Lol. Confidently incorrect. I’m not a guy and my instance has downvotes disabled. I couldn’t even downvote you even if I cared enough to do so. Maybe more people other than myself disagree with your bad takes.

If you’re choosing to focus on Hasan having a correct opinion that is concordant with his beliefs, then you’re choosing to center Hasan instead of the message, when the message is much more important.

Most reasonable people find that behavior to be suspect, particularly when the issue at hand is about a genocidal ideology and you’re choosing to focus on inconsequential online discourse about the person that is calling for action against it.

Most people hate Snaps because the Snapstore backend is proprietary (which is a valid reason to hate them).

I despise Snaps because their cold start times are dreadful (yes, even with LZMA compression, which Canonical wants you to believe solved this). When a Snap launches after first installation or after an update, you’re looking at anywhere from 15-60 seconds of unresponsiveness while your system appears to fail to launch the application, even though it’s actually because the shitty Snap needs to decompress the disk images and pollute your loopback devices.

Combine the terrible cold start times with the fact that the default behavior of Snaps is to phone home to the Snapstore whenever they want to check for updates and you’re going to create bad experiences for people (especially newbies) that think “Linux is garbage” because Canonical decided this was a great idea to force on people.

They also keep Snapifying core parts of Ubuntu like the kernel itself and GNOME, making them impossible to avoid if you want or need to use Ubuntu.

On the other hand, I feel like many of the headaches of packaging and using packages could have been avoided if static linking were the default. Sure, things like openssl should probably be dynamically linked for more immediate updates when security issues arise, but most of the other third-party libraries for applications should be statically linked.

Otherwise, we end up reinventing static linking for decades, which is what things like Flatpak, AppImages, Snaps (🤢), and presumably Toolpaks exist to solve.

Yes, Flatpaks and Snaps (🤢) also provide application sandboxes, but it would be much better if they could focus more on sandboxing than also having to worry about dependency management for application libraries.

Arguably, if static linking were the default, Toolpaks wouldn’t be necessary either, even for immutable systems, because static binaries can be easily installed to a mutable part of the system.

Honestly for the best lol.

Jokes aside, I don’t see why this would exclude those languages. Just because they need a runtime doesn’t mean the runtime can’t be bundled (even if it is annoying to do so). I would imagine for runtime-dependent tools, they would just make a generic runtime bundle that can be shared between packages, similarly to how it’s done with flatpak.

I think “tools [bundling] all their dependencies” is more likely to mean that you need to ensure that third-party libraries your tool depend on are bundled, which is good. End users, even if they’re developers, shouldn’t need to hunt those down just to use something.

Interesting that weird commenters need to make this about Hasan Piker instead of the actually important matter being discussed.

It’s almost like they have a problem with using honest language to describe Zionism 🤔

Oh nice. I remember pirating Alan Wake 2 (because they didn’t sell it on Steam). It was a great game, but it ran kinda terribly in my experience though :/

Hmm… I never heard of it. What games/studios use it?

That sucks. RE engine was basically the only modern AAA engine that was both performant and good-looking. I guess it won’t be for much longer.

Yeah, last I checked, Kagi claimed something like 70% compatibility with the extension APIs. It wasn’t perfect, but it was enough for uBlock Origin and my password manager to work, which are my minimum requirements for a browser.

This browser was really cool because, despite being WebKit, it was compatible with Firefox and Chrome extensions. That alone made it more worth trying than any non-FF or non-Chromium browser.

I hope that any other WebKit browsers (like Epiphany/GNOME Web) take that from Orion and adopt it in their own browser. That would make them viable.

This browser was really cool because, despite being WebKit, it was compatible with Firefox and Chrome extensions. That alone made it more worth trying than any non-FF or non-Chromium browser.

I hope that any other WebKit browsers (like Epiphany/GNOME Web) take that from Orion and adopt it in their own browser. That would make them viable.

He is 100% correct.

100000%. Developers, include screenshots in your READMEs! This one did, but it can’t be said enough.

That is a great way to put it and cuts right at the underlying prejudice of the thinly-veiled bigoted motivation of such laws.

Did you not read this?

I became an anti-theist after many years of being a deist. I am familiar with at least one non-Abrahamic theistic belief (deism).

Or this?

I am not appealing to an “objective truth”. I’m appealing against the solopsism and nihilism required to believe something you know is unfalsifiable. If you can’t know something is true, be honest with yourself and others. Your position on the matter should be “it cannot be proven/disproven; we cannot know”. Not, “I believe in it, despite it being unfalisifiable”.

I had a theistic worldview, just like you. It is not for a lack of experience or consideration that I became an anti-theist. Nor am I appealing to some all-encompassing, all-explaining Truth (or “real world” as you put it); that is what theists do.

Which makes what you said:

And what you’re doing is ignorant, unintentional faith. The worst characteristics of religion. You can’t see past this all-powerful “real world” you’ve been taught to believe in, because you’ve built your entire identity around it.

feel a lot more like projection than engaging in a critical discussion.

You can call yourself whatever you like, but what you are doing is solopsistic.

You and I both have no choice but to believe in an unfalsifiable external world. Because the only alternative is solipsism, and neither of us is considering that one.

What you’re doing is solopsism. You’re adopting affirmative beliefs in things you know can’t be proven true out of the fear that if you don’t, nothing but your own experience can be real. God(s) do not need to exist for things outside your own experience to be real. If you believe otherwise, you are being solopsistic.

You don’t need to believe in an “absolute truth”. But you shouldn’t adopt an affirmative belief in things that you know cannot be proven or disproven. The only honest answer to such a matter – a belief in god(s) – is: “it cannot be proven/disproven; we cannot know”; not, “I believe in it, despite it being unfalisifiable”. The latter is harmful.

It’s an equally good way to believe in beneficial lies

That was addressed in my other comment. And if you believe that the reasons for doing good things in the world are “beneficial lies”, I’d say that’s another issue with theism warping your view of reality. You don’t need “beneficial lies” to do good in the world. You merely need the desire and ability to do good – neither of which require theism. But the lies that people are influenced by will contribute to harmful beliefs and actions, which is the main problem with theism.

So that’s My critique of the philosophy being espoused here, that objective truth is a moral good.

I am not appealing to an “objective truth”. I’m appealing against the solopsism and nihilism required to believe something you know is unfalsifiable. If you can’t know something is true, be honest with yourself and others. Your position on the matter should be “it cannot be proven/disproven; we cannot know”. Not, “I believe in it, despite it being unfalisifiable”.

Theistic beliefs are a terrible way to determine what is true, especially when theism is not only simultaneously used to justify harm (bigotry, supremacy, exploitation), but also unnecessary for achieving caring about justice (rights, environmental conservation, veganism, anti-capitalism, etc.).

Do some theists end up doing and believing progressive and beneficial things? Yes, but a house built on a weak foundation can fall apart much more easily than one built on a solid one. You should do good in the world because that is the kind of person you want to be, not because of a (very likely untrue) belief you adopted that cannot be falsified.