As I see it, the biggest frustration from the left is that he makes right-wing changes.
The right pretends to be frustrated by his policies because they need to disagree if they want to have a reason to exist - and they’ve been leaning towards the far right for years to find a place on the political spectrum because Macron took their place.

A few examples, I hope I’ll be able to explain correctly.

So in France we got something called the “prudhommes” which is a board that specializes in dealing with employee vs company legal matters. Usually, when you get fired and you think they didn’t do it right, you go to the prudhommes and you can sue them for money.
The prudhommes are important for the workers because they can charge bug fines to the companies, and once one worker has won their case, it becomes easier for their colleagues to do so if they were wronged in the same way.
It’s a powerful tool that kind of forces companies to follow the “code du travail” aka workers’ rights.
When he changed (read: degraded) lots of stuff about workers’ rights just after his first election in 2017, Macron introduced an important change: there is now a maximum amount that the prudhommes can force a company to pay. This changes the balance of power because now companies can now how much breaking the law will cost them and decide that it’s the cost of doing business. Worst thing is, this amount can be changed by the government at any time without requiring a vote from the national assembly - this is read by many commenters as the start if the prudhommes’ dismantlement.

In France, we’ve had (I believe since the eighties) a kind of universal basic income. It’s far from a livable income (it’s around 600€/month currently) but it’s still more than nothing. You need to be french (we wouldn’t want to share nice thingd with refugees, right?) and jump through a few hoops to claim it, but it exists. Until Macron, the only condition you had to fulfill was having no other income.
This is used a lot by people who are unable to work but can’t apply for unemployment or sick pay mechanisms. It’s always been the last safety: when everything else fails, at least you get something.
Since Macron, you now have to be actively looking for a job to qualify for it. Which means that if your unemployment office thinks you’re not looking hard enough, you can get excluded from this income and have absolutely nothing (which then leads to homelessness and a whole life of fun). And of course over the past 7 years of Macron, the unemployment offices are under an ever increasing pressure to find people who are not deserving enough.

In terms of image, Macron took lessons from Trump: truth and facts don’t matter and you don’t even have to be coherent. Time and time again, he and his governement have lied, contradicted themselves… They are of course not the first to do it, but they are the first to not give a shit. Before Macron, they tried not to get caught lying, and when they got caught they tried to get out of it “that’s not what I meant”. Sometimes they even apologized. Macron and his government have had a different strategy: we don’t even care.
When Macron visited the french carribean, he said in a public discourse “the chlordecone [a nasty pesticid wildly used by french companies in the carribean until y2k] is not cancerigen”. Right after the discourse, scientists and physicians were like “well yes it is, it’s been known for 30 years”. Macron didn’t even bother answering himself, but his services blantly told the press “he never said it was not cancerigen” even though he said it a few hours earlier in front of all tvs and radios. This is just one example of something that now happens weekly.

These changes might seem small, not structural. But they change fundamental things in the balances of power, the way we treat people and the way we do politics. Especially since there are lots and lots of them in a lot of areas, when you take them together, french legislative and checks/balances landscapes have changed a lot in 7 years, much more so than they had since the nineties (Idk before that).

Macron is from the bourgeoisie, is fighting the class war and has been waging and winning more battles than his predecessors by a lot. He is not interested in the status quo at all.

I hope this makes sense and answers your question ;)

having policies that make small adjustments to the current system

Well, that’s not really what happened the past few years. Civil rights and social protections have been degraded wayyy faster than by previous rightwing (not claiming to be centrist) governments. Structural change has happened several times, making big changes in some areas. Macron and their buddies don’t want to play it small, they want to make big changes.

It’s definitely happening. Hurting the vulnerable harder than usual seems to be one of the many perks of hosting olympics games along extra pollution, extra corruption… /s

Please stop calling Macron’s party centrist. It’s right wing and has always been, regardless of what they pretend.

Maybe I didn’t get my facts straight, but iirc there are around 7.5k satellites up there, with starlink current count about 5.5k. And I think I read they got the greenlight for the 7.5k gen 2 sats launches.
That looks like a scale change to me. Associated with the short lifespan (which contrasts with the situation 30 years ago, where launches were more expensive), it’s kind of a new situation and should have warranted a more careful approach.

So musk isn’t the first one to launch satellites, I agree. But the way it’s done is kinda new, and mostly on the worse side. And I’m not saying the old way was good, and not absolving previous actors from responsability in the pollution.

Like maybe wait a few years and finance some science to check that your mega constellation of satellites (built to fail after only a few years to make sure your rocket company never goes out of work) won’t be a fucking nuisance on so many levels before you actually launch them ?
This “get all the facts before taking action” ?

Edit: I think I knee-jerked

Yep. I despise her opinions since I’ve heard/read them, but reading HP still is a treasured child memory and I pick them up again every few years. But I’m never buying anything that contributes to her wealth and I’m not going to rate the books positevely on goodreads or whatever.
I surely makes no difference to her, but it allows me to feel okay about it.

Thanks a lot for this detailed, understandable and kind answer :)

The article talks about sudo and doas being SUID binaries and having a larger attack surface than run0 would. Could someone ELI5 what this means?

There is no national ID in the UK

This is so wild.

Maybe french officials will start to notice climate change now…

I hope they start shooting billionaires private jets soon then.

Sardine-hulud

Thanks for the info!

Is there some drama I’m not aware of here?

Feed the food to the detective.

Yes please!

First, thanks for doing the work of checking sources for articles posted here, I believe you add value to the conversation.
This being said, I happen to disagree with you - here’s why.

There seems to be a common misconception about bias and trustability.

The site you linked to has two ratings: factual reporting and bias.

Factual reporting is determined by how they do their jobs: do they check their facts and sources before they publish?
ABC news australia is voted 4/5 on that scale, which I’d say makes them pretty trustworthy - most of the time, they report accurate and verified information.

Bias is the way you choose the informations you report and how you comment on them. For exemple, while reporting the same information “billionaires are now x% richer than last year”, a left biased paper could comment on how non billionaires are getting poorer and a right biased paper could list the billionaires and applaud their financial choices. As a strongly left biased person myself, I’ll ignore the right biased paper nit because I think they’re lying, but because I don’t find their commentary relevant.
Everybody and every news source is biased, and it’s okay. There is usually no neutrality possible when you do journalistic work, because your job is to provide context and commentary around the facts that you report.

IMO, bias is not a metric helpful to determine credibility, and I find it a little detrimental that the site you linked to has bias and fact checking displayed at the same place without providing a better differentation between the two.

On a side note, the pursuit of a fictionnal “journalistic neutrality” supposedly devoid of any bias has been and still is weaponized in the french news, where women, muslils or people or color are told they can’t report on subjects that they know well because they are supposedly too close to the topic and wouldn’t be able to stay neutral. While of course cishet white privileged men can report on those subjects because they are more “objective”…

You also need full root access to you bank’s machines.

For the execution, can’t you configure the fstab with noexec on partitions where the user has write permissions and give the user read-only permissions on the root partition ?

I think this would be fine for most jobs, the exception being software development where you usually need to execute stuff to test your programs.