Can you quote where that was said?

I’ve been following this debate for a bit and as far as I can tell it’s not so much that they’ll do what they can to keep rust out but more to make sure that the people who want to develop in rust are the ones who end up maintaining that part of the code and not the current maintainers.

Many people have speculated on the point of life but the way I see it the only universal point of life is to reproduce…

You can make your own human existence about whatever you want though.

To me it sounds like you could benefit from helping people locally. Seeing the news of things happening on the other side of the globe can make you feel helpless but if you help out locally by volunteering or some other way that makes sense to you, you can combat that feeling of helplessness.

deleted by creator

Doesn’t all immutable distros have updates that can’t be cancelled and that will either complete or not change anything?

I only just started learning about immutable distros so I may be completely wrong but it’s how I understand them to work when reading about it.

Isn’t that just their nomenclature for immutable?

What’s the difference between an atomic distro and an immutable one?

How come?

It’s it’s a command that is regularly used it should be baked into the gui somehow.

I need Hdr and vrr to work and a replacement for madvr that can make movies look as good as it can.

That’s what’s holding me, and multiple people I know, from moving to Linux.

The hdr and vrr seems to be about there but as far as I understand there’s still not an equivalent to madvr.

That depends who you ask.

No I did not gloss over that. I’m not sure how you could miss my point that much.

I think my example is entirely relevant. The reason I sometimes condone murder is when I don’t find it morally wrong, so obviously that’s also what the discussion is about.

You’re whole argument about not being able to condone a criminal act without having to change the laws makes very little sense to me.

Back when slaves were legal it was illegal to kill a slave owner. I understand that and I think that’s how it needed to be. You can’t have laws that killing someone is legal.

On the other hand I don’t morally condemn the slaves that rose up and actually did kill their “owners”.

I absolutely can say something should be illegal but in certain cases I’m cool with it happening.

I challenge you to find a single person arguing in favor of making murder legal. I’ve never seen or heard anyone do that.

I think it can be needed sometimes throughout history when the inequality between rich and poor becomes too great, that doesn’t mean I think it should be legal…

I know those models and am all for them. I’m Scandinavian so I’m not at all for eye for an eye type of justice.

The original comment I was replying to said something along the lines of “these people don’t understand justice”.

I was just pointing out that justice is a feeling more than anything else. You can point out that restorative justice is a better way for society to go and it works better for most individuals too but if someone says that they don’t feel like justice has been served you can’t say they’re wrong.

They just have a different opinion on what justice is.

I agree 100%, but I was never discussing what should be legal or illegal… Obviously any murder should be illegal. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.

That doesn’t change my opinion that sometimes murder is needed to affect change and sometimes it’s even the morally right thing to do…

You honestly thought I was advocating for making murder legal?

What does flat earth has to do with this? The shape of the earth is NOT an opinion. It’s a provable fact.

Justice is a feeling. It’s not a factual thing. You can’t scientifically deduce whether justice has been served or not in a specific case.

Some people think eye for an eye is justice, some have other ideas of what justice is.

You think I did that?

I’m Danish and here your 2 parties would absolutely fit the categories I described. No exaggeration what so ever.

How tf can killing a single person with a handgun be classified as terrorism?

Everyone above 14 knows how dangerous smoking is. Doesn’t make it less cool. Tbh it probably makes it more cool to most people.

This campaign is about as stupid as it gets.

It basically points out the only legit positive thing about smoking which is the fact that it looks cool.

Because smoking looks cool…

Very few people thinks smoking is uncool. It’s obviously a health risk but I think that’s part of the reason it’s seen as cool. It’s dangerous.

Just like riding a motorcycle, if there wasn’t any increased danger associated with it, it wouldn’t be cool.