It all comes down to “well, sure we might have plenty, but if not for capitalism how could we decide how to divide it?”

But any solution has to promote self-interest as a virtue and can’t take things away from people who currently own them, and also must conform to a bunch of myths we have about “how the world works”

Mushrooms have chitin, so I’m guessing there’s not common trigger

I’ve found revanced to stop playing the video after a minute or two unless you frequently update it (which is a manual process)… I no longer listen to lectures while I run errands, because there’s now no convenient way to do it. Ads are out of the question, and finding a video I want to watch only to have it cut out as I get on the road has killed the experience for me

I’m on Android, and open to suggestions

That’s not the problem… The problem is Linux isn’t “normal”. Their work laptop comes with Windows or osx. Their home computer comes with the same.

Now go tell the average person to install Linux… To them, you might as well be telling them to open up their computer and snip a jumper to make their computer faster. To them, you’re telling them to take their working computer and do something they don’t really understand and is beyond their ability to undo.

It’s an aftermarket modification to them. If you want to make Linux approachable, it’s really damn simple. Hand them a computer running Linux, with a pretty desktop manager, and a GUI for everything you expect them to do with it. Better yet, add an app store so they can try out software and run updates without feeling intimidated

My point is, if manufacturers start selling Linux machines again, a lot of people will get on board

People aren’t opposed to learning, they’re just scared of breaking it, and they need to at least be able to use a web browser without going up a learning curve

Wtf is free will even? We’re chemical systems, or a metaphysical soul, that makes statistically predictable decisions based on available information as well as uncountable minor factors. If you rewind time and do everything the same, either everyone comes to the same conclusions the same way, or free will requires an aspect of chaos… And at that point you’re at predetermination - seems to me the whole idea is outdated philosophy

But here’s the thing - statistically, people respond in predictable ways. If every time you do X, the majority will respond Y… That’s just math.

Turns out, humans are super complex, but very predictable. And by that I mean policy is extraordinarily effective.

Free will matters on a personal level, it disappears on a societal level

I think I’ve got it! So on install, we make a checkbox that says:

• do not install web search in the start menu, but also I consent to Microsoft collecting creepy levels of data about me

I’m not sure I agree that you have to give a chance to respond - I think context matters.

I think if you make an accusation or cover a specific incident, they should be able to give their context, not out of fairness but as this might give a more accurate view of the truth

In this case, they presented a specific series of events showing a pattern of behavior, and a timeline of communication they made with billet (including their public comments in the subject

What truth could they add here? They could add more details or make excuses, but that waters down the message - the point isn’t “Linus did something bad and made factual mistakes”, it’s “Linus has shown a pattern of doing bad things, and frequently publishes factually incorrect figures”

I think you’re coming at it from a place of “you have to give them a chance to respond out of fairness”, but journalism isn’t about fairness, it’s about distilling an easily consumed message from the endless complicated facts that make up any situation. Journalistic integrity is about making every effort to give a “good take”, and should put accuracy above all

Being fair to the people you’re covering should follow naturally by pursuing the truth, doing the opposite is what we call “softball journalism”

That’s a courtesy you can extend, but mostly it’s a protection against libel - if they take you to court about a claim they dispute, being able to say “your honor, we gave them a chance to respond before going public”

In this case, there’s no dispute over facts - they didn’t bring up any accusations, they just took what LTT posted publicly and presented criticisms of it

For example, if you report on the president being accused of misconduct you might ask the white house for comment, but if you are criticizing a speech they made or their public actions you probably wouldn’t (unless you think they’ll give you something that improves the story)

What’s the conflict? They have to make you believe they care about you, they don’t actually have any built in interest in your well being

Some have a strong sense of ethics, but those ethics are the only thing from them being a complete shill

They made a bunch of mistakes that were callous and might’ve smothered a couple guys starting out.

But then the lack of empathy - “it was a bad product, no one should ever buy it, and so my fundamentally flawed testing is actually valid”, “yeah they asked for it back multiple times and we auctioned it, but it was for charity so it’s fine”, “we agreed to compensate them, but it’s been months and we did that real quick after we got called out, but we’re going to make it seem like we didn’t need a scandal to do the bare minimum”

It’s all excuses, it’s all justification for why “this looks worse than it is, and actually we’re still the good guys”. It’s narcissist mental gymnastics, he still just doesn’t understand what he did wrong - besides being mostly excuses, every “apology” is totally off base on what they did wrong

You sure as hell do when you put 80% of it outside your borders, outside US borders no less

This kind of thing could spark a war in different circumstances - imagine the Mexican army goes to dismantle the buoys in their borders, and one of several possible groups from Texas confronts them and it leads to a skirmish

Mexico would be entirely within their rights - it’s on their property and it’s suspected to be leading to deaths