According to Baldrick he lives in Australia and is no less legitimate a claim to be king of england than any of those bastards since Dick III. The fact that he hasn't raised an army and started any wars suggests he might be less of a dick than most of them.
That's a problem and I remember talking about it in the 2000s when everything started to become user friendlieness. plug and play, just works and so-on, worst part is stuff being locked down and harder to jailbreak.
It'll be fine though, I'm sure AI will install their OS for them, I won't have a clue how it did it, but it'll probably be better than I could do.
You'll just add "without backdoors" to the prompt and it'll be secure too.
I agree, there's a lot of people in this thread who seem to know exactly what is good or bad for a new user. But I don't see many being sensitive to what the user might actually want to achieve. New users are not a homogeneous group.
If the user wants to both use (stably) and learn (break stuff) simultaneously, I'd suggest that they start on debian but have a second disk for a dual boot / experimentation. I don't really use qemu much but maybe that's a good alternative these days. But within that I'd say set them self the challenge of getting a working arch install from scrath - following the wiki. Not from the script or endeavourOS - I think those are for 4th/5th install arch users.
I find it hard to believe that I'd have learned as much if ubuntu was available when I started. But I did dual boot various things with DOS / windows for years - which gave something stable, plus more of a sandbox.
I think the only universal recommedation for. any user, any distro, is "figure ourt a decent backup policy, then try to stick to it". If that means buy a cheap used backup pc, or raspberry pi and set it up for any tasks you depend on, then do that. and I'd probably pick debian on that system.
Wow USA is strange, how did calling the police after the vandalism become "losing" or "irrational".
It sounds like the thought process is: just in case someone might commit a crime, preemptive escalation is the best choice.
Wild. I'd call that thought procecess verging on sociopathic not rational. If a person's fear of crime is so crippling that they think society has broken down because they fear a crime that they dream might happen; that person was never a well adjusted member of society. I'd think anyone trying to do business with or interact with such people should be careful - they're unlikely to follow predictable or normal behaviour patterns.
I'd get that mindset might be rational for the BLM-type victims in those states /areas where law and order does seem to systematically fail some communities. But if it's based on fear rather than evidence of law and order having broken down then, it's less rational.
It's not just ships. Before and after ships forests were/are cleared for farming.
Net carbon sequestration of almost any forest is likely to be better than cropland and pasture - more so the old forests with well developed fungi and worms and stuff that fix and recycle some of it, not so much the timber forestry but i sustect theyre better than farms still.
Steel ships did not really even slow deforestation much - globally. Though you could argue that the sail ships enabled Europeans to bring all their various shit to the Americas - so it is maybe linked to the farming thing.
We also drained and dried out wetlands and bogs which are quite good at trapping a high amount of rotting material, also to make farmland. I'm not sure if that is counted in those stats - that is possibly more of a European overpopulation thing than a global one anyway.
I dont see how it will stop unles people start eating less, or more efficiently (I guess swap a lot of cow for cereals).
I don't think monocultures + fertilizer + pesticides is going to be all that sustainable at keeping high yields in the long run - but we shall see about that I guess. Gene techlogy does seem to create some advances.
I just dont get why you have to assume that though?
Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I've met and worked with enough humans that I think the best assumtion is that they're all full of shit until they prove otherwise.
It's fine to rely on experts for some things, but if those experts aren't subject to independent scrutiny or directly independent of the claim or sunjecy under test, or can't give clear testable /replicable evidence, I'd just not put much weight on their testimony as a source of evidence.
I hope the screenshot dude is also going to stop this unquestioning belief in the things people say or claim without evidence.
Those first two paragraphs look like a tendency to prefer hero-worship to critical thought; that seems to be a fairly widespread problem in humans from long before this latest batch of demagogues.
There's also a hint of "I'm not an 'expert' in it so I can't (be bothered) to understand anything about it" also a very depressingly common attitude.
Science requires systematic observation, measurement and usually variation (often experimentally controlled); and, usually, iterations.
One datapoint outside such a system is not science.
You can't even necessarily just insert a new datapoint into a pre-existing scientific sytem. The system itself may need to be adjusted, for example to test and account for biases that often occur due to how observations are made.
What about that Plantagenet dude?
According to Baldrick he lives in Australia and is no less legitimate a claim to be king of england than any of those bastards since Dick III. The fact that he hasn't raised an army and started any wars suggests he might be less of a dick than most of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain%27s_Real_Monarch
Oh - looks like he died, but maybe his offsping.