There are plenty of programs out there which can end up being required for your workflow - as in, that exact program; no exceptions - and yet, have no Linux or even non-Windows version.
Not everything is a platformm-agnostic subscription-based SAAS yet, nor should that ever be the case.
Also not super enthused about another browser written in C++. I skimmed some of their code and it seems pretty high quality, but still… this is going to be chock full of security bugs.
If you are going to do anything stability-based these days, Rust should be a big consideration.
We don't have anyone actively working on Windows support, […] We would like to do Windows eventually, but it's not a priority at the moment.
As much as I applaud this focus on just one broad OS architecture, as it will greatly speed development, leaving out Windows is likely to cut off 85-90% of all early adopters. I just hope that the benefit of a simplified target will outweigh ignoring the vast majority of the market.
And honestly, methinks they should focus on Haiku OS before Windows, as it is closer to a Unix heritage than Windows is. And Haiku OS desperately needs a native modern web browser with all the bells and whistles.
~~our society is~~ manufacturers are completely drunk on plastic and ~~nobody~~ none of them gives a shit about its later life.
There, FTFY.
I would gladly choose products with low to no levels of plastic wrapping, but so many manufacturers insist on putting a 25g hardshell around so many damn products.
Even specialty bits for drills are vacuum-sealed onto a piece of cardboard. Like, FFS why not have a small bin hanging on the pegboard with the bits inside? Is there some need to hang every piece individually?
Plus, current climate change has seen a velocity across a mere century that prior events took tens of thousands of years to achieve.
This imparts an “inertia” to our current climate that - even if we stopped on a dime, right now - will lead to conditions that may have most of the planet outside of the polar regions as being uninhabitable year-round due to chaotic weather and lethally high wet bulb temperatures that AC is simply unable to handle.
And if we don’t stop; if we continue on our “business as usual” path for another 10 or 20 or 30 years, said inertia could conceivably push the entire planet over into a full-blown Venus Scenario, wiping all life from the face of the planet.
Warming trails CO2 by 15-20 years. We are now seeing the 1.5℃ of warming of 2003, when Windows XP was released. If we hit CO2 levels that predict 5℃ of warming, humanity has essentially dug its own grave, the planet will (once warming catches up) no longer have any carrying capacity for us to survive in sufficient numbers. If we hit CO2 levels that predict 8-10℃, we run a non-trivial possibility of a tip-over into a Venus Scenario.
Prior events took many tens to hundreds of thousands of years, allowing entire ecosystems to migrate to and from the poles. This allowed the biosphere to “put the brakes on” warming itself because they never stopped being robust sequesters of CO2.
We don’t have that in play, here. Entire ecosystems will die in-place because they simply don’t have the time to migrate. We will see extinctions on a scale never before seen in the geological record. And the very robust biosphere that saved the planet in prior warming events will be commensurately weakened in this one, likely to the point where it cannot effectively sequester sufficient CO2 to stop the warming.
TL;DR: as a species, the likelihood that we are all endlings is uncomfortably high. Humanity may not see the year 2100, and will most likely not see the year 2200.
The idea of climate change violates scripture of all three Abrahamic faiths. So the truly faithful will reject the idea of climate change wherever it is mentioned on ideology alone.
The science of climate change has also been adopted by “the left”, so the political right must stridently oppose its existence it wherever it is mentioned, on principle alone.
That’s a majority of the population, right there, that will openly reject climate change in every way right up until it starves or kills them.
Soooo… “Snow” in Australia’s “June”?
That’s like any lowland part of CONUS getting hail without the required anvilhead thunderstorm/tornado.
Wow. The chaotic weather of climate change is really beginning to bite decades ahead of schedule.
Unless a company is an employee-owned socialist-style worker’s collective, employees generally have no say in that decision. A company can be every bit as evil as their owners want to be. Just look at Google or Facebook or Twitter.
And the problem in America is that for anyone making less than six figures (and many making below seven or even eight figures), their ability to protest any decision made by their employer is heavily constrained by a combination of the employer’s ability to fire them at a moment’s notice and the medical insurance that is tied to their job. Thanks to these two pincer-like forces, employee’s free choices in America are heavily constrained in the interests of capitalism and the Parasite Class.
