“Unified” is the word I’d use then. Linux being the opposite, “fragmented”.

TBH I’ve installed Mint, Kubuntu, and OpenSUSE and I don’t remember which ones had which issues. I think they’re all Mint but maybe not.

Firstly, LUKS is under “physical disk for encryption” which is a stupid and confusing name.

Secondly, if you want to dual-boot with LUKS you need to manually configure the partitions.

Thirdly, you need to seperately assign root to be installed on the “physical disk for encryption”, and they have multiple volumes for that in the list.

Fourthly, as with all LUKS encrypted Linux distros you need a seperate EFI, boot, and root partition.

Fifthly, all of this partitioning is on a really small window that can’t be resized.

It’s surprisingly annoying trying to configure LUKS full disk encryption. I had to look up instructions many times over on Mint.

Better to lose the data than have it stolen.

The Linux kernel is monolithic too. This and the slow adoption of Rust are the two major security complaints of the GrapheneOS regarding Linux. I might change to COSMIC when it’s ready just to spite the luddites that oppose Rust.

Security on Linux is lackluster.

Generally as long as you don’t install any untrustworthy programs you’ll be safe … but there’s a problem. Linux is an amalgamation of thousands of separate programs and most of them are maintained by one guy in Nebraska thanklessly. XZ Utils is a prime example of how vulnerable the Linux software stack is to malware.

My advice: Keep your daily driver separate from your gaming machine, use a debian-based distro like Ubuntu or Mint for your daily driver, and always have a disaster recovery plan. My advice would basically be the same for a Windows user.

EDIT: Also full-disk encryption. Both on Windows and Linux you can just read the contents of a hard drive no questions asked. Windows is going to address this with TPM’s but you can just use a password. Secure-boot is good because it can help guard against rootkits.

Newsom is in no position to criticize Kilmeade’s abhorrent views.

Taiwan. Ranks high on internet freedom and is close by.

I find it’s good as a “search engine of last resort”. I would pay $2 monthly at most for one, and less if it’s American.

I’m not coming at this from a privacy perspective but I have gone through the alternatives to see what (if any) I can practically use because I want to extricate American tech from my life.

There are three categories (ignoring a tonne for obvious reasons):

1. Region Specific:

• Bilibili (China)
• Niconico (Japan)
• etc.

2. Alt-tech:

• Odysee (US/Decentralized)
• Peertube (France/Decentralized)
• Rumble (Canada but close Trump affiliation)
• Bit Chute (UK)

3. Standard:

• Nebula (US)
• Daily Motion (France)
• TikTok (China)

I use Nebula, have briefly tried Tiktok, Peertube, Daily Motion, Niconico, and Bilibili. Perhaps I should consider the alt-tech platforms too but there’s nobody on them and their reremovedtions have been damaged by the far-right flocking to them when banned from YouTube for quite justifiable reasons. All platforms seem to have the issue that basically nobody of note uploads to more than one platform.

I think refusing to send anything that’s on the hash list wouldn’t be far enough for the EU.

If this were just hash checks running on the local device before it’s encrypted and sent I could accept it. Using AI is a step too far.

Classifying gas as a sustainable investment is defensible, albeit wrong.

Gas is good in the short-term for stabilizing a power supply that doesn’t yet have enough storage. Coal is too slow to respond, hydro is limited by geography, and batteries are on the cusp of major advancements that may render them obsolete in the near future (especially at grid scale). Furthermore, as I understand it gas equipment can be used to burn stored hydrogen as a kind of battery storage. In the future perhaps that could be a use case for the decades this gas infrastructure will need to be used for to be profitable.

If it were up to me I DEFINITELY would not classify it as green though.

How you treat people is a whole different subject matter. I made no judgements about that.

This discussion is entirely on a queer person calling themselves queer in their Ubuntu-something profile. The impacts that has, and the impact concealing that information has.

It’s okay to be indifferent to queerness like you would be indifferent to race. My point is they should be free to express who they are.

I wasn’t commenting on your word choice. I was saying that basically any independent auditor brought in will have a conflict of interest.

Whether it’s pertinent or not is irrelevant. Whether it’s useful to know is irrelevant. How they’re treated is (kinda) irrelevant.

This is about reminding people that diverse people exist and that they are normal human beings. If they choose to describe themselves that way in public we should let them. Though in this case since they describe themselves as a furry it only really normalizes it within fringe communities like the furry community, and queerness is already well accepted there.

The impact on submitting code is entirely besides the point.

It’s not normalizing it if nobody knows. That’s just a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

That’s hiding it, not normalizing it.

The ghosts of Whitlam and Rudd haunt the Labor party to this day.