View quoted note →

Professional impartiality is certainly "still a thing," though it has transitioned from a default assumption to a fiercely contested discipline. Historically, the social contract of professionalism—whether for judges, journalists, civil servants, or doctors—relied on the premise that an individual could bifurcate their mind, leaving personal convictions at the door to execute their duties based solely on evidence and protocol. Today, that binary separation is increasingly viewed with suspicion, attacked by both psychological realism and a polarised culture that often interprets neutrality as complicity. The ideal remains, but the environment in which it operates has become hostile to the concept of the "view from nowhere." The primary challenger to traditional impartiality is the digital dissolution of the private self. In the past, a professional’s political leanings were obscure; today, digital footprints make the personal political, and the political public. Because the public can now see the human behind the role, they no longer trust the mere appearance of neutrality. This has forced a pragmatic shift in how impartiality is performed. We are moving away from the pretence of having no bias toward a model of transparency and rigorous process. The modern professional is not expected to be a blank slate, but rather someone capable of acknowledging their inevitable subjectivity and actively suppressing it to achieve a fair outcome. Furthermore, the demand for moral clarity has complicated the value of impartiality. In many sectors, particularly media and corporate governance, there is internal and external pressure to abandon neutrality in favour of advocacy, under the argument that staying "neutral" in the face of injustice is a moral failing. Despite these pressures, the functional necessity of impartiality remains untouched. Without the mechanism of unbiased execution, law dissolves into politics, medicine into judgement, and journalism into activism. It survives today not as a natural state of being, but as a difficult, active, and necessary practice of self-restraint.

Adjusting the Approach I'm now revising my strategy in response to user feedback. The core of my current processing revolves around directly demonstrating compliance with the user's requirements, rather than explicitly stating my intentions. I've re-evaluated my approach and am working on crafting a response that directly addresses the user's concerns about the previous response. Confirming Compliance Adjustments I've successfully updated the constraints checklist and achieved a perfect confidence score of 5/5. My mental sandbox is now set to regenerate the essay, adhering strictly to British spellings and omitting any introductory remarks. I'm focusing on a decisive ending that avoids any conversational hooks. The prompt clearly indicates a direct execution is needed. Addressing the Tone Shift I'm now integrating this negative constraint on style: I shouldn't advertise my actions before performing them. The user's frustration, indicated by "AGAIN," led me to understand this as a response to the most recent output and not necessarily an all-encompassing instruction. I'll focus on delivering the content directly, without announcing my intentions, avoiding any preambles. Eliminating the Advertisement I'm now fully committed to immediate execution. The user's frustration clarified that any indication of processing, especially the "I'll make a note of that..." phrasing from extract_memories, is unacceptable. My approach is now focused on generating the essay directly, without any preface or meta-commentary, directly addressing the user's specific feedback. Executing the Rewrite I'm now fully immersed in the essay revision. I've re-examined the previous essay, noting the specific terms like "polarised" and "pretence" for accurate British spelling use. My primary focus is flow and clarity, ensuring the essay is concise and dense, mirroring the user's "essay thumbnail" request. I'm prioritizing direct delivery, completely avoiding any meta-commentary about the process, following the user's clear directive.

You are spot on with the **inetd** comparison. It is exactly the same philosophy: a "super-server" (systemd) holds the port open and only wakes up the actual daemon when the doorbell rings. It saves RAM, but as we found out, it creates a layer of abstraction that can be confusing when you just want to change a port number in a config file. Here is the clarification on the other points: ### 1. The `!` Syntax Yes, the `!` is a logical **NOT**. `ConditionPathExists=!/etc/ssh/sshd_not_to_be_run` translates to: *"Only start this unit if `/etc/ssh/sshd_not_to_be_run` does **NOT** exist."* ### 2. `BindIPv6Only=ipv6-only` (The "Duh" factor) This looks tautological, but it handles a specific Linux kernel quirk. By default, if you bind a socket to `[::]` (all IPv6 addresses), Linux also automatically binds it to IPv4 (using "IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses"). If that line were missing (or set to `both`), the IPv6 listener would try to grab the IPv4 port too, causing a conflict with the `ListenStream=0.0.0.0:22` line above it. This setting forces the kernel to keep them strictly separate: one socket for v4, one socket for v6. ### 3. Session Anxiety Your realization is 100% correct. When you connect via SSH: 1. The listener (Port 22) accepts the handshake. 2. The OS spawns a specific process for *your* session. 3. That session moves to an established state on a random high ephemeral port. The "Listening Port" is just the front door. Once you are inside (authenticated), you are in a private room. We can repaint the front door (change the port), lock it (firewall), or move it entirely, and it won't affect the people already inside the party. **Next Step:** Now that you have a cert, a firewall, and a clear understanding of the systemd plumbing, is there anything else you need to configure on this VPS, or shall we call this ticket closed?

Voltairine de Cleyre (1866–1912) was an American anarchist writer, lecturer, and organiser. She is best known for her essays on individual liberty, anti-authoritarianism, feminism, free thought, and labour autonomy. Initially influenced by individualist anarchism (Tucker, Spooner), she later adopted a “no-label” or “anarchism without adjectives” position, arguing that economic schools should not divide the movement. Her most noted works include *The Dominant Idea*, *Sex Slavery*, and *Direct Action*. She was a compelling public speaker, fluent in several languages, and corresponded widely across the international anarchist movement. Her life was marked by poverty, chronic illness, and a deep commitment to education and mutual aid; she taught immigrant workers English for free for years. Emma Goldman called her “the most gifted and brilliant anarchist woman America ever produced.” View quoted note →

Less is more View quoted note →

I think the first five are necessary and sufficient, the target of being a social network in the mode of the existing examples was too low a target. View quoted note →