If you mean Dick Cheney, you are not wrong.

She would just need to schedule surgery or something.

“aren’t as many of them”

I do not believe that. There is more of everything now than there was Internet before. The web used to be tiny.

You are not going to find what you want by clicking on the “Mozilla Cool Site of the Day”. But they are out there.

Not that I do not agree with the point the OP is making. The “cool site” story itself illustrates the overall story-arc of the Internet pretty well:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Site_of_the_Day

First, I love this.

To be fair to the original poster though, he did not do the “GNU / Linux” thing. His point seems to be that “Linux” is not enough information to know much about the graphics stack and that seems fair since there is Wayland / Xorg and an array of DE, WM, and toolkit options.

Have you tried Chimera Linux? It does not even use GCC. It is even less “GNU” than Alpine but no less “Linux” and I do not mean just the kernel.

That teapot is orbiting somewhere. I have no idea if my universe is the one.

Saying that you “know” there is no God is an extraordinary claim. Do you demand extraordinary evidence from people that make that claim? Or do you only demand it from people following a philosophy that requires them to believe independent of evidence?

Honestly, this is about as smart as religious people demanding miracles before they will believe in Science.

It is just as easy to point to the ideas of the extreme members of the “new atheist” movement as evidence that they are a dangerous cult.

Using the Southern Baptist Church as your example of religion is not a very good argument. Implying that atheists are somehow more rational as a group is not really a great argument either.

By the way, I am an atheist. I do no consider my beliefs to be unassailable scientific conclusions though. I recognize that many of my beliefs and preferences lack the robust rational foundation I would like them to. I doubt I am the pinnacle of morality or ethics ( more than doubt - but I am not looking to trash my own reputation here ).

Voting against your own interests or scapegoating others for what you see as damage against yourself or even just plain old hate do not require religion. Humans have lots of ways at arriving at those and being manipulated into them.

I agree with you. Using religion to manipulate people for political reasons is not really a religion problem. If you eradicate religion, there are many other levers to pull. In fact, manipulating religious groups these days also requires using these other weaknesses against people and then convincing them to ignore the conflict with their religious teachings.

Let’s say we agree.

Do you find this post more scientific or more religious?

Because I will agree with you if we can agree that the position being taken here is driven by treating science as a religion ( one they poorly understand ).

Spoken like a scientist. I doubt that is the answer they were looking for.

In my view, there are two components to “religion”.

1 - it typically starts with an attempt to explain why and how things are

2 - it becomes a human administration - this becomes more about politics than “religion”

Most of the problems with religion stem from the second part. I see the politics as the far bigger problem there. So people that want to create political movements around “science” are absolutely no better in my view.

If you read the question being asked in this thread critically, do you find it a scientific question? A political one?

I am not even remotely religious. But I take science pretty seriously.

Please tell me, scientifically, why you are so sure that people of faith are wrong?

There is some decent science that prayer does not work. I am not aware of anything offers anything at all testable concerning God.

And if we are simply pushing our preferences on others, I think a more important question is what makes people that claim to be evidence driven to adopt such strong opinions on things ( without evidence ) that they feel comfortable publicly slamming the preferences and values of others ( again with no evidence at all ).

As a science fan, you can say that absence of evidence means you do not have to believe. Correct. You cannot say that an absence of evidence proves your guess correct such that you can treat people who believe otherwise as stupid. Incorrect.

And “they have to show me the evidence” is a moronic stance. As a fan of the scientific method, evidence is YOUR burden of proof. For people that adhere to a religion, their standard is FAITH. So, they are holding up their end and you are dropping the ball. So what gives you the right to be the abuser?

So, I guess my answer to “why do people believe in religion would be”, “well, people still have faith and tradition and science has not produced any evidence that credibly calls that into question”.

Why are people not arriving at this conclusion on their own in 2024? Why have we failed so badly to explain the scientific method that people can still make wild pronouncements like this one.

I don’t like religion because it makes people easy to manipulate. People that treat science like a religion exhibit the same problems. I am not a fan of that.

They would go bankrupt.

No matter how anti-capitalism you are, I hope you can see how broken the argument being made here is. The absolute reality is that, without protections, things like pharmaceuticals would never exist at the scale that we enjoy them.

Of course examples of things that require years of research would exist. However, there would be far fewer of them than there is today.

Patents and copyrights have become corrupted. They need reform. We have to remember though that when they were created, it was to improve the world that existed ( the world that this commenter thinks would be better ).

Patents and copyrights were not invented because making companies richer was a goal. They were invented to better society. They were created with the recognition that, if we wanted companies to invest in innovation, and if we wanted individuals to commit to a long, intensive creative process, that they needed protection. The downside of capitalism at the time was that evil corporations and unscrupulous entrepreneurs could steal your hard work. Patents and copyrights were created to right that wrong and to promote a culture of creativity, invention, and innovation. And it worked wonderfully. We all benefit.

Now, things have of course been corrupted. The idea of “intellectual property” has emerged and we get nonsense like calling copyright violations “piracy”. The protections have been extended far. The penalties have become too great. The idea of public benefit has taken a backseat to profit protection. All this is bad. Throwing out the baby with the bath water is not the answer.

Cannot wait to see how well this comment ages. All the Hexabear stuff is just comedy gold in the long run. Thank you for spending your life force creating it.

This got an upvote?

Are you open to proposing your master plan?

Ukraine has been invaded. Are you suggesting they do not fight back?

NATO is not war. No NATO country has been attacked. Engaging against Russia directly would put NATO at war with a nuclear power. I cannot imagine that this is your plan.

Not just “the West”, but everybody is on the sidelines as far as direct engagement goes. Most countries are assisting Ukraine where they can. Some to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Most have imposed crippling sanctions. So. “sidelines” is a bit misleading from that perspective.

Even Russia’s allies are “on the sidelines”. You certainly do not see much overt support from China. They have even maintained ( in fact stepped-up ) diplomatic relation with Ukraine.

Or are you trying to imply that the underlying cause of everything here is something other than Russia’s continued invasion? Everybody could truly go back to the sidelines if Russia just left.

The only other path is for Ukraine to win. Are you supporting that or not?

I do not think any of the three main Canadian parties are anti-mask.

Type got a big overhaul in 1.3 as well, including fitting to paths.

Honestly I would be surprised if the compatibility of Office 2007 with modern Office is actually better than Only Office or even LibreOffice these days. Perhaps Open Office is still worse.

I am a big fan of LibreOffice in general and there is not much I need that I cannot do. That said, I agree that Calc has lots of little usability paper cuts like the one you describe that make using Excel a lot more pleasant.

Decent list though I actually prefer Jellyfin to Plex.

I don’t get Steam really. I guess it could be Open Source but the whole concept is essentially commercial by definition. It is an App Store for games.

Totally valid to add Windows if it is the only things that runs the other programs you need. Photoshop is one of the few mainstream apps that has no true competitor on Linux.

Funny. That is why I do not use Windows. It takes so long to set up. First, so many of the drivers are not built in. Then, hardly any of the apps I need are built in. Then, none of the programs stay current without constant admin.

Who has that kind of time?