I think this is it.
The historians I know of actually seem to lean quite left of the average person; it’s the light hobbieists, who are often more interested in the aesthetics/surface stuff, who seem to fall victim to the alt-right stuff.
The scale on the left doesn’t start at zero, so the difference is smaller than the size of the bars make it seem. The difference between #1 Slackware, and last spot Arch, is 0.75 points in a 0 to 10 scale, but the bar size of Slackware is about 2.5x bigger than the bar for the Arch users.
I can’t vouch for every Linux distro that claims to be user-friendly, but I’ve fully switched to Linux Mint a couple of months ago, and I’ve had no issues. The only times I’ve used the console are when I want to use it.
My biggest worry before fully switching was playing pirated games, or games that I bought outside of Steam, but using Lutris it has been pretty straight forward.
I don’t know much about her, but directly from the wiki:
The rate at which Harris’s office prosecuted marijuana crimes was higher than the rate under Hallinan, but the number of defendants sentenced to state prison for such offenses was substantially lower.[76] Prosecutions for low-level marijuana offenses were rare under Harris, and her office had a policy of not pursuing jail time for marijuana possession offenses.[76]
It sounds like her position on weed is not exactly what people are painting it as. At least these comments make it seem much worse than it is according to the wiki.
EDIT:
According to this, she even supported a bill in 2019 to legalize marijuana at a federal level, tax it, and use that money to (according to this):
Create a community reinvestment fund to reinvest in communities most impacted by the failed War on Drugs and allow those funds to be invested in the following programs:
Job training;
Reentry services;
Expenses related to the expungement of convictions;
Public libraries;
Community centers;
Programs and opportunities dedicated to youth; and
Health education
I don’t know if it’s on purpose, but you are definitely spreading misinformation.
If you explore the dynamics of people migrating en masse and severe drought causing crop failures and small countries mismanaging famines
That’s kinda the premise of interstellar, but people sort of ignore it and just focus on the space part. My cynical guess is that a movie such as you describe would have audiences mostly focus and care about the war aspect, while ignoring the setup and premise.
It was also criticized for being “too on the nose”, which is exactly the type of behavior that the movie was criticizing. Basically the world is ending and when someone tries to raise awareness people don’t react, so they get louder and lose patience because the world is fucking ending, and then get told not to be alarmist and to stop freaking out. It’s the plot of the movie, and it’s what happened to the movie.
Ah, thank you for the explanation, I think I get it.
I don’t know about this in depth, but from what another user in this thread said, a flatpak can’t ask a portal to have access to two files at once. If I’m understanding correctly, that would explain why Librewolf needs permission to access ~/Downloads, since it can be downloading more than one file at once, and it needs access to all those files in ~/Downloads at the same time.
EDIT: I got a bit mixed up with what you were saying, but nevertheless, if this is true, then Librewofl would still need permission to access ~/Downloads and so be marked as “potentially unsafe”.
Not for the average/casual user, which is why this post exists.
The average person will look at that and see the ‘!’ in a triangle and became scared of what it can do to their system, even though it has no more permissions than a system package. Alternatively, they will become desensitized and learn to ignore it, resulting in installing flatpacks from untrusted and unverified sources.
Overall, I just think the idea around having to sandbox all flatpaks is not a good idea. To give a concrete example, Librewolf is marked as “potentially unsafe” because it has access to the download folder, but if I want to use it to open a file that isn’t in “downloads” I have to use flatseal to give it extra permissions - it’s the worst of both worlds! Trying so hard to comply with flatpak guidelines that it gets in the way of doing things, and still not being considered safe enough.
And so they vote republican?
Either way, not much else is gonna matter when the planet is too hot to live on, and entire Islands full of people go underwater, and no other country is willing to take in the refugees.
Sorry if I sound so evangelical about this shit, but that’s because I’m fucking surrounded by these “80% who total care” people, and I see how they live their lives and the decisions they make. It’s fucking lip service and pushing of the responsibly on to other people while hoping you don’t have to make any changes in your life. Or, at best, it’s complete fucking ignorance.
So 80% want stronger climate action? But not enough to vote for green parties, and even not enough to not vote for anti-climate action parties?
Using the US as example and assuming the Dem/Rep split is about 50/50: if all Dem voters want “stronger climate action”, then that means 30% of Rep voters are voting for anti-climate policy while claiming to want stronger climate action.
Sounds to me like those 80% don’t really know how bad the issue is or how much needs to be done. Which means they are lying to themselves or to others, and this number is actually meaningless. That’s the point the user above you is making, and it seems you agree.
Yes.
Do Democrats all agree 100% with each other? Do Republicans? They still manage to get together to vote for those parties. How many single issue voters are out there?
But I’m expected to believe 80% want significant climate action or have any clue what that would really entail, but can’t get together and vote for a green party? Perhaps if by “stronger climate action” they mean more electrical cars and recycling bins, or maybe these 80% even include people who want more green coal, but I’m sure we both know that doesn’t mean really mean anything.
