The competitive game anti-cheat issue is kinda overblown nowadays. A lot of popular competitive FPS games run perfectly fine, anti-cheat and all, on Linux with wine/proton. And the ones that don’t either have incredibly invasive anti-cheat that you wouldn’t want running on your computer anyways, or have server-side “protections” that properly boot Linux players out of the game for some arbitrary reason.

These are the four stages of Rand al’Thor

It’s Canonical’s (the company that created/updates/supports Ubuntu) package format. There are a few problems.

They can only be hosted on proprietary Canonical servers. That sort of flies in the face of one of the “free” aspects of Linux. Canonical is also sort of fostering a reputation of abandoning/massively changing something core in Ubuntu every couple major releases, which has made some wary of depending on snaps, since if Canonical decides to stop hosting them, anyone dependent on them is kinda screwed. Snaps can also chew up disk space if you’re not careful. I don’t think that’s necessarily unique to snaps, but in my experience that issue has been worse with snaps than with comparable alternatives like flatpaks.

They don’t add milk or milk substitute to blizzards. Blizzards are not shakes.

No might about it, in the US, definitionally, a milkshake is ice cream blended with milk at minimum. It can optionally have mixins or syrups blended in as well, but if there’s no milk (or milk alternative)*, it ain’t a milkshake

No that’s yo mama

So did you just skip the 95% of that comment that was specifically about handguns?

I don’t think the claim is that Trump/Epstein did the murder themselves, but that the murder was done by someone to cover up their rape.

Grandfather is ABC, dad is python2

Eh, Jim Beam is generally considered cheaper, kinda bottom-shelf stuff these days. Fine for a bourbon and coke, but not really intended to be sipped neat. I wouldn’t really be surprised by a bourbon-lover turning their nose up at it, regardless of who owns the brand.

It’s really really really easy to have this outlook, if you consider a house to be more a thing you live in, and less an investment opportunity.

Are you being purposely obtuse, or did you just not read my comment?

And if it’s like any other government education program, it will produce solely negative and crappy results and just be weaponized against students and teachers both

This is how I know you’re just being grumpy to be grumpy. This is extreme hyperbole at best. No public education system is perfect, far from it, but to claim every government education system ever has only produced negative results is insane.

Yes, it’s a bad, clickbait headline. That’s why it’s important to read the articles.

I think you’re making some leaps here. Nothing in the article is suggesting that all boys are evil, or that they’re going to be socially isolated. Granted, the article doesn’t exactly give specifics about how it’ll be enacted, but I feel like you’re filling in the gaps with the worst stuff you can imagine, and then getting mad at that.

From my reading of the article, it seems like they’re just adding topics like pornography, deep-fake/image abuse, consent, coercion, peer-pressure, online abuse, etc. to the curriculum, coupled with training for teachers to be able to recognize and address misogynistic behaviors. Again, I’ll grant that the article is missing some important details like how they’re going to teach those various topics, how they’re going to empower teachers to identify problems, the checks and balances they’ll use to prevent teachers abusing the system, what they’re defining as misogyny, etc. But I feel like those details are a little too in-the-weeds for this type of overview article, and until we do know what those details are, I don’t think filling those gaps by assuming the worst is productive.

You’re focusing specifically on porn, but the plan in the article doesn’t. The plan isn’t to tell boys to “just say no” to porn.

You’ll find no disagreements from me that porn isn’t necessarily the root cause of misogyny, but I don’t think anything in the article suggests that.

After reading the article, it seems like there’s a lot more to this than just classes for boys. I struggle to draw the same comparison to 80s abstinence-only sex education, and I think schools can contribute in more ways than the one you listed, like the ones mentioned in the article.

Not really, those examples have the same faults as hammers and bricks.

It’s so weird that this “logic” is applied to criminals using encryption/encrypted messaging platforms, but not really any other tool used by both criminals and non-criminals. Like, criminals use hammers and bricks to illegally smash windows, and yet there are no governing bodies out there trying to come up with “creative” solutions to regulate hammers and bricks, to create “backdoors” in hammers and bricks that make them ineffectual for doing crime but retain their original functions. Because that’s impossible.

Instead, maybe what we should do is improve society somewhat so that people don’t feel compelled to commit crimes. You know, the one thing that’s been demonstrated time and time again to actually work.