My guy. There is no open backend for Snap. If Ubuntu enshittifies Snap, nobody can host an alternate backend for them. How does the client being open source help you?

Honestly, why enable this kind of behavior in any way? Any user is free to make an informed choice by installing it themselves.

We all know how this goes. Once a critical mass is reached, enshittification begins to milk everything dry. By making it an installer option, you’re legitimizing it and supporting a worse future for the Linux desktop.

Yeah, Flatpak is far better. The most glaring issue: Canonical hosts the only Snap backend, you can’t host it yourself. Flatpak on the other hand is fully open.

Don’t introduce proprietary crap just so companies can profit off of it.

Anything fruitfly and above would have meant I’ll just move, but yours sounds so much more horrifying. Oh god.

Luckily they are tiny tiny wasps, like specks of dust. Anything bigger and I would have run!

Getting rid of the wasps was easy, the frogs took care of them. The annoying part was getting rid of the snakes…

Nah, the wasps are tiny, I could barely see specks of dust moving around. They just died off after the larvae were gone.

I just dealt with them a couple of months ago, absolute fucking nightmare. What solved it in the end was parasitic wasps - you can order them online. I received 3 letters in the mail a couple of weeks apart, each containing a small paper card with parasitic wasp eggs, which you put close to the source of larvae. The wasps lay their eggs inside the larvae eggs, but you’ll need to use all three letters to get all larvae throughout their cycle.

Sounds weird as fuck, but immediately solved the problem.

Also, the man doesn’t know how to do effective allegories.

“Look, the robots all have to stand in the back of the bus and are treated badly! Really makes you think, hm?”

“May the odds be ever in your favor” works in almost any situation!

They also removed all previous versions except a very old one with known issues, thus exposing people to more danger than necessary in any way.

Debian is amazing, but you’re right that they are far from noob-friendly. I recently switched to Fedora due to the fast availability of new packages (e.g. KDE Plasma 6.1 with fixed Nvidia drivers), and even the arguably easiest option - Ublue images - had some issues I wouldn’t have been able to fix without deep Linux experience.

But there definitely has been a lot of progress over the last couple of years, and I’m sure that will continue. We just have to be mindful of not participating in creating the next Microsoft. Ubuntu is already seen as the default Linux distribution - the further it gets entrenched, the worse for all of us.

But why move people from Microsoft to another company that is implementing more and more user-hostile “features”, when there are alternatives like Mint? If all the new Linux users are herded towards Canonical, it’s just giving them even more power to extract profits in the future.

It’s far easier to have them start with a community-led project on the same basis. Imagine Ubuntu being enshittified and forked - how should they decide which fork to use, and how can they know it will still exist in a couple of years?

If I understand correctly, the PSN overlay is the main issue for Linux players. This is already shitty. But they are explicitly excluding part of their potential customer base because they expect the payoff from forcing the accounts to be bigger than that loss. That should make you worry what your data will be used for, because simple upselling hasn’t worked for other attempts at forcing additional logins - why should it work for Sony?

I see where you’re coming from, I used to hold the same perspective. But there were already a couple of “unrealistic” plot elements before that - like the gravitational anomalies in their house, or the conveniently-placed-and-magically-kept-open-and-large-enough wormhole, which doesn’t seem much less Deus ex machina than the tesseract at the end.

Maybe the biggest difference in perspective is in the “power of love” - I don’t think the plot is using that as a solution, that’s just Coopers interpretation. The solution is the tesseract created by the future humans, which isn’t that much more unrealistic than the wormhole. It was a unique and visually incredibly interesting interpretation of the supposed singularity at the center of a black hole, and sadly there’s probably no way we could ever even form theories on what that might look like.

In the end, I’m not sure there’s anything less unrealistic that could finish the plot, and I’m fine with the sci-fi elements. But that doesn’t make your view any less valid!

What do you mean with “love dimension”? Are you talking about the inside of the black hole? That was explained with the future humans constructing a space that Cooper could understand, navigate, and use to transmit the data necessary for human survival to his daughter. Love is what made his daughter believe in him and attempt to decode the message, but the space itself had nothing to do with love.

Nothing that happened in the movie could have been successful without love, it allowed humanity to do what shouldn’t have been possible.

To start off, I believe there was a very narrow path that led to humanities survival - kinda like that Doctor Strange scene in Infinity War. Had things happened differently (Cooper wasn’t the pilot, they didn’t go to the ice planet, Cooper didn’t sacrifice himself) humanity would have been doomed, and all those things happened due to love.

And only love is what allowed Cooper and his daughter to actually bridge time and space, because if she didn’t love him so much, she wouldn’t have attempted to decode the gravitational messages - she wouldn’t have believed this to be possible. But she did believe in him, and she did believe that he would still be out there and trying to save them.

None of the things they attempted would have worked without love, and none of them would have meant anything without love. In the end, the story is all about human connections driving us to attempt the impossible, and that’s a lot more powerful than some scientific MacGuffin could ever be.

I couldn’t disagree more!

I first saw it in a completely empty theater as a teen. The visuals are obviously amazing, and I really liked the story, until the last bit - back then I was annoyed that they suddenly jumped from scientific accuracy towards feelings and emotions.

It took me a long time to properly understand the metaphor and message, but now I love it all the more!

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding my point, as I didn’t mention the average person’s intelligence in any way. All I’m saying is that minimizing the effort required to really try multiple distributions is a terrible way of introducing people to Linux. It will only lead to frustration and rejection. Choosing your bread doesn’t require investing dozens of hours.

No, it absolutely is hard, and those are bad comparisons. Growing up you interact with bread and cars, and you build a preference based on what you’re taught and what you experience. If I go into a new store and see a dozen types of bread I’ve never eaten, I can still make inferences about their taste, texture etc. This is not the case with Linux distributions - if I’ve never used Linux before, I literally don’t know what the hell I’m doing.

And it’s absolutely unrealistic to expect your average person to try a few out. They won’t be able to decide on technical grounds, and they’ll have to use the distribution for some time to build enough experience for a preference. Going back to your car example, it’s like suggesting people buy a few cars and decide which one they like (since they don’t have the experience to make judgements based on short test drives) - you’re asking them to invest a lot of time for something they don’t really need or want.