renzev @ renzev @lemmy.world

Posts

60

Comments

653

Joined

2 yr. ago

Did you even read my comment? This has nothing to do with personal preference. It's a matter of defending a shared commons from a hostile force. Sure, an individual gnome user can coexist with an individual kde user, like seriously who cares its just a DE. But as a community, users of other DEs, WMs and compositors can only "coexist" with the gnome project in the same way that a population of humans can "coexist" with the COVID-19 virus

It's never about the DE's themselves, it's about the devs.

KDE's devs are just focused on making a cool desktop environment with many features. It's a little buggy and has some weird design decisions, but whatever, no biggie.

GNOME devs deliberately sabbotage existing linux standards in attemps to take control over desktop linux. Examples: client-side decorations, client-side shadows, systray fiasco.

This is not a question of personal preference. It's a question of keeping desktop linux free, fair, and accessible for everyone.

Huh? How did you go from "people should have equal opportunities" to lynching and firing pregnant women? At this point you're just saying whatever you want.

Plus, lmao at the hypocrisy of calling DEI a "boogeyman" while simultaneously accusing anyone disagreeing with you a racistsexistlyncher. It's totally real, you're proving it yourself.

The reason they don't want you to unlock your bootloader is because of security....

...security of their revenue stream, that is.

I guess if he's getting paid to do the interviews then it's technically passive... wait no, then the whole interviewer thing would just count as advertising for his vending machine business

Batshit analogies like these that simultaneously make sense and don't is what I'm here for. Amazing.

They don’t actually believe any of this shit.

I agree with everything else that you're saying, but I wouldn't be so sure about this. Have you ever noticed how it's much easier to start online flame wars when you actually believe in the batshit stance that you're arguing as opposed to pretending to believe it for the sake of trolling? I think it's a similar thing here. I don't think humans are that good at compartmentalising, so in order to do something performatively so often and so well you have to trick your mind into actually believing it in a sort of corrupt way. I know this makes me sound like a middleschooler, but I think George Orwell's concept of doublethink is very much real in cases like these.

I question whether the people hollering that "X11 is held together with duct tape" have actually tried using X11 in the recent years. It's surprisingly stable. You never have to fiddle with Xorg.conf anymore, it's all automatic. The only parts where it really shits the bed, in my experience, is either if you're trying some extremely non-standard setup like mixing and matching wildly different generations of graphics cards, or in cases of deliberate sabotage by gnme devs like client-side decorations and shadows. I really wished that the X11 -> wayland transition would be just like the pulseaudio -> pipewire transition where a desperately broken system that was causing issues for users got replaced -- in a matter of months -- with a successor that was not only 100% compatible but offered cool new features on top of stability improvements. But this has just not been the case so far. Wayland has been "the future of the linux desktop" for nearly twenty years, and it's still not quite there yet. X11 mostly just works, it isn't abandoned, it's finished. And what exactly are the new features we should be looking forward to in wayland? Isolation between clients is very cool I must confess, but did it really necessitate an entire protocol overhaul? QubesOS has had that feature working under X11 for over a decade. This guy on github managed to get it working with off-the-shelf X11 tunneling tools. Nevertheless, I'm still optimistic for wayland. The already existing backwards compatibility with X11 is impressive, and I think with enough work it might just be viable as the successor.

When people say that they are “anti-DEI” in the US, they mean that they want a society where the only people with power are white, protestant men.

Source: trust me bro

Is it really that implausible that some people really do just want to have diversity, inclusion, and equity the "old way" by simply giving everyone an equal opportunity to participate instead of embracing DEI ideology? It's a huge leap in logic to just assume that anyone who doesn't subscribe to some specific ideology that claims to be tolerant must secretly be opposed to tolerance itself. I think all of those people yelling "nazi" at anyone remotely critical of DEI are just projecting.

