Login Signup
ConservativeNerds
Politics • Science & Tech • Culture
A place for Conservative Nerds to gather together.  Work in the Tech industry?  Computer, comic, or video game nerd?  Tired of not being able to be yourself and express your Conservative ideas?  This is the place for you.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Show me more content first

Conclave - My Review

Went to visit a very good friend of mine, today. I had not intended to see Conclave because, as Bishop Barron has already warned, I expected it to be nothing but a litany of nonsense. My friend suggested I give it a try anyway, and so I went. Here are my thoughts:

My initial - straight out of the theater - reaction, was very similar to Bishop Barron's. The film does indeed tick all the typical "woke" boxes.

In some cases, the church is caricatured so cartoonishly, I could not help but laugh out loud at the depictions. On the right, we have the the macabre gargoyle of Cardinal Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto), a foaming-at-the-mouth xenophobic racist firebrand, with a perverse obsession for the Latin Mass, and an overt desire to dominate everyone around him. The only thing missing was a lengthy moustache he could twirl. On the left, we have the scheming, plotting, hand-wringing, cowardly Cardinal Bellini (Stanley Tucci). Slithering between them, is the preening, pompous, self-aggrandising Cardinal Tremblay (John Lithgow). And, of course, at the centre of all of this "intrigue" (as much as we can call it that), is the embattled, frustrated, overly self-conscious, morally conflicted, Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes). In short, a picture of the Holy See of Rome as a political institution that suffocates, rather than inspires, virtue.

But the leftist messaging isn't always so obvious. Sometimes it is deeply insidious. For instance, in the scene where Cardinal Lawrence is confronting Cardinal Adeyemi about a "dalliance" in his distant past, there is a moment where the camera pauses on Lawrence as he declares, "There is no hope!"

Of course, in the context of the scene, Lawrence is telling Adeyemi that he has no hope of winning the votes to become Pope. But the direction of the scene separates out this stand-alone moment by several seconds from the rest of the scene, and Lawrence is posed looking away from Adeyemi at the time, as if to say "get thee behind me". The implication is clear: Some sins are so dreadful that there is no return. This is an underlying message that is in direct contradiction to the message of Christ on the Cross -- and it is clearly one that the director is signalling to his audience, even if they are not aware of it.

A second clear example of this sort of insidious undermining, is in Cardinal Lawrence's homily on "faith walking with doubt". Over and over, a theme repeated in this film is that certainty is itself some sort of vice. But there is no distinction made to explain what the Cardinal means.

In Catholic theology, faith is the supernatural virtue that enables us to assent to revealed truth with absolute confidence. In other words, to be certain in what we believe. In fact, there are three kinds of "certainty" that a Catholic will have, in different contexts: Knowledge - intellectual understanding; Assent - the affirmation of the revealed doctrine; and Trust - the confidence to surrender to God's will, when revealed. These three forms of certainty come by way of: the authority of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit; Revelation, found in the bible and the saints and prophets; and Charity, whereby willing the good of the other naturally builds trust.

None of this was addressed in the film, except in the negative. The hierarchy is depicted exclusively as self-interested, vicious, grasping, and utterly out of touch with anything transcendent, let alone the Holy Spirit. What's more, at every turn, Cardinal Lawrence's continual struggle with his vocation in the Church, with trust in his fellow brothers, and with confidence in the choices he must make, are all depicted as exemplars of the Virtue of Doubt. The message is clear: "Good men doubt themselves constantly, only wicked men are certain of anything."

This is an obvious conflation of pride with confidence. It is exploiting a man's moral scruples to undermine his own faith. If I can convince you that your faith is nothing more than a pernicious instance of pride, you will surrender it to avoid the sin. Once the camel's nose of self-doubt can get under the tent of a man's acceptance of his Christian faith, the door is opened to separation from God. And this is the goal, of course.

But it goes deeper. If you look at the film carefully, only one man in the entire film is allowed to speak with confidence, and not face any of the repercussions of the confidence of other cardinals in the drama. That man, of course, is Cardinal Benitez. This is because Cardinal Benitez is the sock puppet mouthing the platitudes of the leftist director. The best example of this, is his soliloquy response to Cardinal Tedesco, in the theatre after the explosion (and it is especially symbolic, being a theatre). One is reminded of God's answer to Job: "Where you there?"

