The problem is that Linux just isn’t usable for the largest home computing demographic.

Linux users can’t even agree on anything significant to make progress on the distros because they’d rather abandon it and try again in a new setting. It feels like a modpack of the month, year, etc, at this point. Unstable, filled with crashes and bugs, even fedora. Incomplete documentation with half defined terms and uses due to the constant splintering. It makes it worse to learn than whatever the fuck is Microsoft’s shit documentation.

I guess you too only see the trees. A solution is not to leave the forest but to bend the trees to your will. Wherever the forest is, instead of cowering before it. A shoddy tradesman blames his tools and all that.

Is this all AI generated? None of these arguments are valid nor true. So much so that I don’t see the point of refuting them because of Brandolini’s law: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”

I’m going to be honest here. If someone asks you for Windows help and you comment to tell them to use Linux, you’re an asshole, not clever.

If every year people ask for help because they’ve been weakened by a COVID infection, yet they refuse free vaccinations, then they are the assholes.

Stop defending tax-evading unethical monopolies who don’t give a crap about their users, only their profits. And stop defending lackadaisical people who have the potential to literally change the world by being part of a snowball that could eventually avalanche Microsoft’s monopoly away. Instigating change here could be so easy. For goodness’ sake we’re talking about a change of software, not sacrificing one’s life by taking a bullet or shooting one. Stand up for what you believe in. To hell with Windows. To hell with Microsoft.

Money corrupts; bitcoin corrupts absolutely. Disregarding all of bitcoin’s shortcomings, a financial instrument that brings out the worst in people—greed—won’t change the world for the better.

I disagree with this statement. Blockchain is only a technology, good or bad is what we humans are doing. It depends how we use BTC and other coins, but that’s a human issue rather than a technological one.

≈ “C₁₀H₁₅N is only a chemical, good or bad is what we humans are doing. It depends how we use crystal meth and other chemicals, but that’s a human issue rather than a technological one.”

As much as I like to refer to Hanlon’s Razor—“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”—I discourage using the word “stupidity” as personal slights. First of all, heated subjects should be met with deescalating vocabulary because it’s already so hard to find common ground. Secondly, everyone is a product of their environment; more often than not ignorance, tradition, inertia, peer pressure, et cetera, is to blame. Not raw incapability of comprehending things.

If an entire parallel economy bloomed around crypto - any crypto - that would make more strides to truly shake governments than anything else.

“[…] In the end, governments aren’t inherently bad, but the people in it can be. And if they can be corrupted by bitcoin then we are merely running uphill on the Titanic.

“Strong currencies are not the solution to poor governance. Good governance and democracy makes a country and its currency strong. Not vice versa.” —halukakin, HackerNews, 2021 [26]

So, governments are not without faults, but likewise not the evil bogeymen as many people make them out to be, and neither are bitcoin enthusiasts. I still think most people mean well, but our ideas cannot account for, nor fathom the complexity of it all. Should the US decrease their disproportionally large defence budget?* Most definitely. Will bitcoin stop that? Probably not. Blame is easy, change is hard, and gambling on crypto“currencies” is not hard. It’s just playing Monopoly with another currency without changing the game. Maybe that’s it. Maybe they don’t want it changed and bitcoin is just a charade. “I don’t care if we have new banks, as long as I am rich.” But let’s not get lost in speculation here as well. […]”

“There are entire fields where the FOSS is just hilariously behind proprietary software”

1. “hilariously”?
2. Examples?

To me it honestly just seems like you want someone else’s stuff for free and are just brining up morally in a misguided way to achieve that.

The article clearly mentions my use of Z-Library is to inspect before I buy. Now, because of being misrepresented twice, the discussion ends here.

“I really don’t understand why people think they have a moral right to other people’s creations.”

That’s a straw man fallacy. That statement removes all the always important context you just alluded to, a statement which was never claimed.

I like that you brought it up though, the original remark, a bit sardonic but that’s okay. It keeps me aware of my own potential generalizations, assumptions, fallacies, and whatnot.

“I like piracy too but saying that banning piracy is immortal and comparing it to apartheid, slavery and ccolonialism is just ridiculous.”

When one puts it like that it sure does seem ridiculous, but to me it is obvious that the analogy I am making is purely the fact that something being illegal does not mean it’s immoral.

I guess you want unattended cooking.

Not at all actually. I’m way too conscious of fire safety. Unfortunately won’t immediately change to an induction cooktop. I realize it’s the more efficient option, but the investment would only make sense if I knew for sure I’ll be living where I am now for a long time. Thanks for the input.