psivchaz @ psivchaz @reddthat.com

Posts

0

Comments

257

Joined

2 yr. ago

It's the downside of open source: You're at the mercy of companies that don't care and developers who are primarily interested in the hardware they're using rather than the hardware you're using.

The best experience is going to be hardware that's built and certified for Linux. System76, Tuxedo, a bunch of other smaller names and the rare Dell or Lenovo. But that's definitely not practical for everyone, or a good idea to convince people to buy new hardware for Linux.

It'll be a slow transition. The more enthusiasts hop on the bandwagon, the more manufacturers and hardware vendors will care about support. The more Microsoft keeps irritating their customers, the more companies will move away. The support will come, it's been improving for a long time.

All that said. I'd recommend CachyOS or PopOS if you get the urge to try again. I've tried a bunch of distributions and those seem to have the best focus on "just make consumer hardware work right out of the box." That's no guarantee of course, but it's a start.

Those who don't mostly seem to assume that every other country is still doing bloodletting and that America is the only place with MRI machines. Those that understand that's not the case will probably say something about wait times.

My fear is them going public or selling. If that happens, it'll probably be Microsoft willing to spend any amount, and the government hasn't really been in a "preventing monopolies" mood for a while now.

I was mostly focused on how irritating it is that there's yet another way that basic necessities are monetized, rather than on the actual implementation details.

The government already tracks average home and property values for determining property tax and also for determining what is a reasonable mortgage for a given area. I was kind of thinking that it would just be in addition to property tax so based on your home value, so those with very large houses would already be paying proportionally more into it.

I would argue that the concept is flawed. The base idea is that you calculate statistics on how much you would be likely to have to pay out, then set premiums such that you'll always be ahead of payouts. Essentially, everyone pays so that the unfortunate few who need help can get money out of the common pool to help.

This is just taxes, basically. We already do this with fire departments and such. However, insurance adds a profit motive on top because it's a company, so the amount they take in must always be significantly higher than the amount they pay out. And if it's a publicly traded company then the amount they make above and beyond the amount they pay out must always be higher every quarter.

Like at a certain point, why not just do taxes and better disaster relief? As an added bonus, the government would have an extra incentive to care about things that may make the payouts increase, like poor infrastructure or climate change.

This has to be terrible news for conspiracy theorists. Our government got caught doing something shady overseas but it was encouraging other people to NOT vaccinate, which is the thing the conspiracy theorists thought our government wanted everyone to do.

I'm legitimately interested to see how/if Fox or OAN report on this. It should be entertaining.

And then interrupting that hold music at seemingly random intervals to tell you that they care about you, or to tell you that you could do this faster on their website.

I had to call Assurant recently because their website literally threw an error and told me to call in and wouldn't let me proceed. I was told by the automated messages no less than 4 unstoppable times that the website is faster, and then after explaining the situation to the person she told me that the website is faster.

She was clearly reading the script and it's not her fault so I kept quiet, but I have rarely felt such extreme rage in my life.

My favorite fast food restaurant TBH. I don't get it either.

Worthy, sure. I just mean that what actually happened with The Jungle was people focused on how gross meat packing facilities were. The working conditions were treated as kind of a secondary, less important issue.

Even the stupid things that hurt everyone! That's the best part. We've been so into racism as a country that we shoot ourselves in the foot constantly to spite black people.

There's plenty of examples, but the one that always comes to mind for me first is public transportation. We led the world for a while there. Buses and trams and all sorts of ways to get around easily. It feels awfully coincidental that we let black people ride wherever they wanted on the bus and all of a sudden public transportation takes a back seat to car infrastructure right after.

A moral panic is when people freak out because they're scared for the nation's morals or values. The Jungle made people, rightfully, freak out about their health (whether that was the intention or not). I don't think it qualifies as a moral panic.

I think where points of view tend to diverge is in the definition of "harm." There's also some team sports at play, for sure, but I do think a big part of it is "harm."

See, a devout Christian might say that an atheist T-shirt encourages children to turn away from God, endangering their immortal souls. If you truly believe in Christianity, can there be any greater harm?

At the same time, people who are more conservative tend to not view psychological effects as valid. If you do something that causes a person mental anguish, as opposed to damaging their body, property, or potentially their immortal soul, then it's imaginary harm. To be totally honest, though, that's one area I tend to be almost conservative. Psychological harm IS real harm, but I don't think the government should be in the business of protecting people from it because as long as people have differing views there's simply no way to protect people equally.

I feel like this does a great job of explaining why I hated it, at least. https://youtu.be/DxFPmF1puW4

The trick is that it has to be a threat, and if we're being honest then the more money and power you have the more obviously threatening it must be.

DON'T SAY: "I'm going to kill you."

DO SAY: "It would be great if you died right now."

And if you have influence and/or money, feel free to say: "I wish someone would kill you."

I love his channel but it makes me want to live in the Netherlands so bad.

I'm exaggerating slightly to be funny. That said, I'm the type of parent that sends my kids out to play unsupervised, and that's really not as common as it was when I was a kid. I've dealt with:

• When my daughter was 6, she did a loop around our block alone. About a quarter of a mile, most of it visible from the front or back yard. A neighbor came to tell me she saw my daughter walking alone, and I told her I knew. She insisted that my daughter was too young, and it was too cold for her to be out alone (I think around 40 degrees? My daughter was wearing a coat, anyway). I said she'd be fine. This lady then went and convinced my daughter to walk home with her. She brought her up to the door and I was completely blown away that this woman basically took it upon herself to decide what my kid can and cannot do.
• A different neighbor posted a picture of my son on Facebook, at 8 years old, asking where the parents were because he was too old to be out playing alone.
• One of my daughter's friends isn't allowed out of the house without a parent (now 9 years old) so my daughter always goes to her house. It's weird.

That's not a lot. It's not even that serious. But it's fucking weird that we've arrived here, as a society.

Some commenter mentioned people on Lemmy being scared of everything. Yeah, I combine my experiences with those stories of people being arrested for neglect or abuse because they let their kid out of their sight for a minute and it terrifies me. This is a nation of nosy busybodies, convinced by around-the-clock news that there's a pedophile kidnapper lurking in every neighborhood waiting for the chance to strike.

The "I got a big tip on a small bill" part suggests America, but the "three ten year old boys in public without anyone calling the cops" suggests Europe. Hmmm

I spotted the problem. It talks about "education" which is really just code for "communist indoctrination" obviously.

I think the problem is that search does not make money. Ads make money, and subscriptions make money. Convincing people to switch from Google ads to New Google ads would involve dumping tons of money into becoming popular enough to attract advertisers. Convincing people to pay for search, like Kagi is doing, is probably even harder.

I'm so sorry.