intrepid

Remember! The US backed the biggest genocide after the Holocaust - the Bangladesh massacre of 1972, where 30 million people are estimated to have been murdered. The reason was that the Pakistani dictator who instigated the genocide was their ally. And they didn't like Mujib-ur-Rehman, the newly elected East Pakistani (Bangladeshi) leader, because he was a socialist! The US even tried to intervene militarily to help the war criminals, nearly starting a nuclear world war.

Democratic leaders tend to be pro-people. And that makes them US's enemies. The antidemocratic tag that the US has is well-deserved.

People calling for genocide and murder of children are those who are far removed from humanity. They're a nasty burden that the modern society hasn't learned to deal with yet.

What is the fundamental reason why people fall for antivax propaganda?

I am tired, in pain and was feeling grumpy when I wrote this this morning.

Disagreement over a distro is nothing worth suffering for. Wish you a speedy recovery and better times ahead.

If you want to flex your experience, I have twice as much as you do, just with Arch. You are just speaking your perspective and extrapolating it to others. Neither the official Arch sources, nor the regular users' experience match what you say. The argument you made is in complete disregard of the ability, patience or intent of the vast majority of users.

It's a common trope that I see that newbie Linux users complaining about how Arch users talk down to them. I can see where that comes from.

Democracy and the right to dissent are meant to oppose abuse like these. Why isn't anyone protesting?

Arch requires significantly more tinkering to keep it working, compared to Debian. That's not because of FUD. Arch has a more hands-on philosophy. It even says so on their wiki.

I have seen savvy users jump directly from Windows to Arch without trying easier distros like Mint. But if given a choice, I wouldn't introduce anyone to Arch as their first distro. Most people are simply not that patient and are likely to give it up as being too hard. They are likely to give in to the actual FUD that Linux is not user-friendly.

It's not unusual for people who have tasted the freedom that Arch gives you, to think that it's the easiest distro around. But the Arch way of doing things is alien to most people around. It's very important to set the expectations straight and not get carried away.

That really isn't true. Debian packages are often heavily patched and tested to make sure it fits into the rest of the ecosystem. While Arch does it too, they prefer to keep the packages as vanilla as possible - often requiring effort of the user's side to make it work with the rest of the system. It's a different philosophy. While Debian tries to be simple by being opinionated, Arch relies heavily on the effort of the users.

Let me start with my unbiased opinion. There's something for everybody in the Linux land. You have to try different distros out and settle with the one you like most. I usually advocate for the path of least resistance - ie, to start with the easiest distro. Mint is a good first distro. Fedora and Debian are also reasonable choices. But I have also seen a rare few cases where people start directly with a high effort distro like Arch - so it's not impossible.

For a lot of people, Mint may satisfy their needs - a user friendly distro that needs no tinkering and meets all of their needs. Some people though, like to tune everything. Such people can eventually grow into something like Arch.

I personally like Gentoo. Not because it's compiled from source, but because it's easy to work with its Portage package management system. Another one worth trying out is QubesOS, if you're into security.

Have you noticed how the modern AI models absolutely tow the line of its creators? Just like this example, there's another one where an image generator refuses to generate the image of Mickey Mouse from Steamboat Willie, even though its copyright expired recently. The same model has no problem violating the copyrights of independent artists.

And while these models can strictly refuse to avoid what its creators don't want it to do, they fail at basic prompts like 'show a black doctor'. These models are pathologically rife with biases from its creators.

How does GDPR mandate a public audit of the code base? Is there such a provision in it? (Not a confrontational question)

She was radicalized on UK's soil. But they want Bangladesh to deal with the consequences, based on a mere technicality? That's disrespectful, underhanded and sly, to put it mildly.