The last few times I used Ubuntu I had to use the terminal or I couldn’t get apps I needed (the store didn’t have them).
Set-ups and installations were not as simple as you’ve described here.
and uh “scam sites” are a non-issue unless you’re a boomer
I have touched the registry like once, and that was just to disable windows updates. It’s not something I do.
The thing is that Linux is literally designed for coders in mind, it surely comes off that way. I’m not comfortable having to type these weird long-winded commands to do everything.
It was never the case with windows, it’s incredibly intuitive and linear. The amount of time taken to do anything on windows is practically always much lesser on windows compared to Linux necessarily.
Best example is setup installation files. One tap, everything is installed automatically. Not the case with Linux.
I don’t want to use the fucking terminal for every little damn thing.
Linux is not intuitive for people coming from other platforms at all. Using the computer for basic purposes such as downloading files, apps, and games should not feel like a skill curve.
Yes there’s stores in-built but that doesn’t have the majority of stuff I get, it’s often random websites online with .exe files and such.
Despite the BS microslop does, it’s just a lot easier and comfortable to use, more than Linux could ever be.
That’s a fallacious argument. It’s like saying using a laptop made in 2026 is the exact same as using a laptop made in 2010 for privacy standards. News flash, it ain’t.
The killswitches in question wouldn’t apply to all new vehicles, or well, they would just be EVs, because they’re planning to ban regular vehicles.
Please restate concisely, then.
Them being electric/having digital components lets companies monitor your vehicles the same way they do monitor your online presence.
You can look up the killswitch thing, it’s planned in Europe iirc. It’s being sold as being introduced so as to “reduce drunk driving”, but obviously once that’s in place it can be used to manufacture car accidents and the sort.
Any time someone says these “technological advancements” are anything but innocuous, they get rammed as “fear-mongering”.
Gonna get blasted for this, given the overall sentiment here in the comments towards EVs, but EVs are going to be used to monitor people everywhere they go and have killswitches, and other shit I’d not wanna deal with.
You can say that individual police members aren’t more likely than mass shooters to kill people, sure.
However, it is still true that the police is that big and they still killed much more people.
What does community policing look like?
Why is the number of mass shooters and police themselves relevant here? We’re talking about the deaths the respective groups caused, and you haven’t provided any counter-evidence/stats for that.
Yeah, I remember reading in my psych textbook that ice cream consumption was correlated with homicidal behaviour, which is obviously not causal.
That… doesn’t sound very compelling.
Alcoholism is associated with disease and death, and wine is just another form of alcohol.
makes sense.
Do you extend this reasoning to corrupt institutions? Eg: people saying, “fuck ice”.
Source for the first claim?
How do you respond to verbal abuse without assuming bad faith?
someone says “we should torture indigenous people” how can one glean that they don’t truly believe that?
It’s generally safe to assume they mean it, unless proven otherwise. People make hateful and racist remarks all the time, sadly, and it’s almost invariably a consistent pattern of behaviour that goes beyond plausible deniability. The line of reasoning you’ve provided me reads as strangely apologetic and bordering solipsistic.
I would assume it’s satire
Even if the hateful remarks are understood to be ‘‘a joke’’, I don’t think that’s any less damning. These are not the type of things to joke about, and most reasonable and/or decent people realize that.
It’s been my experience they eventually do. If someone is telling me I look nice and I take it as a genuine compliment, but they’re acting in bad faith, that’s going to drive them up the fucking wall that I’m so dumb that I don’t assume bad faith like they do.
Can you give me an example of something like that playing out on a serious real-life topic such as politics/race/genocide etc?
This is still a fallacious analogy because it’s clearly exaggerated/fictitious and nobody argues like this. If it was instead:
A: We should torture indigenous people by killing their offspring in front of them.
B: You are acting in bad faith
Is totally acceptable - anyone arguing something like point A is most certainly not engaging in a ‘‘good faith’’ discussion, it’s plain common sense that they aren’t.
If you want to argue in terms of strict ‘‘logic’’, ‘‘faith’’ isn’t even something that would ever ‘‘follow’’ from a statement anyway, so to say that following a statement with ‘‘you’re acting in bad faith’’ is a ‘‘non-sequitur’’ is a meaningless statement. Unless you’re reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ‘‘hey everyone, I’m acting in bad faith!’’ (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.
The analogy you’re providing is fallacious because unlike nonsensical singular statements about ducks (an ethically neutral statement), what we’re actually getting is people consistently defending various forms of hate that endangers minorities and marginalized people. They rarely, if ever - and it is my opinion that this almost never occurs - respond to reason. People being purposefully obtuse and heartless within discussions do not really deserve logical vigour or effort. You could try, but it’s a waste of time and energy, and it’ll just put one in a bad mood.
Using an OS shouldn’t be a skill curve. Windows isn’t.