Jesus christ people in the comments here are pathetic. This clearly has nothing to do with racial slurs or otaku culture. It's a play on the totally normal english word "tycoon" which just means "very rich businessman" and "mogul" which is a synonym for "magnate". You can look these up, every half-decent dictionary has these words. They probably changed it because "coon" is a slur for black people and they didn't want to cause any misunderstandings. If any of this offends you, please, please just step outside, touch some grass, take a deep breath, relax.

you can just send the money to the artist if indeed your objective is to “contribute to the artist” no NFTs required

Yeah, people could donate directly, but some people decided to buy NFTs instead, and they wouldn't have spent the money otherwise.

^
|
This is my logic which shows that my post is not bullshit. My post is only bullshit by the "logic" that you try to introduce.

And you don't need to be writing these long-winded paragraphs. The point stands that you're the one who brought up the argument about NFTs as means of ownership and then started arguing on the opposing side. Who are you arguing against? There is no-one on the proposing side, only the starmen you put there.

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say shit about "rights" and "respect". The guy in the original comment mentioned nothing about it either. You said that. You're bringing this idea into the conversation and then arguing against yourself. Seriously, what is your endgame here?

I genuinely have no clue what you think I "read on a website" about NFTs. To set the record straight, my understanding of NFTs is that you have a ledger where your public key is associated with a token short string of characters, and every computer participating in the ledger agrees on that. that's it. All of these ideas of "ownership" and "rights" and societal analogies is bullshit you brought into the conversation.

damn those 17 downvotes are so salty it's making my monitor bezels corrode

yeah exactly I still haven't heard a single explanation of what makes NFTs a "scam". People just shout that word and expect you to accept it. Seriously, which part of a consensual transaction between two well-informed parties qualifies as a "scam"?

bruh it's really not that difficult. Fan sends money to artist. Fan receives some magical bytes in return. Could fan have right clicked and downloaded the artwork without paying? Of course. But fan wants to support artist. Because fan likes artist's art. It's how any digital "marketplace" works, NFT or not. All this "legal system" and "ownership" and "legal registrar" nonsense you're pulling up is completely irrelevant. You're reading too much into it.

Huh, this person doesn't like starbucks

They must be autistic

Peak .world behavior right there

Convenience? The fuck are you talking about?? Have you never heard of soluble coffee? I carry a jar of soluble coffee in my backpack when I go to uni. They have those instant water boiling taps on every floor in my faculty building, I can make myself a mug just like that. Is it good? No. But certainly better than starbucks.

But whatever, I'm not going to argue with someone who's trying to convince me that the thing I do almost every day with no issues is actually impossible.

It has always striked me as a rich people thing

Fastfoods marketing themselves as luxury brand is a relatively recent trend. A decade or so ago starbacks, mcd's, etc. really were "cheap, fast, tasty". Fast food used to be a convenience for when you were on road trips and couldn't make your own food.

All these different fastfood brands built up such a large reputation around themselves that they practically became a part of our collective conscious. At some point they realised that instead of selling food, they could sell their brand. And that's when it stopped being cheap, stopped being tasty, and generally became a "rich people" thing.

So I used to think that people hated on starbucks because "hurr durr real men only drink black coffee" and starbucks had extremely sugary and milky drinks that had barely any actual coffee in it. "No problem" I thought, "I like sugary drinks!". So I went to a starbucks at the shopping mall close to where I live and ordered something and it was literally just a glass of ice cubes with like three sips' worth of milk and syrup squirted into it. It genuinely felt like the barista forgot one of the ingredients or something. I thought it was a fluke but when I was at that mall at a different time I got a different iced coffee and it was the same stuff: glass full of ice cubes with a squirtling of syrup and milk. What even is the point!?

This comment was removed incorrectly. What exactly is the "disinformation" here? This guy was literally just giving his interpretation of what happened to me, not making any assertions about fluoride and its efficacy in general. They even affirmed that it's ANECDOTAL evidence right in their reply! Stop reading conspiracies into everything!