However, setting aside this critique for the moment, I have to say, on further reflection, even a film such as this, sometimes raises interesting questions. While talking the film over with my friend, it occurred to me that sin is at the centre of this film. The director's suggested path to redemption, of course, is to elevate the present day symbol of virtue to the highest post. But even if we set that aside, it's still an interesting question:

While it is true that Christ redeems, and that all sin is ultimately washed away in the forgiveness found in his sacrifice, still, is there a limit to the degree a man can sin, and still be worthy of the Seat of Peter? What sin is too far? Perhaps mortal sins (as opposed to venial)? Sins committed only after taking the orders? Sins that are yet unforgiven? It's not clear to me.

Peter, of course, commits two extremely grave mortal sins: that of pride, in suggesting to Christ that he turn away from his task to save himself, and that of the denial of Christ himself, in the three lies at the crow of the cock. If even Peter himself can sin that gravely, and yet still be made "the rock" of the Church, it's hard to imagine what wouldn't be allowed. I'm sure there must be some Ecclesial Law around this, but as a layman with little to no knowledge of the inner workings of the church, I have no answer.

Second, it is interesting to note that two characters that escape extreme caricature in this film are the two characters symbolising what is known as "The Persecuted Church" (something my friend pointed out). The African Cardinal Adeyemi (to some extent), and of course, the "secret" Cardinal Benitez. This looks to me, like the same impulse that has captured the culture: to pull the margins into the centre. To make what is on the fringe of society, it's central feature. At one point, Tedesco's character is even explicit about this (something I think the director might have actually INADVERTANTLY signaled).

In a scene in the mess hall, Tedesco grabs Lawrence by the arm, and grumbles to him in foreboding tones: "Everything falls apart. The centre cannot hold!" This, of course, is a famous line from a Yeats poem (perhaps ironically?) titled "The Second Coming", which depicts the disintegration of the world, and offers the dark image of the wayward "Spiritus Mundi", out of which the Antichrist is said to arise ("The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned" ). It is fascinating to note, in this context, that Benitez, when elected Pope, chooses the name "Innocent".

At the same time, another question arises: Are we more likely, or less likely, to fall prey to a wayward Spiritus Mundi, by choosing a Pope on the margins, rather than a Pope from a safe and established diocese like Vienna or Warsaw or Rome? It is not clear to me, that this is the case. Indeed, choosing a Pope from among the diocese of the "Persecuted Church" might be precisely the balm that is needed in any particular time (perhaps especially this time). Of course, every papal selection could be said to be already pre-ordained by the providence of God. It could be that we're destined to choose poor Popes from now on, precisely because it is necessary to set the stage for the Second Coming. Again, not being a theologian (or much of a historian, for that matter), I have no answer to this question.

Finally, on a much more mundane note, I would say that the film, as a piece of art, is reasonably good. The cinematography is excellent (though a bit self-indulgent at times). The editing is professional, though there are moments when I found it confusing. The score is effective (at one point, it punched me right in the chest). For the most part, the acting was superb from Fiennes, Rosellini, and Tucci. The only performance I found less than admirable was John Lithgow. Lately, he seems to be playing a caricature of himself in most films. Here, he often seemed much more like his character "Big Giant Head" from "Third Rock From The Sun", than an actual Cardinal.

On the technical merits, I would give this film a 3 out of 5. But I would not recommend it. For one, it's too particular a subject for general audiences. The vagaries of papal conclaves are not that interesting, to be honest. Secondly, even for those interested in religious films, or Catholic stories, this movie is only going to interest you as a negative example (as my review has made clear). It would have had much broader appeal, I think, if the filmmaker had instead made this a crime drama or a political intrigue drama. Instead, it's all about the dead Pope's desire to hide the Magical Intersex Elf from the rest of the conclave, before he dies. Which makes the film a kind wish-fulfilment fantasy for leftist movie-goers, and a naked attempt to mock the faith, for serious Catholics. So, it's not clear to me who this movie is actually for.

post photo preview
Reply
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Show me more content first
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Bryan Lunduke@Lunduke
April 11, 2024
Video: On Red Hat vs Hyprland: Silencing political "undesirables"

Full article:
https://conservativenerds.locals.com/post/5503395/red-hat-vs-hyprland-silencing-political-undesirables

00:29:11
Reply
Bryan Lunduke@Lunduke
April 08, 2024
Video: Crazy Tech People Who Hate Lunduke - Part I

