pixelscript

I admire the respect you have for those who ask questions like this, but I think I disagree.

If there is something egregiously wrong with the premise of what a person is seeking to do, and there are no qualifying statements in their query about why they do in fact need to do this specifiic thing in this specific way, chances are high that they are uneducated about why the premise of what they're trying to do is flawed, and they are best served by being course corrected. Giving them the answer they're looking for to continue the bad thing while hiding your suggestion of what they should be doing instead in a footnote is just enabling them to double down on the short term path of least resistance that will probably come back to bite them again later.

If they really did know what they were doing with regards to doing an otherwise unsafe and/or unsupported thing, or if the restrictions tied their hands from using the obvious replacement solution, it either should have appeared in their question prompt, or it should be in the first replies to the first round of answers.

I say, withhold outdated advice unless the context of the conversation makes it explicitly clear that the old advice is genuinely required and not substitutable with current advice. But also don't be smug, rude, dismissive, or standoffish about it. Don't argue with someone who says they really do need a specific solution.

That said, this only applies in really cut and dry cases like this one, where there very clearly is an indisputable thing you shouldn't be doing, and a drop-in replacement you should be using. The ones I hate are moreso those you may see on StackOverflow where the question is like, "how do I do in JavaScript?" and five of the seven responses including the accepted answer offer a solution in some big dumb framework or lib that they apparently expect you to just incorporate into your project.

I believe your "checkup" and their "routine cleaning" are the same thing.

Lots of people (myself included) refer to it as a "cleaning" because, well, regardless of anything else, that's what they actually do to you. I don't know anyone who goes to a dentist just to have them look but they don't touch. They clean you, too. That's almost always the only physical takeaway effect of one of these visits.

Also, a dentist cleans your teeth in a way you almost certainly can't. Their practiced hands know exactly what needs to be scraped away, and they can make informed decisions on what tool to do it with and how aggressively to not cause enamel damage. Not to mention they can, y'know, actually see what they're doing in there. So a "simple cleaning" isn't quite as pedestrian as it sounds. It's not something you can fully replicate by scraping around blindly with a metal pick in your mouth.

I'd argue this is at the root of all fringe theories and why they all seem to attract the same archetypes of people.

We are living in an era of history where long traditional societal norms are in rapid turnover. The "old ways of doing things" are dying off, and the new ways that replaced them are often a revolving door. Very little in the world at any given time feels stable and secure.

Institutional trust is breaking down. Interacting with the world in good faith is increasingly leaving you open to abuse by bad actors. Why trust anything, then? Trust is for rubes. You're an intelligent, free, and independent thinker. You should question anything and everything that is simply handed down to you. Especially if it is unintuitive. To not do so is to be railroaded.

And it's that last part in particular that identifies the most fertile candidates for a good conspiracy theory. Like, is the Earth round? It looks flat to me. Essentially all evidence you can throw at the notion falls either into at least one of, "I witnessed it, trust me bro", "hope you like letters in your math equations" (people who can't intuit math won't be impressed by any proofs), or "you can do this experiment at home, you just need / so you can watch for ". A depressing sum of people in the world will remain unconvinced by any demonstration that isn't simple, intuitive, and of an overwhelmingly obvious magnitude. Complex answers or answers that observe tiny effects are scams.

And just like that, we've abandoned rational thought and replaced it with trust-averse thought. We've invented the notion that the world is a hostile place where anyone trying to hand you something is an agenda-pusher trying to extract something of value from you. All of the world's major institutions are shams designed to keep you complacent in some sort of world order that is merely using you. To participate in it is to further your enslavement.

In that hellish headspace, conspiracy theories almost feel like a haven. Finally! A group of real thinkers who share your frustrations about the world! The underground movement working to free us all from the hostile system!

Except, no. At best it's just a bunch of people who are wrong indulging in a little harmless escapism. At worst it's a mass of people getting Immanuel Goldstien'd by the very kind of well-spoken swindler they're breaking their collective backs bending over to avoid in the first place. Regardless the form it takes, my hypothesis remains: proliferation of conspiracy theories is merely a symptom of a lack of trust.

I don't really mind either way whether these posts are allowed to remain or should be culled.

If you keep them around, they will just keep shitting up the feed. The overall browsing quality of the community goes down, hindering the user experience. I don't think it's uncontroversial to say these posts have next to no value; they're essentially equivalent to birthday notifications or "I voted" stickers. Like... congrats! You and everyone else! Now what? Where's the discussion here?

On the other hand, I do want to think thrice about controlling this with moderation. All too often on Reddit I've see the trope of a sub that appears to be crawling, and you get the idea to join in with an enthusiastic post, only to get removedsmacked by automod because you posted this on the wrong day of the week, or this post type is outright banned because the community is sick of seeing it. It's sensible, yes. But ugh, what a demoralizing filter for newcomers. Overly curated subs/communities are not public forums, they are increasingly impenetrable cliques. That may not necessarily be a bad thing if we think the tradeoff is worth it. But we have to keep in mind what we become when we make that trade.

