I'm honestly saddened by how far down I had to scroll to see a post that called this out as blatant agism.
teawrecks
joined 1 year ago
Yeah, I'd say ideally you should be able to run mint and just figure out what you need to do with minimal difficulty.
My partner started using mint recently and the two biggest annoyances for her are having to enter her password all the time to update anything, and minor windowing differences, especially going in and out of fullscreen games. I think both of those are just a matter of getting used to how it's done differently outside of windows.
IMO the thing that could use some attention is their package manager. There are several warnings and failures that I think have been unnecessary.
ex 1. Almost every update will ask if she's sure she wants to resolve some package conflict in some default way. This is not a question a normal user is equipped to answer, and only makes the user uneasy about what's happening.
ex 2. When she initially installed, the welcome wizard had her run a speed test to rank her repo sources, and she picked a nearby university that seemed like a good choice. Then a few days ago at random, it became inaccessible I guess, and now her package update fails to update Firefox specifically. I need to help her sort that out, haven't had time.
These are the kinds of errors I expect to see on arch occasionally, but on mint I feel like it should always figure out what the best option is for the user and just do it. If it needs to let the user know it did something, fine, but don't present it ominously. Just put the system in a good state so that it'll keep working, that's all a normal mint user wants you to do.
There is no necessary correlation. Everything you are saying is representative of today, but not universally true. That's my point.
It would be identical to say that a certain skin color is strongly correlated with high imprisonment and low economic status, so therefore we should ban certain skin tones from running for office. Those correlations may be true today, but there are reasons that have nothing to do with the actual skin color that make it the case. Similarly, there is nothing about the number of times you've gone around the sun, or the length of time you've been alive that necessitates your cognitive faculties to degrade.
There won't be a scientific breakthrough that doubles the average lifespan of every human on earth. There are so many flaws with this idea it's exhausting just to think about it.
But there will continue to be scientific advancements that extend our life expectancy by a small bit every year, for an indeterminate amount of time. Which is why raw "age" is not a good measurement to use.
The basis for everything I'm saying is that age is a protected class in the US, which is why forced retirement in general is illegal.
Yes, there are many instances where institutions get away with it anyway, but as the AARP puts it:
Numerous scientific and medical studies find no need for this age-based discrimination.
No, because that's literally agism.
I understand that it's tempting to think that old age necessarily means degraded mental faculties, but there is no scientific link between the two. There are people who develop Alzheimer's in their 30s, and others who remain lucid into their 100s. Tomorrow there could be a scientific breakthrough that doubles the average lifespan of every human on earth, and we'd be sitting here with an irrelevant age limit on the books like simpletons. The abilities of the person are what matters, the number itself is a red herring (in the same way that the color of their skin should not be used to infer anything).
If the issue is term length, then put a term limit on the position. Otherwise, democracy means the people will elect the wrong people sometimes. We're in a unique situation where the baby boomer generation has more voting power than the rest of the population, but this issue will resolve itself.
Edit: the AARP's position on the matter
Not wanting to run steam is fair, but they asked about proton, not steam.
Anyway, from a quick Google, it sounds like it likely wasn't proton complaining about a lack of SM6.6 support, but actually GoT itself. It's up to the translation layer (in the case of proton, DXVK I believe) to report what DX features it supports, and it sounds like it was telling the game it didn't support SM6.6 for whatever reason. Might just be a matter of playing with some of the launch params.
Awful kind of you to offer, but I found my own food ;)
We are in agreement. But if you still don't agree with me, I don't think that makes you look like a flat earther. Cheers, gotta go make dinner!
Yes. I'm saying my definition is a stricter subset of your definition, and that your definition is too broad because it includes literally everyone.
And see, I think that's too broad, because literally everyone is guilty of holding onto a belief that they formed before they had enough information, however small.
Have you ever driven one route from point A to B, but taken a completely different route from B to A, both directions believing you are taking the fastest route? Maybe it's doublethink, maybe we just got in a habit and never reconciled the conflicting beliefs, or maybe we think the evidence we've been presented with is not a representative sample of reality. Maybe a map shows one route to be obviously faster both ways, but you think "well once you factor in the lights, and the number of turns, and the traffic at the times of day I take each route, it makes sense to take different routes each way. These are hard to account for on a map, and how I do it feels shorter, so I'm going to keep doing what I think is best regardless of what this data says."
To me, the "defining feature" of a flat earther is accepting a false belief after it's been amply demonstrated to you to be false. It's not something you didn't have enough evidence about, but now you do, it's something you had overwhelming evidence for, but reject it all. That is not something we all do every day, that is potentially delusional behavior.
The only part of this that interests me is how they decide to handle anti-cheat on linux.
An appropriate level of pedantry, I think. You asked for everyone for their opinion, it hardly seems appropriate for you to call me pedantic for providing just that.
It also feels like maybe you didn't pick up what I was putting down, because the "breakthrough" scenario is irrelevant. The important part is: did science already accept X as true (read: highly probable) at the time that a person decided they believe X is false? Because to me, that's what makes someone "look like a flat earther". But I can't fault someone for not being convinced by some evidence, and choosing instead to stick with (what they believe to be) a null hypothesis.
First lesson, you're supposed to say "arch btw"