Let me start with my unbiased opinion. There's something for everybody in the Linux land. You have to try different distros out and settle with the one you like most. I usually advocate for the path of least resistance - ie, to start with the easiest distro. Mint is a good first distro. Fedora and Debian are also reasonable choices. But I have also seen a rare few cases where people start directly with a high effort distro like Arch - so it's not impossible.
For a lot of people, Mint may satisfy their needs - a user friendly distro that needs no tinkering and meets all of their needs. Some people though, like to tune everything. Such people can eventually grow into something like Arch.
I personally like Gentoo. Not because it's compiled from source, but because it's easy to work with its Portage package management system. Another one worth trying out is QubesOS, if you're into security.
Have you noticed how the modern AI models absolutely tow the line of its creators? Just like this example, there's another one where an image generator refuses to generate the image of Mickey Mouse from Steamboat Willie, even though its copyright expired recently. The same model has no problem violating the copyrights of independent artists.
And while these models can strictly refuse to avoid what its creators don't want it to do, they fail at basic prompts like 'show a black doctor'. These models are pathologically rife with biases from its creators.
That's still skirting responsibility. Banking on a technicality. I'm pretty sure that this is not what the UN intended when they made such a provision. If the UK wants to disown her, they should be ready to accept responsibility for it too.
She was radicalized on UK's soil. But they want Bangladesh to deal with the consequences, based on a mere technicality? That's disrespectful, underhanded and sly, to put it mildly.
If customizability is your concern, then Arch might be a better fit. Arch is almost as customizable, without the build step. The recent Gentoo binary repo is also equivalent.
We knew his death was certain. But is it possible that he actually died just due to the poor conditions there and not due to a deliberate attempt? On the other hand, they wouldn't have hidden his body if that was the case.
Or perhaps an attempt at torture that went too far?
Since it's so hard for some people to read two sentences together, let me explain my first reply:
Navalny was most likely killed by Putin's goons. But the story that his body had injuries is most likely someone's creation - either for fun or as propaganda. It's not just Russia who indulges in propaganda. It's naive to think that the other side doesn't. As for Navalny's body, there are several ways in which he may have been killed. Even if it was by physical torture, it's very unlikely that they would have exposed his body to anyone who's likely to report it to the international media. This story has an emotional angle - it can outrage the readers easily. That's why I suspect its source.
I can't believe that people would reach the conclusion that I'm a Putin apologist, rather than the above from my previous reply. I mean, does it take that much intelligence?
Can you believe this? I don't understand why people can't put just two sentences together to understand the intent. And then insisting on stuffing words into others' mouth.
Honey, the REAL answer is such tech ALREADY EXISTS! Your cynical snark doesn't make you smart or right. It just makes you one ignorant fellow. I'm not even going to bother answering you, because you aren't here for answers. You are here to insult, annoy and pick a fight with strangers. Go look for it elsewhere.
The latter - targeting from ground. While that sounds daunting, it's already possible. Sats can aim data laser beams at other sats at even higher relative speeds.
Beam decoherence is a pretty big problem when you are lasering through the entire atmosphere, and both scenarios require an astounding degree of precision.
Beam coherence is the only problem with targeting sats from the ground. But remember, these sats come with big telescopes to collect as much light as they can. It may not take a lot of radiative flux to overload their sensors. I wonder how much it will take to completely fry them.
Navalny may very well have been murdered by Putin's goons. But this particular story is most likely somebody trying to create a viral sensational news for fun or as propaganda. There's no reason to trust this source.
They're talking about myocarditis, not pericarditis. I don't know how bad the latter is, but I've heard that the former is a health emergency. It can apparently cause arrhythmia, tachycardia or even cardiac arrest in worst cases.
Having said that, the news headline does sound a bit alarmist. Nobody ever claimed that vaccines are absolutely safe. It's always a tradeoff between the risks associated with the vaccines vs risks associated with the diseases it's trying to prevent. Side effects like myocarditis are handled on a case by case basis.
I took the vaccines and never contracted covid-19. I didn't suffer any side effects either (apart from the expected fever) - likely the same for the huge majority of vaccine takers. Had I known about these risks then, I would have still opted for the vaccine. The effects of long-covid are that horrifying. Unfortunately, articles like these are giving ammunition to antivaxxers.
It's also worth noting that there's a higher chance of getting myocarditis from covid than from its vaccine. In fact, we lost a friend to myocarditis and septicemia caused by covid. His blood had shown signs of a bacteria that's normally found in the lungs. We later learned that this was due to the severe lung tissue damage caused by covid.
That's what moderates in any religion says about the extremists in it. But the fact is that a religion cannot deny its responsibility in crimes committed in its name - because religion is the instrument used for indoctrination and radicalization. At best you can say that your religion is being misused.
I don't think anyone can sue them, unless the terms 'open source' and 'free software' are trademarked. I doubt that they are. Any party can be sued for violation of licensing terms. But these definitions aren't licenses by themselves either.
There are two disturbing tendencies being demonstrated here:
Using useless AI to engage and disperse complaining customers. The AI can't make meaningful solutions to many customer complaints. But companies use it to annoy the customers into giving up, so that they can save the cost of real customer support.
Either blaming the AI or insisting that it's right, when it makes a mistake. AI by nature is biased and unpredictable. But that doesn't stop the companies from saying 'the computer says so'.
These companies need a few high profile hefty penalties as a motivation to avoid such dirty tricks.
Let me start with my unbiased opinion. There's something for everybody in the Linux land. You have to try different distros out and settle with the one you like most. I usually advocate for the path of least resistance - ie, to start with the easiest distro. Mint is a good first distro. Fedora and Debian are also reasonable choices. But I have also seen a rare few cases where people start directly with a high effort distro like Arch - so it's not impossible.
For a lot of people, Mint may satisfy their needs - a user friendly distro that needs no tinkering and meets all of their needs. Some people though, like to tune everything. Such people can eventually grow into something like Arch.
I personally like Gentoo. Not because it's compiled from source, but because it's easy to work with its Portage package management system. Another one worth trying out is QubesOS, if you're into security.