The one thing I will say willl absolutely not help anything at all is making a designated containment community for this specific kind of post. The whole complaint here is rooted in there being no discussion value for these types of posts. You think a community comprised entirely of those would be a community anyone would want to post in? It'd largely be the Lemmy equivalent of a donotreply@ email address. A dumping ground where unwanted posts go to die. And I don't know about anyone else, but somehow I find being directed to a designated dead-end forum by mods is an even bigger slap to the face than simply having my post removed.

It's Microsoft, intrusion of standards is their entire M.O.

It's the "extend" in "embrace, extend, extinguish".

Rythmbox. Syncs to my iPod Classic.

I am not quite yet st the level where I have a ton of user scripts I'd be lost without, so SSHing into a box is hardly a speed bump for me.

I'm sure you know it by now, but Mint is the "I Can't Believe It's Not Windows!" distro very much on purpose, haha.

Here's the ELI5 answer I'd give to your friend:

Computers are like servants. They do whatever you ask of them. But to be able to ask them things, you must do so in their language. On the extreme low level that means writing code to make programs, but on a higher level, it means talking to programs someone else already wrote using special commands.

The buttons and switches on a GUI that you can click on with a mouse are like pre-recorded commands that instruct the computer to do some specific thing. The button or whatever will have a symbol or text description that lets you intuitively know what it's for, and when you click on it, it plays a pre-recorded command to the computer in its language that tells it to do that thing. With these buttons, you can ask things of the computer in its language without having to know that language.

As you get more intimate with the computer, this system can start to feel a bit stiff. You've essentially got a butler who doesn't speak your language, and any time you need to give him a task, you have to fumble through a basket of pre-recorded tape recorder messages to find the one for the task at hand, and play it to him. For more complex tasks, you may need to chain several of these together. It gets slow and awkward. And god forbid you don't even have a tape recording for the thing you need.

It's easier if you learn the butler's language yourself. Then you can ask him for things directly. You're not bound to any collection of pre-recorded messages to use, you can tell him exactly what you need. And if you don't happen to know the word for something, you can look it up. It cuts out all the faffery with fumbling over a tape recorder looking for the messages you need to play.

Using a terminal is roughly the computer equivalent of speaking to your butler in his native language. You're not limited to only the buttons and features any particular program lets you have; you can make up exactly what you need on the spot. And you never have to bounce your hand between a mouse and keyboard to do it, you can keep your hands in one position at all times, which really adds up over time in both speed and comfort.

Practicing this will also give you the side perk of better understanding how the computer actually works overall, and what it's actually doing. This knowledge can come in super handy when diagnosing problems with the thing. When a GUI gives up, a terminal can keep digging.

Sorry. Got my wires crossed with Mountain Lightning.

this could've been done by most people with a little gumption.

My point was not that installing Linux is intrinsically difficult, it's that people who have "a little gumption" to figure it out are a far rarer breed than you seem to believe.

Also, I wasn't intending to "shit all over the possibility" of salvaging old PCs. I support that! I think Linux (Mint, specifically) would be a perfect drop-in for most light use Windows users, as it is a stable and friendly solution to common needs. I was just raising the part most people overlook: actually getting it running. Not just the technical challenges, but the mental ones, too. The people who stand to gain the most from a free and stable OS are paradoxically the same people who are the least equipped to find and set it up.

We have a long road ahead of us to normalize the procedures of obtaining and installing a new OS in the public eye. Linux can be as user friendly as you like, but it's all for nothing to the average Joe if he doesn't understand how to get it. Or why he should even bother getting it, for that matter.

But, assuming most people aren't complete morons and can actually do stuff if they decide to sit down, Google how to do it and actually do it instead of declaring "I am stupid" and not even try

Extremely charitable assumption, I'd say.

I do think most people do in fact possess the ability to follow instructions and succeed at installing Linux from USB. But it all falls apart at the key word "decide". Very few people choose to devote the low, but nonzero, effort required to pull it off.

for linux specifically the hard part is entering the BIOS to disable secure boot and then go into the boot menu to select the USB

I would say, for the demographic I'm thinking of, the hardest part is actually getting the installation media in the first place. Not because it's challenging to do, but just getting over the mental barrier of this (to them) extremely unorthodox method of installing software.

Like, first you have to find the thing and download it. Which, fine, that's typical so far But the thing you download isn't some .exe you run. No, you need to put it on a flash drive. So you need one of those lying around, either empty or with nothing important on it. But you don't just copy the installl file onto it the ""normal"" way, nooo... you also have to separately download some strange utility that burns it onto the flash drive in some special way or else it won't work. Only then do you have to tickle the BIOS.

I understand if you or anyone else reading rolls their eyes at that description because these steps are so boneheadedly simple. And I agree, they are. But it's not so much a question of whether it's hard to do, it's a question of whether it feels safe and natural to do. Which, to you and me, it is. But to the kind of person who, as you say, shouldn't even be using a computer in the first place (but they must anyhow, because trying to live in our modern information age society without one closes too many doors), it's an uncomfortable, dark ritual.