iopq @ iopq @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

2,324

Joined

2 yr. ago

https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/nonunique

This only includes packages that are also in other distros

They attacked Israel

This is just very surface level discussion. Didn't even mention that NixOS lets you roll your system back to any previous configuration or has the most packages of any distro

I don't think we should give away weapons to Israel, but why should sales be blocked? Israel has a right to defend itself.

Yes, I put everything on my credit card and get miles I can use to fly business class. I have credit card debt at all times, I'm just paying off last month's expenditures on time so I don't pay interest

Yes, I understand that part, I'm saying you first need to first define tolerance to negate it.

By your definition, in a tolerant society I have the right to exercise free speech. I'm not shielded from consequences of my actions, for example if it's libel. I can say anything I want about your business, but it is not true and it causes damages I'm liable for the damages.

By saying I don't have the right to express my political opinions you're being intolerant by your definition since you don't believe I should be able to live free, correct?

I still don't know what people use to create services other than systemd

If you're writing bash scripts you're basically replicating a lot of the functionality of systemd but with larger foot guns

You can't define intolerance by defining tolerance as being intolerant of intolerance. You just made a loop

How is it a clear criteria? You haven't defined what you mean by intolerance

Why would I trust Fedora over the developers of the package?

Doesn't change anything. From one perspective no crime was committed because nobody was being intolerant, but from another perspective someone was.

You can apply it to many statements, like "There should be no state in the Middle East for Jews"

That could be intolerant or maybe not.

There's a huge difference. When there's a body it's obvious someone died. When someone gets offended, no crime was committed. But almost the same thing that is only offensive to people could cross the line into harassment.

Those things are slightly different. You have the right to say "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. You have to pay for the consequences if it's not true.

If we're talking about posting opinions that offended people, that's a whole another thing. People can get offended because you have a difference of opinion.

I think you need to prove either damages were caused or you were endangered by someone (damages were not caused, but could easily have been)

I don't consider "a person said something I didn't like" as harassment

A society can choose to say that certain types of speech are intolerable, but do we get better results by jailing those people? Or do we make it more acceptable over time to jail people who are simply protesting against the government? Do we then apply violence to the protesters who don't agree to be peacefully arrested?

This isn't a theoretical consideration. See Tiananmen square, arrests of protesters in Russia, Iran, etc. The propaganda mouthpieces of these countries love to point out when similar things happen in the West

The Fedora maintainers shipped broken software, they should be the ones to explain themselves

I'm a real adherent of disenshittificationism

How do you objectively decide that? Because Palestinian protestors would violate this:

https://x.com/EYakoby/status/1854901645492072449

https://x.com/DrewPavlou/status/1800747111715311631

To you, speaking out against Israel is fine, but to some people it might be antisemitic. Whether or not it is against the rights of someone is actually personal opinion, not for the government to decide

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan

Not just death threats, but jokes too

There are still people who think the government should be in the business of fining and jailing people for things they say