And even if the “owners” want to be less evil, they themselves are often constrained by their investors, who force them to either toe the line or hurt all of their employees with unemployment and likely destitution and extreme hardship.
Because why bring needless suffering to those (the employees) who cannot do anything to avoid it, when they desperately need their jobs to survive in this capitalistic hellhole? Why punish the innocent employees who are just wanting to successfully put one financial foot in front of the other?
As any sort of CEO, your decisions should be for the financial well-being of your employees, first, which means knuckling under to the political demands of your current investor overlords. After all, if your decisions just put your entire workforce out of work because your investors pulled all of their money, your decision was a horrible one.
Granted, investors with odious ideologies should have been avoided from the start, but hindsight is always 20/20. Sometimes stuff like that isn’t just a known unknown, but even a complete unknown unknown.
And once you have an uncontrollably influential investor, your only choice might be to protect the economic welfare of your employees over an ideological stance that could easily make many of them homeless or even dead.
Or, they back him and acknowledge that they supported genocide but have since realised how wrong they were?
And then they all lose their jobs when the investor(s) pulls out. Did you not read the comment you were replying to?
If it’s a choice between one person losing their job and everyone losing their jobs, you are either rationally pragmatic to just one person or you are ideologically scorched-earth to everyone else.
I mean, if you are someone in a manglement position who has to pull that particular trigger you could also resign in protest, but at least that only torpedos your own career, and not the jobs of dozens of other people who work alongside you.
When you deny reality, I guess any kind of statement sounds reasonable.
Libertarianism requires its members to engage in due diligence in order to execute their libertarian ideals properly and make the choices that are correct for them.
This, unfortunately, excludes the lower-60% of all Americans, who are so ground down, economically terrorized, and mentally overwhelmed with their daily struggles to survive that they have little to no opportunity to approach any major choice with anything even vaguely in the realm of due diligence. They just don’t have the headspace to do so, and are forced to spend all their available mental efforts on just putting one financial foot in front of the other.
This is why having social support frameworks enforced/provided/funded by the government is so important for so many working-class people - it allows them to put those issues on autopilot, significantly reducing their own cognitive load and allowing them to better process the most important issues in their lives.
Ergo, libertarianism is a wealthy person’s toy. It is something that they can champion, because only they have the economic options and financial freedom to fully and properly engage with it.
Until everyone has vanishingly few catastrophic-level issues on the horizon (like one missed paycheque leading to homelessness, or a sudden illness leading to medical bankruptcy), any attempt to implement libertarianism will only bring mass amounts of misery and destroyed lives to anyone beneath the Parasite Class.
And when you have those kinds of widespread government-provided supports that lift all boats - and not just the megayachts - why bother with libertarianism? We should continue to use what got everyone into that safe state in the first place -- socialism.
Remember, the Parasite Class already uses socialism for themselves. It’s called grants and bailouts and subsidies, and allows the Parasite Class to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
It’s just at a scale that makes it impossible for working-class people to leverage.
Strange how this appears to be a very close carbon copy of MGTOW - don’t marry, don’t have kids, don’t cohabitate, focus on yourself over chasing skirts - and yet 4B is celebrated and MGTOW is vilified. Surprising how blatant the anti-male gender bigotry gets.
It gets even crazier when you realize that MGTOW is doing that one thing women have been begging men to do for generations - for men to leave them completely alone, to not approach them or flirt with them or bother them in any way - and yet MGTOW men are crucified for doing exactly that.
Hypocrisy, much?
I mean, 4B is a good thing. Humanity is already four times past the planet’s safe carrying capacity, so less humans are what we should be aiming for. Plus, if this 4B thing takes off and has a deep impact over decades, most women involved with it will exit out of their fertility window - from age 15 to 35 - without ever having had a child.
I’m an egalitarian. If MGTOW is a thing, why not 4B? Both should be able to exist.
What I have a problem with, however, is that any fair and equitable society cannot celebrate one and vilify the other. Otherwise, why call it “equality,” when it is anything but that?