I’d say they’re not really:

In 2001, Portugal decriminalised the personal possession of all drugs as part of a wider re-orientation of policy towards a health-led approach. Possessing drugs for personal use is instead treated as an administrative offence, meaning it is no longer punishable by imprisonment and does not result in a criminal record and associated stigma. Drugs are, however, still confiscated and possession may result in administrative penalties such as fines or community service.

– https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight

Their reform came in the face of the extraordinary failure of the previous approach, to the degree that it had an actual impact on the ability of their society to function. They still punish drug users, they just do it differently.

They still see all drug use and getting out of your head as something bad, to be controlled and preferably eradicted, instead of seeing drug use as something which is any responsible adult’s basic human right.

The list of freedoms we enjoy today that were not enjoyed by our ancestors is indeed a long and impressive one. It is therefore exceedingly strange that Western civilization in the twenty-first century enjoys no real freedom of consciousness.

There can be no more intimate and elemental part of the individual than his or her own consciousness. At the deepest level, our consciousness is what we are—to the extent that if we are not sovereign over our own consciousness then we cannot in any meaningful sense be sovereign over anything else either. So it has to be highly significant that, far from encouraging freedom of consciousness, our societies in fact violently deny our right to sovereignty in this intensely personal area, and have effectively outlawed all states of consciousness other than those on a very narrowly defined and officially approved list.

– https://grahamhancock.com/the-war-on-consciousness-hancock/

meme is geared towards the aforementioned 10-15% of users of any substance

I’d say that’s arguable but even so, your statement wasn’t geared that way. You said “users” without qualification, not “problematic users”. I’m simply pointing out that there’s a distinction between the two and one should not throw the baby out with the bathwater by assuming that all drug users are problematic drug users and then creating laws based on that very flawed assumption.

drug dealers are parasitical entities which are committing acts akin to murder or genocide

Some are. Some are decent and are helping people out because the government has chosen to put the multi-billion dollar industry into the hands of criminal gangs (the parasitical entities). Again, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. When society eventually pulls its head out of its ass and legalises and regulates drugs, I’ll bet a large proportion of the people staffing the specialist pharmacies will be those same drug dealers doing what they always did, just in a legalised context: not only supplying but offering advice and guidance to keep people safe.

it’s hard to argue that we’re being punitive by not dedicating a safe space wherein to do drugs

I would argue that this is very much in line with the punitive approach of criminalisation, it comes from the same feelings of revulsion and delusions of moral superiority as criminalisation. It’s simply another form of punishment: unnecessary, forced suffering.

what seems right

A punitive approach to drugs only seems right to the wilfully ignorant. Religion seems to overwhelmingly be the source of that will.

UNODC estimates that only 10-15% of drug use is problematic. That means 85-90% of users are in no need of treatment.

The government doesn’t promote smoking by creating rules to mitigate the dangers and provide a safer experience for those who choose to take the risk. Same with riding motorcycles. Or gambling. Or pretty much everything which responsible adults want to do that carries risk except, for some reason, drug use. Instead of being rational and mitigating the risks of drug use, the government chooses to put the drug market into the hands of criminals making the whole situation much more dangerous than it needs to be and also gifting a multi-billion dollar industry to criminal gangs.

The translate option is at the bottom of the sidebar.

Thanks but unfortunately I can’t see that because there’s a big grey box covering the bottom of the page containing some text in a language I don’t understand. I think its a cookie banner.

Use the translator in the sidebar to translate the page.

I don’t see a sidebar or any way to translate the page.

“poor engineering” you mentioned:

None of those assert that the poor engineering is due to not using a particular distro’s packaging system. Because I have asserted no such thing.

your repeated assertion that it is poorly engineered simply because it doesn’t use a particular distros packaging system

I have asserted no such thing.

in this case, we know it’s not because they got rid of that option. Why? Because the task is infeasible to support.

You’re not making any sense.

the devs no longer offer it as a supported method

Are you saying that the Home Assistant developers used to support distro packages?

No one is saying it is impossible

OP is saying that. They said it was “infeasible”.

Well, yeah.

Why do you think that because a person could do something they necessarily will?

it isn’t actually that feasible then, otherwise you’d do more than just whine about it on the Internet

So let me get your logic straight: you’re saying that it isn’t feasible because if it were feasible then a person who could do it would necessarily do it? LOL that makes no sense.

Then do if for your distribution then.

I use Debian.

It’s clearly not that difficult, you’ve all but explicitly stated as much.

I have not said that, or anything like it.

Perhaps you missed the fact that I’m not a Home Assistant user and have no interest in contributing?

I’m not a Debian Developer and won’t become one: http://settrans.net/~rah/why-not-debian.html

Also, I’m not a Home Assistant user so I’ve no interest in contributing.

You first.

the very tone of this thread is suggesting that the HA developers choice in how they distribute their platform is “incorrect”

Not incorrect, just poor engineering. Anti-social ultimately.

you seem to disagree with explanations provided as to why those choices were likely made

I can see only two disagreements in the whole post. Only one of those is about the reasons for creating an OS rather than distro packages. I have corrected a number of factual errors and errors in reasoning but those aren’t disagreements.

Dismissing those statements and observations do not make them incorrect.

Yes, my dismissing of them is not what makes them incorrect.

Nothing I stated is dramatic

LOL “this evil developer is doing a sinister thing”

this evil developer is doing a sinister thing

Nobody has said that here.

that community

I’ve no idea what community you’re referring to. Nobody here has demanded that any developers cater to their distribution’s needs.

If your community is getting cut off because, frankly, it’s being unreasonable… don’t come here looking for a personal army.

Again, I’ve no idea what community you’re referring to. Nobody has come here looking for a personal army.

Your characterisation of the commentary on this post seems like that of an overly. dramatic. teenager.

This appears to bother a particular community who feel entitled enough to demand multiple developers cater to their distribution’s needs.

Your reading of the situation is wrong.

this is probably a ton of work, for which a purpose-built solution already exists: Docker

LOL Docker isn’t a “solution” to the pressure of good engineering.