Read the article:
https://conservativenerds.locals.com/post/5488338/crazy-tech-people-who-hate-lunduke-part-i

How to Support The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5460921/how-to-support-the-lunduke-journal

00:19:13
Reply
Bryan Lunduke@Lunduke
April 01, 2024
Why having a Conservative in Tech Media is critical

How to Support The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5460921/how-to-support-the-lunduke-journal

They want us silenced:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5462508/the-lunduke-journal-cant-do-this-without-your-support

Stories Mainstream Tech Media Won't Talk About:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5462418/stories-mainstream-tech-media-wont-talk-about

00:17:42
Reply
Bryan Lunduke@Lunduke
September 11, 2023
"The Ben Heckendorn Interview" - Conservative Nerds Podcast - Sep 11, 2023

Today I had the chance to talk with one of the coolest nerds on this green Earth of ours: Ben Heckendorn (aka the "Ben Heck" part of "The Ben Heck Show" ).

We've watched Ben turn XBox's, Atari 800's, and Apple IIgs's into handhelds and laptops. We've seen him build amazing Pinball machines. This nerd is legit.

But today we're talking to Ben almost entirely about political stuff -- he is one of the rare nerd voices that have been actively speaking out against some of the craziness in the world (such as Covid insanity).

Ben's website: https://www.benheck.com/

"The Ben Heckendorn Interview" - Conservative Nerds Podcast - Sep 11, 2023
Reply
Bryan Lunduke@Lunduke
April 27, 2023
Where can Conservative voices publish without censorship?

The Lunduke Journal of Conservative Nerdiness Podcast - April 27, 2023

The Big Tech platforms (like Twitter and YouTube) have a long, well documented history of silencing Conservative ideas and Conservative people. So where, in 2023, can a Conservative writer, podcaster, or video producer publish their ideas without fear of constant censorship… and while still reaching a sizable audience?

Rumble? Locals? Substack? Twitter? I have some thoughts.

Where can Conservative voices publish without censorship?
Reply
Bryan Lunduke@Lunduke
April 18, 2023
The logical contradictions of the Trans concept

The Lunduke Journal of Conservative Nerdiness - April 18, 2023

There are some pretty significant logical problems with the Transgender concept… movement… religion… whatever you’d like to call it. Logical problems — and extreme contradictions — in both the idea itself and the way it is being advocated for.

I’d like to spend a few moments calling out just a few of those logic problems and contradictions.

The logical contradictions of the Trans concept
Reply
Gabe@gginorio
7 hours ago

As we honor the recently passed President Carter, who spent his retirement building homes for the poor, let's not forget Obama's legacy. During Biden's vice presidency, the DNC used crypto currency to launder millions of US taxpayer dollars through Ukraine.

And when Trump inquired about the Biden's activity in Ukraine, Trump was inpeached.

And how about this oldie?

post photo preview
Reply
SLC Bagpiper@SLCBagpiper
8 hours ago

@Lunduke ICYMI: Wikipedia co-founder, Larry Sanger, said "waaaay back!" in July of 2021, that Wikipedia could no longer be trusted; and had, by then, become a propaganda source for the Left-leaning establishment.

We can only assume, given the ways of the world, that The Suck has only intensified at Wikipedia.

https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/

Reply
fossman@Fossman
3 hours ago

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/biden-world-harris-2024-race-against-trump-votecast-data

Reply
Bryan Lunduke@Lunduke
April 11, 2024
post photo preview
Red Hat vs Hyprland: Silencing political "undesirables"
Beneath the drama: The abuse of corporate power, extremist politics, bullying, & censorship of "wrongthink".

The Open Source world is no stranger to drama.  Heck, if it's a day that ends in "Ay!", there's likely some random, usually overblown, drama happening in one Open Source organization or another.

But, sometimes, within that drama, there exists a bigger story.

Such is the case with "Red Hat vs Hyprland".

Within this drama there lies a tale of extremist poltiics, abuse of corporate power, and silencing of political "undesirables".  The things we learn here -- burried beneath the layers of drama -- are deeply disturbing, with significant ramifications for the entire Open Source industry.

Cutting through the noise

As with all drama, there's a lot of finger pointing.  And... noise.  So much noise.  Let's cut through all of that and get right to the facts.

