seralth @ seralth @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

161

Joined

2 yr. ago

Would help if you stopped using legal terms to argue moral ones then. Then you wouldn't get people like him arguing with you.

He's right, you are wrong. Full stop. Human rights is a legal term and defined in written word. Your issue is a moral not a legal one. You need to use proper terms and make yourself clear.

Blood right nationality and birth right nationality both are equally legal.

Going from one to the other is perfectly legally fine. Hell it's even morally fine. If anything there is less problems with blood right over birth right. As birth right nationality has frequent issues with births outside of the country, and since fewer countries use birth right it causes even more.

Yes it's all the America's that use it, but that's more a size of land mass not an actual population argument. By number of people, and countries blood right is the common method.

There are clear moral issues with WHY trump is doing this. And being upset at those reasons is perfectly moral. Hell I don't like him doing this either. It's for all the wrong reasons and being done in a fucked up way. But that doesn't mean switching citizenship methodology is bad or wrong would also just be objectively incorrect. It can be done in a perfectly legal AND morally acceptable way.

Trump just of course doesn't care about legal or moral thus the problems.

But humans rights it is not. Stop using a legal term that only quasi is connected to your words. It undermines your own stance. It only makes it hard to actually take you serious. It just makes you come across as trying to cause a panic instead of actually taking a stance.

People tend to forget that in the past the parents rarely were the ones who raised the kids. It was the grandparents.

Parents have kids, the grandparents raise them, the parents learn how to raise so they then can raise them when they are the grandparents.

Raising a family was generational and cooperative. It's more modern that family units are so small

Oh boi, for gaming Ubuntu and it's family is... Iffy at best. You tend to end up with weird problems cause of the older software frequently. Not a problem till it VERY much is.

Modern gaming basically requires you to be really close to cutting edge if you want remotely reliable performance and timely bug fixes. Which you just do not and will never get on Ubuntu.

It's why valve choose arch for steam OS. It's why cachyOS exists. It's why the big popular alterative is fedora based.

Tho suggesting bazzite is iffy with how fedora likes to break things with dumb changes.

The fact people suggest anything fedora based to new users is even more baffling then suggesting pure arch.

Fedora loves to just randomly destroy itself every so often. Hell they are currently thinking of doing it right now!

If your going to do a gamer distro like bazzite as a gamer your objectively better off just going with cachyOS.

It's literally the same base as steam OS, has half the problems. And wont just implode because fedora decides to change something stupid yet again.

When wood is cheaper then rocks you make things out of wood.

Then you get in the habit of using wood.

Then it doesn't matter what happens, you keep using wood cause fuck changing shit.

Damn great example of why it's stupid to only read headlines.

No it's not it's just arch.

Go install arch right now, install steam and set big picture mode to launch in login.

Tada you have steamOS.

Yes this is an over simplification to a degree but honestly it really is just that simple really.

Everyone is a edgy teenager well into their 20s.

As the joke goes, if your 18 your a child, if your 23 your a teenager, if your 29 your 30, if your 34 your late 20s, if your 35 your 35.

Most people in most western worlds don't even get to start being an adult till they are well into their mid 20s, which means they only START growing up at like 24-25.

It takes years to actually mature. Anyone who understand this has never worked a job that has frequent fresh to the workforce people cycling though frequently.

Just migrate to cachy! It's everything bazzite is but better!

But a shovel isn't a spade and a spade isn't a shovel! They are different tools!

Hey don't talk shit about Chris he's a fun dude who shares his passion and cool knowledge and that's pretty cool.

I'm sorry that you have a physical and painful response to other humans who prefer the opposite sex.

That sounds like a horribly crippling disability.

That or an uncalled for bigoted insult to others based on sexual preferences.

You don't have to insult entire classes of people to make your point. Be a better person, and don't perpetuate hate just because you feel it's ok to attack people for being straight.

Oh you very much can, what you can't do is stop ideas from mutating.

Ideas VERY rarely if ever actually survive the original source of them. The moment an idea is passed onto the next generation it changes.

You can make an argument that it's the same idea, but it rarely RARELY is.

Much like a virus, an idea can have similarities to what came before, but each version is unique and has it's owns strength and weaknesses.

All you can really hope is that the next version isn't more deadly and immune to the cure.

People easily ignore death if it's not directly connected to them.

Covid killed a lot but we also have many many times more people. The civil war directly effected a higher percent of the population in terms of death the. Covid did.

Covid was also hidden by modern medicine and society then the civil war was in many ways.

Covid to a lot of people just ment things closed sooner and they had to wear a mask. But society was already very insular and detached from the community around them. So it was only a progression of the norm. Unless you payed attention to the news or were in the healthcare industry. All the death was happening behind closed doors hidden away from society at large.

The civil war was best as I know far more impactful to the people because of the closet connection to their communities around them.

It was far more visible in a visceral way.

I would expect the avg German citizen in 1939 to be historically fucked with no options but bad ones!

It actually had bullet points below the initial warning that said websites could track you.

The big warning on top was fine before. It could have been worded better and the update made its wording better. But below that warning it's always had bullet points over examples of what it would and would not save in website tracking as well as browser data from searches could be saved. Sure, they didn't explicitly say Google would save your data, but Google being a web browser falls under that bullet point and Google being a website falls under that bullet point. A website falls under that bullet point.

This is people not being able to understand what words mean.

From day one it is explicitly said it doesn't do that. It's literally always been on the main blank tab page right below the warning over what it does.

How they even had to update the wording because of all of this because people didn't bother to read three bullet points

To be fair nothing was stolen, the lawyers even admitted as much.

This is a user error problem caused by the moron in a hurry problem.

The warning on incognito mode both before and after the change was very explicit that it was local only. It was intended for people sharing a computer, not for privacy to anything you searched, external websites, etc

Below the warning even had examples over exactly what was and was not saved with it explicitly saying that external websites would be able to track and save your data including Google.

The change was to add that warning list to the initial warning itself because Google had assumed people would read the entire page. They did not.

Which means that those morons in a hurry who only skimmed misunderstood what incognito mode was for. Did not read the use case, the warning, the TOs, the manual, or any other information provided both explicitly or implicitly.

Hell even parted the argument of the lawyers was that this is a user issue and that Google had a responsibility to prevent people who were ignorant or in a hurry from misunderstanding. And while they made a good faith effort, it could have been better. Google being the large company is taking the fall for this more than anything but it is at the end of the day a user issue.

It IS local incognito. By definition the name is accurate.

The wording on the warning both BEFORE AND AFTER the change says explicitly websites you visit, and anything external WILL still record and track you.

It said BEFORE AND AFTER that ONLY local things such as history omor cookies arnt saved.

It is 100% incognito. For the local browser. It warms BEFORE AND AFTER that it's not real privacy.

They changed the wording basically from an assumption people will read the examples given on the SAME page as the warning. To having the examples built into the warning.

Basically they assumed their users could read. They were wrong, people can't read. So they have to scream it now.

Even before that change it's explicit about it... The change literally did not change any part of the text that tells you who can and are going to track you. They basically went from "this isn't real privacy" to screaming at your face cause apparently people can't read and are idiots.

This is a case of users misusing a tool and not reading. At best you can argue that google should have assumed it's users were stupid beyond measure from the start and had a tos so verbose that only someone missing a brain could misunderstand the point of the tool.