gonna use this as an opportunity to launch my ted talk:
there's no such thing as anything but "race mixing" since every single human on the planet is a mix of different ancient races anyway
(or to put another way, race is a bs term anyway since we're all homosapiens)
When you work in an industry where the entire collaborative workflow of everyone is based on software that doesn’t run on Linux, then not running that software is equal to not being able to work in that industry.
there's no denying that's true, though ofc it has alot to do with microsofts very agreessive and anti-competitive practices.
though its all a bit tangential, the main issue i think comes down to what someone means when they say "everything". certainly if someone said "you can do everything", i'd expect them to qualify what is (should be) obviously a slight exaggeration as parlance. they don't literally mean "everything" they just mean most everyday things. i think its fairly common in everyday speech for someone to be able to work out thats what they meant.
in the few rare cases when someone literally means absolutely everything, then yes that silly statement would be incorrect. and if strictly intended with that meaning would certainly qualify as misinformation.
Not sure if when people say you can “do everything that windows does”, they should be interpreted to mean "every single piece of software/drivers ever written for windows was also written for linux".
Yeah I don’t know. Just see how the modern world is shaping society to the negative I just don’t see where we are close to utopia But right now we are on a different path
That was essentially a big part of my point. We could be close to a utopia by now (from the perspective of technological possibilities).
Instead, as I said
for some suspicious reason we took a very different road, and here we are
That said I don't currently believe technology itself is inherently bad.
Like all tools, it depends what you do with it.
Is a general purpose tool like hammer good or bad? It has the capacity for both. And therefore it's up to the user which is which.
And that's the issue really, what are we doing with our wonderous technology?
This might be a bit of a radical take. But in that ~125 year window i was refering to, alot of machines we've invented are actually weapons.
Weapons to destroy eachother physically (conflict/threats of violence etc).
Weapons to destroy nature (deforestation and probably most mining).
Weapons to destroy the mind (social media etc, actually most media now).
What if we'd had 1+¼ century of building a collective utopia instead of all these weapons?
afaict from the technical perspective it's not really unfeasible, its the non-technical problem: the user and what they use the tools for.
Another clue for us is probably the term appropriate technology, which is a vibe i think eg. solar punk is helping to cultivate.
Anyway we've done ALOT of misuse. That's why i don't blame technology itself.
I still think it's more about what we've done with it.
necessary decline in our quality of life
i'm not refuting your core premise.
but on the note of this issue, not sure i can agree.
have a look at this public infrastructure technology from 122 years ago:
imagine if we'd spent the last 1+¼ century collectively working towards the utopia this kind of project hinted at - instead of developing new machines to destroy?
typically they say utopian dreams scatter in the face of increased technological awareness. have to say my experience has been the opposite.
the more i learn about technology, the more i realise we could probably be very close to a near-utopia by now. for some suspicious reason we took a very different road, and here we are.
i reckon there's a good chance she was trolling. and if so, fuckin well played.
yet to use any OS where the default firefox install was good for too much, other than using it to install a clean firefox directly from mozilla
not sure if you're being sarcastic, but if anything this news paints linux deployment in an even better light.
i agree with everything you've said including your links between causation etc
except the final link you make that its the consumer, i note you said 'partly' a consumer issue, so its not a full attribution - perhaps i'm misinterpreting what % you're attributing.
tbh my take is alot of people would like an option between paying $2 for a garment they know involved exploitation/slavery vs an accessible^1^ independent option that doesn't cost $500/garment.
i don't think people are still choosing the $2 option because they're ok with slavery. but (tragically?) they're more ok with someone else being the slave vs them being the slave - which is what they'd basically be if every piece of clothing cost them $500.
and i think we know the reason there's very little accessible options in between is because the game is rigged, you (HelixDab2) can't realistically enter the game without serious capital behind you (ie. wealth/connections) to reach the volume prices which might give us an option in between - the market isn't fair, its been stitched up long ago, by the same people who don't produce anything and greedily skim off the top.
the venn diagram of independent designers fairly charging $500 for their labor and the greedy skimmers getting fat without producing anything themselves is two separate circles - they're worlds apart
^1^ Quick note on accessibility, there are ofc some scant options between $2-500, but what isn't clear (ie. readily accessible) to the consumer is which of those options isn't just some greedy bastard buying a $2 option and selling it on for $15.
In other words its not because of the consumers, but because of the greedy skimming off the top.
so what they're really saying is they won't give it away for free