Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

@dreiwert@chaos.social I have repeatedly complained over the years about the exclusionary characteristics of the ticketing process (not just in terms of scarcity), but at least an attempt was made there to find a workable solution, in the form of a replicating-voucher system.

That is not remotely comparable to "Congress without any attempt at safety precautions whatsoever". And this was never meant to guilt-trip attendees to begin with; it was meant to warn them about the very real dangers, and pressure the orga.

And no, I didn't "win". As I've stated further down the thread, I would have much rather seen an attempt to make it continue with the appropriate safety measures. This is barely a "win" in the sense that at least it's not going to be a superspreader event.

It's also extremely telling how many people seem to be much angrier about me causing a stink, than about the prospect of vulnerable/disabled folks being excluded.

@KAOS@dragonscave.space Also more generally, communication from orga was really lacking here IMO:
- When could we expect a decision?
- How are vulnerable people included in the decisionmaking around COVID safety?
- Will the decision even be public *before* ticket sales start, so that those who need to be more careful don't miss out on a (scarce) ticket?

None of those questions seemed to be answered, and that led to a situation where everybody is in the dark, and so when evidence appears that safety measures are not being considered, then that pretty much leaves this sort of thread as the only remaining option to try and ensure sufficient safety... especially considering how vulnerable folks have been passed by in so many other situations already

Also, something I want to clarify: my criticism isn't and never was towards those in orga who were trying to keep the event safe for everybody. I recognize that some of those involved in the orga will have tried their best. My criticisms were specifically about those who didn't.

@KAOS@dragonscave.space As far as I could tell, it was widely believed in all sorts of hacker circles that Congress *would* take place by default, and that a cancellation would be an anomaly rather than a 50/50 chance. And this is also what the orga communication implied: https://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2022/37-chaos-communication-congress-in-hamburg

Update: it's just been announced that (centralized) Congress will be cancelled this year: https://ccc.de/en/updates/2022/no-congress-2022

Mixed feelings; I would have liked to see it continue with safety measures, but this is certainly better than continuing it with *no* measures.

The alternative suggested in the post (smaller local events) is probably a good one; the overall risk should be much lower there. I'm also more optimistic about Camp; with it being outdoors (= lots of natural ventilation), it would be much easier to limit the spread.

From what I'm hearing, the plan is to organize this year's Chaos Communication Congress in an absolutely packed venue with *zero* COVID measures because the orga doesn't care about even *trying* to find workable solutions.

This would be grossly irresponsible and unacceptable. And as usual, vulnerable people are being thrown under the bus.

"Being inclusive is good, sure, buuuut maybe vulnerable people just shouldn't come for a few years."

This is not good enough. Fix this. There are *so many* possible solutions, see eg. the MCH2022 measures.

Encourage people to self-test, and provide free self-tests for those who cannot afford it. They're cheap in bulk now.

Tell people to wear a mask, even if you can't 100% rigidly enforce it. Public health measures are not all-or-nothing, it doesn't *have* to be perfect.

CCC folks speak loudly about inclusivity, but that requires actions, not just words. Pretending that COVID doesn't exist is ableist and needlessly harmful.

If the Congress orga go through with this, I will not go to #37c3, and neither should you.

I think we all know how widespread hacker pest is every Congress, so you're almost *guaranteed* to be exposed to COVID at #37c3, with all the consequences that that entails - including serious risk of chronic disability and, y'know, *your brain* not working right anymore.

And yes, this is information from the grapevine, but this needs to be talked about *now*, before things are set in stone and the only response we'll get is "sorry, it's already decided". I'm sure that the orga will be able to issue a clarification if the policy changes.

Wrote a little library that can be used to do relational queries on linearly-ingested larger-than-RAM datasets, demonstrated here on the (tiny) GTFS sample data feed: https://gist.github.com/joepie91/a1b702e693202653f0d94483e844dd43?ts=4

@malin@linuxrocks.online Yes; though it'd require some browser-side JS to update the page contents as the number of people is adjusted.

There are some approaches that come to mind:
1. Insert the ingredient data as structured JSON somewhere into the page (eg. in an embedded <script> tag) and re-generate the page contents every time the amount of people is adjusted, this requires some form of templating (eg. with React)
2. Use specially-tagged tags like so: "Add <span data-amount='2'>2</span> teaspoons of sugar" and upon the number of people being changed, have a bit of code that finds all the `data-amount`-having tags in the page, takes the value from the attribute, multiplies it, and puts the result as the new *contents* of that tag.

Option 1 is probably better if you want to expand the site over time with more (dynamic) functionality like optional ingredients, option 2 is probably better for a "quick and dirty" implementation if this is all the dynamic stuff you'll need.