renzev

Huh? How did you go from "people should have equal opportunities" to lynching and firing pregnant women? At this point you're just saying whatever you want.

Plus, lmao at the hypocrisy of calling DEI a "boogeyman" while simultaneously accusing anyone disagreeing with you a racistsexistlyncher. It's totally real, you're proving it yourself.

hmm interesting. Will take a look.

The reason they don't want you to unlock your bootloader is because of security....

...security of their revenue stream, that is.

I guess if he's getting paid to do the interviews then it's technically passive... wait no, then the whole interviewer thing would just count as advertising for his vending machine business

If you really want to piss people off, try adding "...and animals" to the list of things you care about.

Hey, a UBI supporter! Just curious, how can UBI be implemented in a way that doesn't result in hyperinflation? If a society was to ration out food/shelter/necessities directly, I understand how that would work. But if it's done through the intermediary of money, what would prevent the economy from entering an arms race where the producers raise prices to adapt to the new purchasing power of the population, and the government raises the UBI to keep up with the rising prices?

Assistance implies that it is temporary,

Not it does not. Ever heard of "aim assist"? "Assisted living"? "assistive touch" (the iOS feature)? I don't see how any of these are temporary.

But yeah the correct solution is indeed to change the system. There will always be naysayers who argue that "no one system can suit everybody" so I guess we'll need a system of systems.

They don’t actually believe any of this shit.

I agree with everything else that you're saying, but I wouldn't be so sure about this. Have you ever noticed how it's much easier to start online flame wars when you actually believe in the batshit stance that you're arguing as opposed to pretending to believe it for the sake of trolling? I think it's a similar thing here. I don't think humans are that good at compartmentalising, so in order to do something performatively so often and so well you have to trick your mind into actually believing it in a sort of corrupt way. I know this makes me sound like a middleschooler, but I think George Orwell's concept of doublethink is very much real in cases like these.

I question whether the people hollering that "X11 is held together with duct tape" have actually tried using X11 in the recent years. It's surprisingly stable. You never have to fiddle with Xorg.conf anymore, it's all automatic. The only parts where it really shits the bed, in my experience, is either if you're trying some extremely non-standard setup like mixing and matching wildly different generations of graphics cards, or in cases of deliberate sabotage by gn*me devs like client-side decorations and shadows. I really wished that the X11 -> wayland transition would be just like the pulseaudio -> pipewire transition where a desperately broken system that was causing issues for users got replaced -- in a matter of months -- with a successor that was not only 100% compatible but offered cool new features on top of stability improvements. But this has just not been the case so far. Wayland has been "the future of the linux desktop" for nearly twenty years, and it's still not quite there yet. X11 mostly just works, it isn't abandoned, it's finished. And what exactly are the new features we should be looking forward to in wayland? Isolation between clients is very cool I must confess, but did it really necessitate an entire protocol overhaul? QubesOS has had that feature working under X11 for over a decade. This guy on github managed to get it working with off-the-shelf X11 tunneling tools. Nevertheless, I'm still optimistic for wayland. The already existing backwards compatibility with X11 is impressive, and I think with enough work it might just be viable as the successor.

When people say that they are “anti-DEI” in the US, they mean that they want a society where the only people with power are white, protestant men.

Source: trust me bro

Is it really that implausible that some people really do just want to have diversity, inclusion, and equity the "old way" by simply giving everyone an equal opportunity to participate instead of embracing DEI ideology? It's a huge leap in logic to just assume that anyone who doesn't subscribe to some specific ideology that claims to be tolerant must secretly be opposed to tolerance itself. I think all of those people yelling "nazi" at anyone remotely critical of DEI are just projecting.

you can just send the money to the artist if indeed your objective is to “contribute to the artist” no NFTs required

Yeah, people could donate directly, but some people decided to buy NFTs instead, and they wouldn't have spent the money otherwise.

^
|
This is my logic which shows that my post is not bullshit. My post is only bullshit by the "logic" that you try to introduce.

And you don't need to be writing these long-winded paragraphs. The point stands that you're the one who brought up the argument about NFTs as means of ownership and then started arguing on the opposing side. Who are you arguing against? There is no-one on the proposing side, only the starmen you put there.

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say shit about "rights" and "respect". The guy in the original comment mentioned nothing about it either. You said that. You're bringing this idea into the conversation and then arguing against yourself. Seriously, what is your endgame here?

I genuinely have no clue what you think I "read on a website" about NFTs. To set the record straight, my understanding of NFTs is that you have a ledger where your public key is associated with a ~~token~~ short string of characters, and every computer participating in the ledger agrees on that. that's it. All of these ideas of "ownership" and "rights" and societal analogies is bullshit you brought into the conversation.