Ok I've spent a few hours now tinkering and figuring things out, and I totally see the power here. I wanted to install the 1password Linux application and discovered I could do it easily using distrobox, and I wouldn't even know that's how it was running considering the GUI experience is the same as if I had installed it directly on the system.
Very cool. It's a little to bad the gaming experience isn't great, but this is a 8 year old laptop with intel UHD graphics, so not shocked really. Windows gets better performance naturally.
huh, very interesting. I think I'll give Bazzite a shot and see how it goes. I have an T490 kicking around, but it only has the Intel UHD graphics (no NVIDA Mobile chip, sadly), but on Windows it could handle some gaming. So, I'll be curious to see how it works out. The Bazzite site says it doesn't support the "Steam Gaming Mode", which just means the steam big picture mode.
Your user configs and home files are never changed when you 'image hop'.
So I have an older Lenovo Laptop that I'm looking to put Linux on to replace an even older Lenovo Laptop I currently have Linux on, and this bit really has me curious about Fedora Atomic. I'm only learning about it now through this post.
I have intermediate experience with Linux, as it's not my daily driver, how far into the deep end would I be plunging if I gave Fedora Atomic a try?
Oh, for sure, I understand the distinction. Not seeing downvotes on your own posts is a good measure for reasons stated. I'm just saying also support a more aggressive stance, which is making downvotes off for new server instances, that's all.
Yes. As a hexbear user where down votes are disabled I find the experience is much more enjoyable. Ideally down votes off would be the default for servers.
This is how we get around all these pesky compelled speech laws. You have the right to remain silent, but you do not have the right to hide your face, and you gave up your fingerprints when they booked you. Now they have all your passwords for all your accounts.
but I think it's important to think about the next time you see a liberal simp over South korea despite probably knowing similar things about the state that you do.
It really comes down to people's perceptions of systems in some cases. SK is a good example, right? They are a "liberal democracy" and if you've not lost faith in liberal democracy yet, then, you'll likely look at the history of South Korea and think "This was necessary to stop Communism from taking over all of Korea, and eventually build liberal democracy". You'll look at current history, and the attempt at martial law, and the eventual impeachment of Yoon Suk Yeol as evidence that those hard times in SK's past really did ensure democracy won in the end. It's a similar line of thinking, although not one rooted in materialism, as Parenti's ideas about "Capitalist Encirclement". If we were to "secularize" his thinking, it would be, "States of all stripes will engage in authoritative measures to preserve and maintain the ideological core of the state".
Liberals can accept historical examples of "authoritarianism" if A) they believe those measures were preserving or installing "Liberal Democracy" and B) If that history created a state they recognize as a "Liberal Democracy". In the same way that "communists" (to paint with a broad brush) will accept historical examples of "authoritarianism" as preserving or installing "socialism". Obviously, the big difference here is how one arrives at either conclusion.
Basically, what Mark Twain is describing is the process of "Deprogramming", or the process of a true shift in his underlying world view, which he views and interprets reality through. This process isn't the culmination of "knowing a bunch of facts about history" as you point out. It is the ability to look at history, from a different perspective, from which new questions and understandings are drawn into "focus".
I believe that, for most people, they do not have a concrete "world view", or they do not understand this concept of "world view" and are not cognitive of its impacts on how they interoperate the world. Getting at the heart of "why" they believe what they believe, instead of getting mired in the mud of debunking or fact checking what they believe, is probably a better path to walk in these situations. The goal should be to draw the topic into focus, or to help them see it through a new lens.
And I say all this knowing that I'm not good at it, and if anything this is just a good reminder to myself (and others) to not get stuck in the mud.
![RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/c19dc845-faca-484b-bab1-8210693edb93.gif?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Is China in the room with us right now?