People who expect an effortless transition from Windows to Linux, are better off sticking to Windows. You are expected to be able to read stuff, and make some effort to understand it. It shouldn’t be any less than what you’d expect if going from Linux to Windows.
Many things will be different. You’ll get a long way with learning some fundamentals. If you make the effort, it’ll be well rewarded. If it’s not worth the effort, stick to windows.
This was news to me as well, but I assume that the Arch Linux logo in question suggests that it might be strange to use an Arch Linux specific illustration, for something that isn’t mentioning Arch Linux.
Did that clear it up, or were you just being rude?
deleted by creator
Not so much inside your home.
The amount of time I’ve spent getting my MacOS to not be annoying… it’s such a shit experience compared to Gnome/Linux. Every single day I use MacOS, I find a new annoying inconsistency, or either poor or directly bad UX design decision or implementation.
Next time I look for a place to work, I’d consider Windows or MacOS to require at least 30% higher salary to be worth the annoyance.
Hm. I didn’t argue against anything of what you’re saying here. I’m just saying that it arguably isn’t “enshitification”.
Enshittification is the pattern of decreasing quality observed in online services and products such as Amazon, Facebook, Google Search, Twitter, Bandcamp, Reddit, Uber, and Unity
I don’t see how this is very contentious either.
Urbanisation and deforestation are not the same as enshitification tho.
It’s a bit unfortunate that “increased degree in which something is shit” sounds like what the word should mean, and I suppose it then sort of does.
It’s nice to have a word that describes the investor-driven incentives to worsen a service/product to milk out more short-term revenue. The larger a market capture is, the more that can be pushed without an alternative being a threat.
It’s the cycle of “provide a good quality service that makes everybody happy” -> market capture -> shareholders push for increase revenue at the expense of quality as there is no competition.
I think you’re sincere, and it genuinely made me chuckle.
Why are you assuming and generalizing to that extent? Even if some malign interest are encouraging a trend, it’s still individuals expressing a view that aims to get some point across. If you think this is coordinated astroturfing, I think you might be just a tad delusional, and also simply not aware of why the bear analogy (not meme) was made.
The troubling part here, would be to disregard the gist of the message: a lot more women than most people are aware of, experience unpleasant interactions with men. That this is expressed, perhaps exaggerated (for making the point clearer), perhaps genuinely and literally (because that’s their opinion), as rather taking their chances with a bear… Is kinda fucking rich to disregard as astroturfing, IMHO. And, if you are a normal, decent, empathetic person, and want to be perceived as such, I’d keep that perspective to yourself.
You don’t seem to understand what’s being said. And, I’m not keen on indulging. Have a good one.
I’m going to take all your questions at face value, and assume it’s all good faith.
How would you feel if the hypothetical was asking if you’d rather encounter a bear or a Muslim?
My emotions are not that fickle. I also don’t see an inherent problem with questions, nor this one in particular. It would be stupid of me to assume you mean something more specific than what you’ve stated. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask to clarify constraints.
What about a bear or a person who is black?
Same thing here. You realise that what we’d be exploring is the concept of, and awareness of, potential biases and prejudices? And, more importantly, the prevalence of experiences that lead to such biases?
Or a bear vs an immigrant?
Oh, this one is clear cut. Immigrants are the fucking worst.
(jk)
See the issue?
Nope. I don’t. You should re-evaluate the purpose of having conversations and discussing hypotheticals.
Also, when we dehumanize or other an entire sex (which is what we’re doing here) who do you think suffers the most irl from that dehumanization?
Is that what you think we’re doing here? If so, then we arrived at what the misunderstanding is. Which is a good thing. Or, it is if you give a shit about understanding the argument, and less about making your own. The latter is of course fine, but, on its own.
Because it isn’t rich white men in gated suburban communities. It’s the black and brown men who are already viewed as inherently harmful and are disproportionately violently victimized by police and the state.
If we want more George Floyds then we should keep spreading memes like this. Because this contributes to the mindset that allows us to view men of color as inherently dangerous superpredators
Not related or relevant here. Not saying it isn’t important, but, as mentioned. If you want to make your own arguments or discuss other things, that’s fine. Probably effective to start your own thread for that.
