People who are interested in geography, geometry, cartography, political science, geopolitics, culture, cognitive biases, ethnocentrism
I maintain that none of those people are the ones interested in this movement, and if you believe they are, you haven’t spent any time thinking about it. Again, I’m looking for any actual legitimate argument in support of it. A condescending argument from hypothetical authority isn’t going to cut it.
What if you didn’t have permission to access the host, only the container?
Yeah, I’m open to any valid arguments for why it would matter, but I haven’t seen any. People who think land size should correspond to representation are…to be more diplomatic: not making any effort to think things through.
CMV: this movement only matters to stupid people, and does not qualify as something “I should know”.
Am I the only one who read “dangerous desktop images” and thought they were going to ship with wallpapers of people doing extreme sports?
Note: Gaming performance is purely based on money spent. There’s no fundamental reason windows would have better gaming performance, it’s just that there is more money being paid to engineers and vendors to support DirectX and related tooling.
Then there’s the self-fulfilling aspect that, windows has the largest marketshare, so devs are going to spend the most money targeting it, so that they can get the most money in return, which means more people will use it, which leads to the high marketshare.
The ONLY reason Linux use is seeing the few percent blip in gaming is because Valve has dumped truckloads of cash into making it viable.
I don’t consider that the worst case, I consider that the secret weapon off FOSS, and what Linus would prefer to see. I don’t think he wants Linux to be a kingdom who is afraid of what happens when their king dies. If the people aren’t empowered to take the code, make it their own, and continue owning their devices, then they weren’t in it for the freedom, just the freeloading.
Ugh, can’t wait to post about how sick this is to my insta story…and tomorrow I’ll vlog my trip to the beach!
The better comparison is that distros are the operating systems (like “windows”, “macos”, and “android”), while “linux” is the kernel under the hood that end users likely never interact with (like “NT”, “XNU”, and…“linux”).
A distro represents an intended user experience. If you want a distro that has an intended user experience that is similar to windows, go with Mint or OpenSUSE. If your desired experience is like the SteamDeck, install bazzite (with an AMD GPU ideally). If that’s all you care to know, then that’s all you need to know; go use your new system how you would any other.
But if you want to dig deeper, yeah, the fact that all the distros are based on linux (and more importantly, are posix compatible) means that a lot of the software is portable across distros. But that doesn’t mean your experience on all distros will be the same. Different distros organize their filesystems differently, they might ship with different versions of core utilities based on the stability testing they’ve done, and they likely offer varying means of installing and managing new packages.
The tl;dr is, go use one distro, and then later try doing the same stuff in a different distro, and inevitably at some point you’ll go “oh, this didn’t work exactly how I expected because the other distro I’m used to handles this differently”. That’s the difference.
The analogy I use is, it’s like a magician pulled a coin from behind a CEO’s ear, and their response was “that’s incredible! Free money! Let’s go into business together!”
Literally no one ever claimed it had reasoning capabilities. It is a trick to produce a string of characters that your brain can make sense of. That’s all.
The best counter example I’ve seen is Shintoism.
But on a separate note, i believe religion has an evolutionary advantage vs logic and reason, as evidenced by it being so prevalent throughout human history. So in the most literal sense, i believe humans wouldn’t have any progress without religion.
In order to survive, humans need to build societies that can adapt to the ever changing environments we find ourselves in.
One possibility is to use pure science, logic, and reason: educate every child on the scientific method, teach them how to not fall for logical fallacies, to be skeptical, to demand extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims, to repeat experiments and engage in peer review, to create ethical frameworks, and have a logical justification for the actions you take…
Another possibility is to use religion: brainwash a kid on what “good” looks like, and show them how to put on blinders to anything that might threaten that. Johnny down the street is “sinning”? Make him stop, that hurts our society. Father Dale is touching kids? Don’t lose sight of the goal, Father Dale is a great man, this is a personal struggle that we can help him through.
Which of those two methods of adaptation requires less energy? Because when an organism has to evolve, the organism that can do it using less energy will have the advantage. Religion, or the concept of morality in general, is a society’s selection pressure on itself. The best we can do is acknowledge this, and learn to wield it as a tool. And I believe that many leaders throughout human history, both political and religious, understood this well.