real flight (by which I mean actually achieving something, rather than a pure test flight) to launching far more every year than the entire rest of the world combined. Note that by that definition, Artemis hasn't had a single "real" flight yet.

The default is as long as it is because most people value not losing data, or avoiding corruption, or generally preserving the proper functioning of software on their machine, over 90 seconds during which they could simply walk away.

Especially when those 90 seconds only even come up when something isn't right.

If you feel that strongly that you'd rather let something malfunction, then you're entirely at liberty to change the configuration. You don't have to accept the design decisions of the package maintainers if you really want to do something differently.

Also, if you're that set against investigating why your system isn't behaving the way you expect, then what the hell are you doing running arch? Half the point of that distro is that you get the bleeding edge of everything, and you're expected to maintain your own damn system

The question you should be asking is what's wrong with that job which is causing it to run for long enough that the timeout has to kill it.

Systemd isn't the problem here, all it's doing is making it easy to find out what process is slowing down your shutdown, and making sure it doesn't stall forever