You don't have to refer to German grammar since the English grammar in this case contains all necessary ingredients; there is inflection depending on the case:
You don't say "You give I the apple.", but "You give me the apple." (similar for he, she, we, they), i.e. the pronoun is inflected depending on whether it is subject or object, so English speakers are perfectly aware on the difference between subject and object.
When you refer to the subject, you use "who" and when you refer to the object, you use "whom".
The C3's attendees are quite knowledgable in computing topics, so there is no need to bring coals to Newcastle.
The CCC is a German organization. In Germany, the general public already is quite skepctical of tablets in classrooms, so there is not such a necessity to inform the general public of something many people already think.
While there exist initiatives to use tablets in school in Germany (see for example [1]), these (in my opinion misguided) initiatives rather typically fail for financial reasons and because most teachers simply are incapable of using the technology. And, of course, tablets fail all the time.
So, in other countries this may be an important problem, but in Germany, any initiative for tablets in school already fails by the mere incompetence and the mills of bureacracy, so this is rather a potential topic for hacker conventions in other countries.
> Do you think KiwiFarms deserved to be banned from Cloudflare and all its other former service providers?
I do believe that providers of such services such as cloud, internet, ... have to stay neutral on such purposes under nearly all circumstances. If the team behind KiwiFarms did something illegal, this is a problem for the judicial system.
> HN uses "hacker" as in "the people who do the work that makes Y Combinator rich" rather than "someone who plays with technology"
I do believe that originally Y Combinator indeed did celebrate the people who play with technology, but I guess over the many years the focus has shifted.
> And it is not that inaccessible to non-US citizens. Sure, the current administration is not very welcoming, but it is easier than, say, Russia (where a lot of hackers also live) if you want to attract an international audience.
I would say that with the current US administration, it is similar hard to get to the USA as to Russia.
The difference rather is that in Europe's hacker scene there exist quite some people who, if they stated their opinions openly, would get in much worse trouble if they stated their opinion in Russia than in the USA (because in the USA these opinions are currently "more acceptable"). On the other hand, for Russian hackers likely the reverse holds: I can easily imagine that quite a lot of Russian hackers, if they stated their opinions in the USA, would attract quite a lot of trouble.
Just to be clear: I consider it to be quite plausible that in 5 years, the situation might be similarly bad in the USA as it is today in Russia.
> For a hacker conference, they also are pretty Luddite against new technologies like AI.
Hacking was always against centralization and central control (and towards decentralization) - which is why any lecture celebrating the bigtech AI companies would strongly be against the whole culture.
While for various reasons AI is a controversial topic, I would say that if someone gave a great talk about how to decentrally train some AI model efficiently as some volunteer computing project, this would be perfectly fitting for the C3.
> Surveillance was the political topic of 2020, so there was quite a few talks about that, migration is the political topic 2025, so there are a lot of talks about that
There is one important difference: surveillance is a deeply computer-/hacking-related topics while migration isn't.
So I would say a talk about surveillance (as long as it is relevant for hacking topics) typically has its place while it is much harder to find a reason why a talk about migration has relevance for a hacking conference.
Surveillance has relevance to core CCC/hacking topics (privacy is a central topic against which hackers fight), so I can understand why the organisers decided to include this talk in the schedule: they considered it to be a good idea that the audience should also get a "non-computer perspective" on a topic that is highly relevant to hackers.
But I agree that for the decision to include or not include this specific talk, the organisers have to apply an exceptionally good judgement: if they make a "wrong" decision here, people will immediately (rightfully) complain that the talks are too political (or if they "wronged" by non-inclusion of this talk, the other side will complain that important topics are omitted).
I get your arguments. In my opinion the core of the problem is that a lot of the "political" taks are about political topics that are outside the core of the kind of politics (?) that are related to hacking. These talks are what people are complaining about as "too much politics".
That's fine but technology doesn't exist in a vacuum, you can't talk about (for example) facial recognition technology without mentioning the social groups it affects the most or is used against. Same for plenty of others topics directly or indirectly related to hacking and computers.
If you look at the history of the CCC, they also don't see a line between technical freedom and social freedom, because you can't have a free internet in an unfree society.
The 'outside' topics you mention are often just the hackers' way of applying their methodology to the world beyond the screen. Society is a larger system with its own bugs and exploits that inevitably affect the computers you use and the code that run them, and hackers like to apply their methodology to analyze that to understand the consequences.
Moreover, if you actually want meritocracy, you have to address the social barriers that keep people out of the room, and you can't do that without addressing the outside world.
You don't say "You give I the apple.", but "You give me the apple." (similar for he, she, we, they), i.e. the pronoun is inflected depending on whether it is subject or object, so English speakers are perfectly aware on the difference between subject and object.
When you refer to the subject, you use "who" and when you refer to the object, you use "whom".
reply