You can’t assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election
The survey says 80%… that is enough to get any party to win. Hell, if you dare to dream high enough, that number is high enough to completely set the current government to the side, deny their legitimacy, and make a new governmental system - like one which is not a “first-past-the-post system”.
The argument of “only two parties that can win” is nonsensical in this context, no offense.
Either way, the US is not the only country in the world, and it’s not the only example the other user gave. Even if we ignore the US, how do you justify this in other countries that don’t have a first-past-the-post system? Like I said in another comment:
Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up.
People don’t like that, and it affects how they vote.
For example if we do something relatively small like ending beef subsidies here in the US, then ground beef will double or triple in price, and people will naturally consume much less.
And you think people will be okay with that and just let it happen? A politician does that and not only are they not elected again, they might have protests and even riots on their hands. You can’t post c/vegan without non vegans showing up and being disruptive. Which begs the question: why would politicians ever do it when they know this?
You can’t have systemic change if people aren’t willing to change their lives in the first place. People often say they want this or that, but don’t actually stop to think what that requires. Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up. What do people think carbon taxes will do? Well, the answer is they don’t really think about it; they just think “tax for company to help climate”, and that’s where it stops.
If you want systemic change, then you also need to acknowledge and raise awareness to the need to take accountability and change our own lifestyles, otherwise that systemic change will never work. Going around saying we could all “change our lifestyles and it wouldn’t matter” and that “what we need is systemic change” in response to people talking about taking personal accountability, does, ironically, very little to bring about that needed systemic change; or at least that’s my perspective.
The fact that most comments here seem to be talking about stone henge says otherwise. If not for what happened to stone henge recently, people might not have paid this much attention to this.
You know, trying to mock me isn’t gonna convince me of anything. Especially since I never said I disagreed with you. I said it has the same problem that you claim my strategy has: it needs numbers.
Let me ask you, have you burned any SUVs lately? Specifically, have you burned “every suv in 300 miles”? Have you disrupted the supply chain? If not, is it because you are waiting until you have enough numbers? Because, again, once you have enough numbers, I think it’s better to take the peaceful route. Probably easier to recruit people for it, too.
And btw, making “The Right Purchases” is often about not making purchases; I find the people who disagree with that and talk about “moralizing your fellow shoppers” are often just trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Right I get that, my point is I don’t think it works long term. Eventually you’d be caught and either imprisoned or killed. The amount of people who are ok with that are pretty small, which means the movement would be crushed before any significant impact is really made. For it to work, you’d need to get a lot more people on your side; and if you get that many people on your side, you can probably go with an option other than (essentially) starting a civil war.
I hear what you’re saying, but the problem with that mode of thinking is that (ironically) it is not sustainable, at least not on a large enough scale, because unless you can convince people to make a change then the vast majority will stand against you when you try to force that change; they’d label you a terrorist and be okay with your imprisonment and perhaps even murder.
Consider this:
People will choose to take a car instead of a train (even when presented with the option), because they prefer their personal space. People say they are pro carbon tax, but they will protest when gas prices (or anything prices) go up, even though that is the obvious conclusion of a carbon tax and the reason it works (companies won’t just absorb the cost, and people will be forced to consume less). When protesters block roads, a lot of people start talking about using violence against them. Even here on Lemmy, people will go out of their way to go into a vegan community when a post gets a decent level of traction just to talk about how much they love meat.
Why would the society I just described - our society - be ok with any of that, and just stand by as it happens? If they won’t make a change when given the option to, why would they be okay with it being forced on them?
EDIT: spelling
Not sure what point you’re trying to make, exactly. What would your suggestion for a solution be then, after you eliminated all options? And the amount of people that need to follow the example is the same no matter what solution you come up with - unless your solution is to kill everyone on the planet. If 2/3 of the planet lived in trees and caves, and the other third kept doing all the same things we do now, we might not accelerate so fast but the problem would not go away.
the solution has nothing to do with what we decide to buy or who we vote for and everything to do with what options are present when we are making our choices.
Yes… options like voting for a green party that actually has the environment as a focus instead of one that does the bare minimum (if anything) and pats themselves on the back like they’ve done so much, or even one whose leader says “there is no climate emergency, that’s sensationalism”; like eating in a sustainable way instead of eating so much beef and pork; like taking public transport when available instead of buying a gas car with high consumption when for that price you could have just bought an electrical.
I genuinely don’t understand your point.
It does bring up the topic of climate change several times, and yet’s still more than the protest that do happen, but you never hear about because they don’t inconvenience anyone. There have been plenty of instances of protests vandalizing rich people’s yachts, for example, but that doesn’t make the headlines and people don’t care, so no attention is raised and it’s ultimately meaningless.