Wait, wait, going via a wayland protocol means each piece of software requires you to opt into what it collects, on X11 they can just read everything all the time no matter what, spyware in X11 is trivially easy, it’s much harder when it goes via a wayland protocol.

Also, is what you’re describing on gnome or KDE? As I understand it, KDE separates those parts out, so one shouldn’t block the other.

So, it does work, just not the way you would prefer it to?

https://superuser.com/questions/1189467/how-to-copy-text-to-the-clipboard-when-using-wayland#1377550 In KDE, you can rebind the keybinds for anything, it’s under system settings in the keyboard section, I’m not really sure what you’re talking about. You can add custom ones to run any command, too, if the app doesn’t register a keybind, so you could, for example, send a dbus signal to the app. The way it’s done in wayland is different, but KDE supports all the stuff you mentioned in wayland from what I can tell.

What’s your proposed solution? Open source can’t really fix this - distribution of proprietary games isn’t really geared towards FOSS. If all competing products are worse, why would anyone switch? Valve isn’t using any underhanded tricks to keep users on Steam, they don’t need to. Their competitors actually could catch up, theoretically, valve hasn’t pulled up the ladder. It’s just a matter of, y’know, making a product nearly as good as Steam, which is a monumental undertaking.

I don’t really think steam is anti competitive, their product is just so much better than the competition that they’ve earned a monopoly position. Whenever another company has tried to dethrone steam, it’s lacked features or didn’t allow refunds or didn’t run on Linux or didn’t work as well with controllers - valve is just so far ahead on steam, it’d be monumentally difficult to catch up.

No snapd on mint at all.

This response is entirely unhelpful. Yes. Fuck nazis. I get it. This adds nothing. Nazis are bad, but we must coexist with them, lest we round them all up and get rid of them, which isn’t gonna happen. If it were that easy, we’d have done it already!

I agree in principle, but you’re not going to win any battles with that mindset. They’ll just respond with “so much for the tolerant left”. Victimization is a beloved pastime for them.

Sure, up to the point where they harass someone or attack them, or have a history of doing so. A belief of “I think some people do not deserve to exist” is different from a belief of “People should be allowed to X” or “People who Y should not be harassed”. A nazi sympathizer who thinks nazis shouldn’t be attacked is fine, a nazi who attacks others is not.

Yeah, the axes on this are weird, why would the opposite of a systems language be a toy language? And why is Lua, a very popular and commonly used language in tons of stuff, a “toy”? And Lua is a nu Lang? It’s older than Java, maybe it just feels newer because each release isn’t necessarily backwards compatible?

I think you’re using this meme template backwards - the car should say most people and the text for the directions should be flipped. The car is supposed to be going somewhere it shouldn’t, not somewhere it should.

Honestly, I would have expected C++ to end with the SIGSEGV and nothing else, then for python to reply.

It’s the king’s foot, duh, if you aren’t sure how long it is, measure his foot again.

I’ve been using Ubuntu for years and I like KDE, so I’m using Neon. Ubuntu is familiar, easy to fix, easy to find out how to fix, and neon doesn’t come with snaps.

Waypipe?

All of those languages will convert numbers into booleans, 0 is false, all other numbers are true.

You’re right! I thought the meaning of whataboutism was more specific than it was, you just have to respond to an accusation with another accusation, that’s it! TIL

Oh, it’s definitely ad-hominem, that I agree with - they were literally testing your biases, as they stated. I don’t think it’s whataboutism, just ad hominem, actually. They’re accusing you of being as biased as anyone else, then asking a shibboleth to prove their point - the whole premise is ad hominem at that point. I think the differentiating factor is that the questions were about your beliefs, not about the actual events they brought up.

No, it’s really not. Once they said “litmus test”, that makes it clear they’re doing it intentionally, not as a logical fallacy - it’s gauging bias on common topics, which is relevant to a discussion on bias and propaganda. It’s not a series of seemingly-related non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I’d love to be proven wrong here - how is what they brought up not relevant to the topic of bias and propaganda, especially wrt the west?

That’s literally not whataboutism - whataboutism is when you use irrelevant topics to incorrectly prove a point. The poster literally said it was a litmus test, which means mentioning multiple things as they did is correct and is not whataboutism, especially since their argument is about propaganda.