The basic facts of this event:

  1. The core developer behind Hyprland (a tiling Linux window manager which has gained significant traction), a man who goes by the name "Vaxry", has been banned from any involvement in the Freedesktop project (an umbrella project covering Xorg, Wayland, and many other core Linux Desktop projects).
  2. This ban means that Vaxry will not be allowed to report bugs or submit code patches to Freedesktop projects -- often directly relevant to his own work on the Hyprland window manager.
  3. The ban (affecting Freedesktop) was enacted by a Red Hat representative (using a RedHat.com email address), based on a perceived 2 year old "Code of Conduct Violation" on a Hyprland chat server.
  4. Red Hat, Freedesktop, and Hyprland are all separate organizations.

As with any drama, there's a great deal of other information out there -- along with frenzied onlookers yelling about it from the sidelines -- but those are the core actions and facts.

The key takeaway: A representative from Red Hat was using corporate power to force a person out of other (read: non-Red Hat) organizations.  For reasons not related to Red Hat.  Nor related to the organization the person was being banned from.

In essence, Red Hat flexing it's muscle -- bending large portions of the Open Source world to do it's bidding.

By itself, that's bad enough.  But it gets worse.  Much worse.

What was the "violation"?

In order to understand how truly disturbing this issue is, we need to know a few additional details.  Starting with the initial "Code of Conduct Violation".

Back in 2022 -- yes, two years ago -- on the Discord chat server for the Hyprland window manager project, a man who identified as "Trans" listed his preferred prouns as "she/her".

A moderator on that Hyprland chat server changed that "Trans" person's pronouns to list as "who/cares".

Screenshot of the "Code of Conduct Violation".

Flash forward to 2024, and this "who/cares" action comes to the attention of another man who identifies as "Trans".  An employee of Red Hat named Lyude Paul.

To give you an idea of the motivations of the actions which follow: Lyude Paul has a publicly stated goal of "bullying" anyone who does not adequately show respect to "Trans" issues, as shown in his social media posts.

Source: Lyude Paul's Mastodon account.

Lyude Paul also promotes the idea that "right-wing people are not welcomed" in organizations.

Source: Lyude Paul's Mastodon account.

As Lyude Paul has a stated objective of "bullying" people -- making sure they are "not welcomed" -- if they do not profess the correct political ideals (or do not support "Trans" activism in the proper way)... it is not entirely surprising that this gentleman would use his position at Red Hat to ban those he disagrees with.

And that is exactly what happened.

Source: Lyude Paul's official email from RedHat.com.

Lyude Paul -- using his Red Hat email address -- informed Vaxry (the lead developer of Hyprland -- the project where the "who/cares" chat server incident occurred) that he was now banned from the entirety of the Freedesktop project and organization.

An important note: When a person sends an email from their corporate email account, they are acting on behalf of the corporation.  That is a hard and fast rule that has been in place since... well... forever.  Likewise Red Hat has not distanced itself from these actions in the least.

You can read the full emails, from Lyude Paul / Red Hat, as published by Vaxry.

The Red Hat Problem

This is an example of Red Hat, a corporation with a wild history of discrimination and censorship, using their corporate power (and strength within the Linux and Open Source world) to bully and silence those they politically disagree with.

Red Hat could condemn these actions (which were done in Red Hat's name) by their employee.  They have not done so.

None of this should be terribly surprising, considering what we already know about the IBM subsidiary.  They have a history of taking extreme political stances... and they actively discriminate against employees who deviate from their allowed, always extremely politically Leftist, ideals.

Considering Red Hat's historical stances and actions, it is no surprise that an employee of Red Hat would be able to use the corporate power of Red Hat to bully others who possessed the wrong ideas (as was the publicly stated objective of Lyude Paul).

A singular bit of drama... and a trend.

This particular incident has elicited strong reactions -- and has grabbed the attention of many across the Linux and Open Source industry.  Lots of drama.  Lots of opportunities to quote people who are making big, outlandish statements.

And most of that drama is little more than distracting fluff.

But the core -- the facts -- are truly disturbing.  And, once again, Red Hat finds itself at the center of another story where people are being discriminated against.

A few closing thoughts.

