AuthorizedCust

TBL’s vision is the starting point, not a straitjacket.

The relevant text from the article, (the rest of this comment is a direct quote from the article):

So, if you want your installation of macOS 15.0 to pass the UNIX® 03 certification test suites, you need to disable System Integrity Protection, enable the root account, enable core file generation, disable timeout coalescing, mount any APFS partitions with the strictatime option, format your APFS partitions case-sensitive (by default, APFS is case-insensitive, so you’ll need to reinstall), disable Spotlight, copy the binaries uucp, uuname, uustat, and uux from /usr/bin to /usr/local/bin and the binaries uucico and uuxqt from /usr/sbin to /usr/local/bin, set the setuid bit on all of these binaries, add /usr/local/bin to your PATH before /usr/bin and /usr/sbin, enable the uucp service, and handle the mystery issues listed in the four Temporary Waivers.

Then, and only then, is your macOS 15.0 actually UNIX® 03-certified.

This is batshit insane. I can guarantee you with 100% certainly not a single macOS installation in the entire history of macOS – let alone when just counting macOS 15.0 – has implemented even half of these changes. I’m sure there is a small number of people who have System Integrity Protection disabled permanently, and an even smaller number of people who have enabled the root account, and an even smaller number of people who have done both of those things – but that’s it. All the other changes are far too obscure and specific to be of any use to anyone.

Not applicable for me. I have GMail send emails from [email protected] using the SMTP service of the web hosting company I manage that account through. I am not using GMail's own SMTP servers handle sends.

It's all on the up and up.

VOLUNTARILY follow. That part’s crucial.

Your manager isn’t a leader simply by nature of being a manager because your followership isn’t voluntary.

And there’s other crucial parts of leadership, mainly having a vision and motivating people to that vision.

Leadership is a mutual influence process that happens outside formal authority. It’s not a corporate title or rung on a ladder. If one is a leader, that’s a status informally conveyed by the leader’s voluntary followers.

Tell your neighbors, friends, and government bureaucrats about the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

Let me know how that goes.

In other settings, I say that the national organization has neglected the programs and the culture for 75 years.

You are confirming the statement. They are both badly neglected.

More important context are current BSA youth and incoming generations of BSA Scout parents.

To them, SA = sexual assault.

I am a human, and I wrote that.

I wrote that piece, and I am human. BTW, AI checkers are garbage. Even though your stat is heavily in my favor, I urge you not to use that stuff.

It is not rage bait. It's good-faith commentary on how a movement has become lost.

I wrote this. I am a human.

I am confident you invested greatly in the program in good faith.

It's hard to learn of problems with something we deeply invested in. I've been there. It took me years to work through this struggle and come to these positions.

But I find there's an excellent case that BSA can do much better. And it must, or it's going to collapse within 10 years.

The good thing is "do better" is right in front of us. It means catching up with international peers, adopting lessons learned from and norms in our own society, and eliminating irrational deviations from longstanding notions of what Scouting is.

This is all great, and it's even better when it's done in the context of properly age-banded programs.

Many times, the high schooler wants to do different things than the 6th grader. And even when they do the same activity, approaches will be different.

All age bands deserve age-level programming.

Today's reality is that 90% of BSA's high schoolers are stuck in its middle-school program. They aren't getting age-level programming.

BSA has never strongly denied this. Instead, it acts as if handing the reins of its middle-school program to high schoolers constitutes age-level programming for high schoolers. It does not.

It even further muddies the water, recommending mixed-age patrols. Yes, for real, your freshly crossed-over 10 year old is supposed to be in the same patrol as a 17 yo high-school senior. That is weird. But BSA thinks it's appropriate.

To be clear, I think cross-age-band interactions can have value, but they must be optional, and they must never displace age-level programming. I have separately proposed a new position called Guide. It is a position of responsibility where any youth may elect to help with any younger program. This is a service role, not supervision, not displacing younger youth from owning their program. This replaces Den Chief, Instructor, Junior Asst. Scoutmaster, and Troop Guide.

But importantly, and to reemphasize, Guide must be OPTIONAL. Scouting in no way depends on cross-age-band interactions. They are a value add when they work well. But the BSA view on these interactions resembles a fetish and lacks a rational basis.