Thanks. In other words just not understanding basic words and statistics?
In this case, unknown/random sample != average of samples. Being alone in the woods, and encountering a bear, is arguably more dangerous than the average male human. Most bears that aren’t grizzlies will happily leave you alone, which I hope is also the case with the average man. If you are unlucky with which person you encounter, the dangers can be much worse.
Probably Bayesian elements here too, where the end result is “what is riskier”, with an implicit assumption of “meeting a bear” = unlikely, “meeting a man” = likely (relatively). In any case, not listening to the emotional takeaway from shitty experiences, is, ironically, a very male stereotype.
I’m confused. How is that controversial, and how are people taking it personally?
The first one is just an expression of biases that their experiences have resulted in. As for the second one, I’m clueless. Maybe if you feel like the main character in every situation, they’d be offended because the man in reference is then, and as such not unknown?
Everything you mention is one strange assumption after another.
Is this something akin to what Apple does by adding application layer functionality to SMS messaging? And, please correct me if I’m wrong about how the apple stuff works.
Some years ago ago, I was a happy subscriber to Google Music. But, they added it to the graveyard, and instead grafted on some music playing functionality to YouTube and called it YouTube Music. So, I went back to Spotify.
Then I started paying for YouTube Premium Lite. It wasn’t unreasonably expensive, although it was a bit annoying I couldn’t just have “YouTube” in the household, like with Netflix. So if wife would cast a video to the TV, it would play with ads.
It was about a year ago, when Google starting cracking down on adblockers, that they also removed an option to pay for the service. I think YouTube Premium Lite wasn’t a thing in the US (correct me if I’m wrong), but they removed YT Premium Lite, and the only option left was a twice as expensive YouTube Premium bundle that included YouTube Music.
Tldr: fucked up Google Music, then removed an option to pay for YouTube premium, leaving a fairly expensive alternative with the pile of shit they replaced Google music with. It’ll be a rough time if they manage to force ads. I won’t pay for it, out of principle.
Edit: I looked at the numbers again. I’d have to pay more for YouTube than for the highest Netflix tier. It’s more than Prime and HBO combined. They also don’t have to front large sums to fund risky projects. If they didn’t include YouTube Music, I might have considered it. But with it, it just pisses me off, they can go get f.ed
My TV OS isn’t based on android.
Aha. For the desktop, I just use FreeTube that has those built in. Downside is not having the same interaction with the YouTube account to keep track of what you’ve seen.
For the mobile device I used a modded version of the official app that also does them.
For the TV I have a custom android app that I share a YouTube URI to, and it sends it to the home server, downloads the video with yt-dlp and makes it available on jellyfin.
For some reason, having extensions on the browser just creeps me out. They have permissions to do so much, and know so much.
Which ones?
I think that’s a bit unfair here. What I’m saying is that expectations often seems to be that “Linux should be effortless, but it isn’t, so Linux sucks”, and then we quickly talk past each other on which aspects we are referring to. Let me make up three categories:
For users transitioning to Linux from Windows, and …
So, I assume people who just thought I was calling people lazy and dumb thought I meant categories 1. and 2. I just mean category 3. If you expect everything to be the same as Windows, and the effort required to understand the differences is too much, then only Windows will fit your needs. The impression I get is a general unwillingness to “figure stuff out”. Not knowing shit is fine, complaining and not wanting to put in the effort to know stuff… how is that not being lazy?
It was intended as kind advice without any the implied judgement of calling people dumb or lazy. If you don’t want to have to figure stuff out related to the third category, Linux will likely not be a good experience, or even a productive or good change. If you move to another country, you should make the effort to learn the culture. It’s not a good look to complain that things are different.
If I were to try to suggest “a point” with all of this: Don’t suggest to people that Linux is effortless for Windows users. Linux is immensely better, in almost every way (though mind examples in first category). But, it requires learning the basics of how shit works. It’s not hard… the information is well put together and available.