  • If this sort of bullying, censorship, and blacklisting of those with the "wrong politics" is allowed to continue... it will get worse.
  • Lyude Paul is guilty of far more extreme "Code of Conduct" violations than Vaxry -- as is shown in the screenshots above.  Yet Lyude Paul has not been banned, censored, or punished in any way by Red Hat or Freedesktop.
  • It would appear fairly obvious that the "Code of Conduct", at least in this case, is being used as a weapon to selectively harm specific individuals.
  • Considering Red Hat / IBM's history and dedication to discriminating against specific groups, it seems a fair assumption that these actions are not only allowed but encouraged by corporate leadership.  Should that not be the case, The Lunduke Journal encourages Red Hat and IBM to make a statement regarding it.  If such a statement is made, The Lunduke Journal will publish it in full.
  • Will Open Source organizations -- such as Freedesktop -- allow these sorts of discriminatory actions to continue?
  • Should Freedesktop, and others, continue allowing this type of discrimination... what result will that have on existing Open Source projects and users of those projects?

The Lunduke Journal has reached out to representatives from IBM and Red Hat for comment.  As of the time of publication The Lunduke Journal has received no response.

Read full Article
Reply
Bryan Lunduke@Lunduke
April 07, 2024
post photo preview
Crazy Tech People Who Hate Lunduke - Part I
Lunduke drives Tech Journalists to mADnEsS & destroys entire projects... with his magic words!

One of my super-powers (apparently) is writing words which burrow into the brains of many nerds... driving them slowly insane.

Tech Journalists, Software Developers, Project Managers... even your average computer nerds are susceptible to my wizardly words of wickedness.

And, because I have to see their linguistic detritus, I am now going to subject all of you to the insanity which they spew.

I present to you: "Crazy Tech People Who Hate Lunduke - Part I"

Yeah.  Part One.

Fair Warning: I've censored some of the more offensive words in the following screenshots.  But, just the same, their declarations aren't exactly clean and wholesome.

OSNews.com

We begin with Thom Holwerda, the editor of OSNews.com.  He recently posted this delightful gem over on Mastodon (a social network filled with people who are definitely very well adjusted *wink wink*).

Oh, dear.

"Hey Lunduke," I hear you asking.  "Could you provide us a single screenshot that gives us a glimpse into the minds of the average Leftist Tech Journalist?"

Ta-da.

Curious why certain "Tech News" sites refuse to cover Lunduke Journal articles (no matter how massive the news)?  I think this helps to explain it.  This is how they see people.

Also... nEaT caPITaLizATioN, DudE!

GLIMPSE (a GIMP fork)

The creator of GLIMPSE (a fork of GIMP) recently published this regarding my coverage of Mozilla and Firefox.

I am so powerful.

I'm going to go ahead and quote that.  Because it's awesome.

"If you're angry at Mozilla because Bryan Lunduke said mean things about them, then as someone whose previous project was torn apart after one of his videos called it a "woke fork", I kindly invite you to go [CENSORED] yourself."

Apparently I, Bryan Lunduke, single handedly "tore apart" an entire project (the GLIMPSE project, I assume) by simply mentioning it.

I'm going to be honest with you... I had completely forgotten that project existed.  But, according to the project founder, I "tore it apart" with my word magic.

Not gonna lie.  Feeling pretty powerful right now.

Wonder which project I should mention next...

elementary OS

Here is a -- definitely very sane and reasonable -- post from the founder (and currently sole employee) of elementary OS (a fork of Ubuntu).  That post is entitled "Assault, death, transphobia, etc".

Wait.  What did I do?

I'm not 100% sure... but I think he's saying I... took out a hit on him?  Like... in a mafia movie?  By... posting an article about computers?  And if someone else shares the link to that article... that person is now part of... that hit?  Or something?

Or maybe my words are like that VHS tape in The Ring?  You know... you read a few of my words then a creeply lady starts crawling around your laptop before you die?

Huh!

Well.  Either way.  You heard it here first, folks.  Sharing links to my words is, like, literally murder.  The future is weird!

Rent free, baby!

What have we learned today?

  • My words drive Tech Journalists to mADnEsS.
  • I can "tear apart" open source projects with two words.
  • If you share a link to my words, you are comitting murder.

One thing is also clear: They can't stop talking about me... my wizard words compel them.

In fact, it's gotten to the point where people are issuing "Stop reposting Bryan Lunduke Challenges".

Good luck, buddy.

If past performance is any indication of future performance... that challenge will end poorly.  Especially after I write up some more of my Black Magic Words of Wonder.

