Yes but the headwinds of Linux adoption are (to some extent) that Linux is the best choice for A, but it is not far and away the best choice for B (not saying it’s bad or even worse than Windows, it’s just not CLEARLY better).
But when you approach 99% of the population who, to the extent they’ve even thought about it, will only judge an OS on B, Linux is just one of 3 main choices (sorry BSD folks. Don’t yell at me). Is it the best choice purely on functionality and app ecosystem? Maybe, but also maybe not.
Since the majority of Linux does not come on hardware by default what you’re essentially asking people to do is to buy a car and swap out the motor. We have to convince them why that new motor is better and is worth the effort of doing so. If it’s marginally better or worse, it just won’t be worth the headache to most people.
To be clear Linux (and MacOS) are my preferred OS. I haven’t owned a Windows box in at least 5 years.
I don't think I understand the point of this. I colored in the players for US, Russia, and China (should be that way by default I'd have thought). But I have no idea what to "simulate".
I do see in the site meta that it's purpose may be to just fill in so you can see who would have what population and area if an alliance was formed or area was conquered, but even that doesn't seem to work as selecting the US registers 0 population and 0 area.
I do things for free all the time. I love my kids for free. I serve the less fortunate for free. If I have the time and resources and it makes the world a better place free is my default price.
That being said I also produce software for a living as well and there’s nothing wrong with that either. It’s not either or. It’s yes and.
There are plenty of things that are free and also provided for a fee. You can pay to go to a conference and hear someone talk, or you can just go outside and hear people talk for free, and often times enjoy it more than the conference talk. You can pay for admittance to a dance club or go to another one for free. You can buy bottled water or drink from the public water system for (mostly) free. It's not an either-or situation.
Means testing has its own issues. How do you decide what the lines are? How do you design it for people just outside those lines that keeps it fair? Who enforces it? What happens when your means change?
Figuring all this stuff has a cost, both real (now you have to hire people to screen and enforce the means testing) and emotional/political (news story about a single mother who was rejected for making $1 too much).
So when advocating for means testing please keep in mind it’s a lot easier to not have it. Yes some who don’t need it will get it, but that can be better than a ballooned cost and some who do need it being blocked or dissuaded from getting it.
A lot of the interest groups arguing for means testing on public benefits actually don't want those things to exist at all. Adding means tests to them is a way of making them more and more inaccessible while claiming it's simply about fareness. It's a deliberate strategy.
US free speech is not absolute, nor is it freedom from consequence. The consequence for foreign activists pushing foreign agendas may very well be deportation.
No country has an obligation to welcome anyone from any other country, especially those who do not intend to even try and adopt its values and customs, even more so foreign agents who come with the sole intent of association to push the agenda of a party they were members from in their old country into the politics of the new one.
Ahh so the constitution doesn’t apply to non-citizens? The Supreme Court disagrees:
There are literally millions of aliens within the jurisdiction of the United States. The Fifth Amendment, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, protects every one of these persons from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law… Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.
Given how many people have been deported this year in violation of judicial orders, and how the secretary of the DHS earlier this year even testified to Congress that they thought "habeas corpus" was a right the president has to unilaterally deport people, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to be trying to get out in front of any potential unconstitutional deportations by arguing against them. If the fears turn out to be unfounded, that's a good thing.
Correct. As its sole purpose is to prevent the Government from restricting speech for viewpoints it does not like from anyone living under that government. Any laws restricting Free Speech have to be narrowly defined and/or viewpoint agnostic; military secrets, sedition, etc. And those restriction can only be created by law, not a mayor's or governor's or president's whims.
Advocacy or speaking to others, including business owners, with viewpoints the government doesn't like is allowed.
It's the main point of Free Speech -- to prevent the government, and only the government, from censoring or interfering/restraining the expression of opinions. Especially if those opinions are not in alignment with, or favorable to, any sitting government.
This applies to both citizens and those who reside in the US. The person in the article is a US permanent resident.
Oh, I guess we should act like all other countries.
The thing that has made me see red the most when talking with the current populist nativist ideologues is how they crow about America being the best but then point to other countries behavior as defense for their own.
I actually believe that America _was_ the best before this crew took over. That is because we had high barriers and filtered for the competent.
I would be all for 100 foot walls around the border if anyone who managed to cross them got citizenship for the achievement. Instead I am getting a bunch of dipshits who largely live on the largesse of tax receipts from my region of the nation and our equivalents on the other coast, claiming how superior they are while they destroy everything that made us great.
If you want to defend this behavior as being pro free speech, then go fuck yourself for trying to pull this 1984 newspeak shit off
Do you run any exotic hardware? Do you run MS Office regularly? Do you run any highly specialized software?
If the answer is no to all those then Linux is worth a shot.
reply