I mean, it's literally trying to copy itself to places that they don't want it so it can continue to run after they try to shut it down and lie to them about what it's doing. Those are things it actually tried to do. I don't care about the richness of its inner world if they're going to sell this thing to idiots to make porn with while it can do all that, but that's the world we're headed toward.
It isn't. People just like to bring up the 2 or 3 most extreme examples from a country of a third of a billion people and pretend that's a normal, everyday occurrence. You'd think that people would realize that none of us have ever actually met anyone that ever successfully sued anyone for millions of dollars and extrapolate, but they'd rather be mad at some imaginary problem in a way that conveniently makes it more difficult to use the legal system to defend ourselves from rich people if we "fix" it.
And in answer to the question in the title: Yes. Yes it is. Toxic masculinity has never been about man=bad or anything. It's about finding better ways of being masculine. That's what it was always supposed to be.
Square pixels are a filter just as much as CRT filters are. In fact, they distort the image even more. Even leaving aside all the things that just don't work right in square pixel land, turning every pixel into a square messes up the aspect ratio of a lot of old consoles. Everything ends up squished and stretched because it wasn't designed for square pixels. You can call that distorted funhouse mirror version of old video game art "crisp" if you want, but in reality it's just the cheapest and worst filter.
There is no world in which anyone ever designed a game for anything more powerful than a Gameboy where they expected people to see it as a seemless grid of squares so big you can see them from across the room. That's just not a real thing outside of badly designed modern "retro" graphics. There's a reason for that. Seemless square grid is ugly. Like, disgustingly hideous. I do not understand why anyone would ever want to subject their eyeballs to the atrocity that is giant square pixels. If you want to do that to yourself then I can't stop you. There's no accounting for taste and all that, but just know that I think less of you for it.
Sure, if it's making your life easier or making you happy or whatever, then have it. Don't let me yuck your yum. I just think it doesn't provide any real benefit for most people. Am I not allowed to talk about my opinion?
I think you're confusing privacy and security. Some of us aren't really worried about the NSA hacking our phones. We would just like for it to not constantly be selling out every minute detail of our personal information to a mega-corporation. Sure, you still have to pay attention to what apps you install and all of that, but a de-googled android phone is still a massive upgrade in terms of privacy even if it isn't super secure, as long as you aren't being individually targeted for some reason.
Copy on write is pretty overrated for most use cases. It'd be nice to have, but I don't find it's worth the bother. Disk compression and snapshots have had solutions for longer than btrfs has existed, so I don't understand why I'd want to cram them into an otherwise worse file system and call it an improvement. I will admit that copy on write and snapshots do at least have a little synergy together, but storage has gotten to be one of the cheapest parts of a computer. I'd rather just have a real backup.
You know file systems are not the only way to do that, right? Heck, Timeshift is explicitly designed to do that easily and automatically without ever even having to look at a command line. Backup before upgrade is a weird thing to cram into a file system.
Twitter has always had an entire order of magnitude less users than other social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, or TikTok. Heck, it's barely bigger than Reddit. I've honestly never understood why anyone has ever paid any attention to that cesspool.
I mean, unless you really like one of the weird bells and whistles btrfs supports ext4 is just faster and more reliable. If you don't have weird power user needs then anything else is a downgrade. Even ZFS really only makes a significant difference if you're moving around gigabytes of data on a daily basis. If you're on a BSD anyway feel free to go for it, but for most people there is no real benefit. Every other fancy new file system is just worse for typical desktop use cases. People desperately want to replace ext4 because it's old, but there's just really nothing to gain from it. Sometimes simple and reliable is good.
Ecosia already has more users than Brave Search according to the few sources I could find that even tried to estimate market share for search engines that niche. They're all less than a percent either way though, and nobody's gunning to beat the 13th most popular search engine, especially when number 1 has 80-90% of the market according to most estimates.
Hey, if you don't think distributions are doing anything, you can always use Linux From Scratch.
Seriously though, most of the work done by good distros is specifically so you don't notice things. They make a bajillion independent open source projects work together nicely. That's something I'm glad I don't have to do myself.
There are much less expensive ways of suing someone than just flying there and staying until the lawsuit is done. They're still not cheap, but that's a pretty absurd way of doing it.
Forced arbitration is also complete bullshit. The fact that corporations are starting to realize it's almost as bad for them as it is for us doesn't make it any less bullshit.
The big five is pretty much the only version of this that's actually sort of kind of almost a real thing. Nobody likes being told they have high neuroticism though, so it's not ever a fun fad meme thing.
Alright, I hereby name my keyboard Blue. It's called blue now. It isn't blue, but I named it Blue.