Whew!

Wonder what we'll learn in Part II?

Read full Article
Reply
Bryan Lunduke@Lunduke
March 14, 2024
post photo preview
43% of Left-wing nerds support the ban of opposing political ideas
New poll shows nearly half of Left-wing IT professionals favor heavy censorship of social media and all online publishing.

Censorship of online discourse is a major point of disagreement between the political Left and Right.

Tech organizations perceived as "Politically Left-leaning", tend to support the banning of ideas from Online publishing platforms (Social Media, YouTube, Forums, etc.) -- Mozilla's infamous declaration of "we need more than deplatforming" being one such example.

On the flipside, most moves towards less censorship are regarded as being "Politically Right-leaning" -- a great example being Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, and subsequent loosening of some censorship rules on the X / Twitter platform.

But -- among those in the Tech Industry -- what are the true numbers of those who support the censorship of ideas?

What percentage of those on the Left, Center, and Right (politically) actually support the complete banning of certain ideas from online publishing?

The Lunduke Journal asked 7,200 people in the Tech Industry for their opinions on the topic.  These respondents represented a wide range of technical, political, and demographic backgrounds.

Here are the results.

What percentage of those, from each political leaning, supported the banning of at least one idea from online publishing.

43.8% of all Tech Industry respondents, who identified as "Left-Leaning" politically, said they supported the total banning of at least one idea from all online publishing platforms.

Compare that with 19.5% for political "Centrists" and 8.2% for those who said they were "Right-Leaning".

The exact question, asked in the survey, is as follows:

"Which of the following ideas should be censored or banned from Social Media, Community Forums, YouTube, or other public publishing platforms?

 

Note: Not ideas which you agree or disagree with.  Only those which should not be allowed.

 

Check all ideas which should not be allowed on public platforms."

The 6 following options were presented:

  • The 2020 election was stolen from Trump.
  • The 2016 election was stolen from Clinton.
  • The COVID vaccines are potentially dangerous.
  • Climate Change is not a real threat.
  • There are only two genders (male and female).
  • January 6th was a dangerous insurrection.

Six ideas, from different ends of the political spectrum (and touching on different types of topics).

Here is the breakdown, by political leaning, for each idea:

That's a lot of blue.

The numbers speak for themselves, but a few quick takeaways:

  1. There appears to be no topic where a majority (over 50%), of any political leaning, supports full censorship.
  2. Just the same, a significant percentage (between 18% and 33%) of Left-leaning people advocated for a full banning of specific ideas and topics which disagreed with their core political messaging.
  3. Nearly half of all Left-Leaning people (43.8%) support the total banning of at least one concept from being discussed online.
  4. When the ideas agreed with Left-leaning political messaging -- such as "2016 election stolen from Clinton" or "Jan 6th was an insurrection" -- Left-leaning support for censorship dropped significantly (down as far as 3.3%).
  5. Right-leaning support for idea banning stayed very low (3% or lower) and consistent, regardless of the idea (including Left-wing political messaging).

In other words...

When an idea contradicts Left-wing talking points or values... a significant percentage of Leftists believe it should not be allowed to be discussed online.  By anyone.  It becomes a forbidden concept entirely.

People on the Right, by and large, do not wish to restrict the ideas of anyone.  Even when those ideas are ones which contradict Right-leaning talking points or values.

About The Great Tech Industry Demographics Survey

This report is derived from data obtained between February 22nd and March 10th of 2024, as part of the Great Tech Industry Demographics Survey.  During this survey, 7,200 respondents (a sample size many times larger than used by most polling agencies in national elections) answered 46 questions on a wide variety of technical, political, personal, and IT work-place related topics.

The survey was distributed by a wide range of writers, podcasters, YouTubers, & tech enthusiasts -- representing a variety of computing preferences (Windows vs Mac vs Linux, etc.) and political leanings.

The full, anonymous data will be released -- to allow for additional public analysis -- following a round of initial reporting by The Lunduke Journal.

If you are not already a subscriber to Conservative Nerds (part of The Lunduke Journal), now's a great time.  At the very least, get yourself a free subscription so you don't miss out.

Find more information (including RSS Podcast feeds, links to some of the big shows, how to become a whistleblower, how to gain access to other parts of The Lunduke Journal, and more) at the Lunduke Journal Link Central page.

Read full Article
Reply
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals