I think the breakdown in communication is due to a difference in how people’s brains have been trained to accept something as “true”. Some people embrace the scientific method, while others are dogmatic.

To elaborate, I imagine you (aspire to) readily alter your personal beliefs to fit the data you’ve observed. But that is a foreign concept to some people. In order to utilize the scientific method, you need to be appropriately trained in it, and you need the intellect to apply it. But if you’re lacking in either department, you still need to be able to function day-to-day, to dress yourself, do your job, pay bills, and just stay alive. No one has time to think critically about every single challenge they’re presented, so our default behaviour is to create heuristics which can be reused multiple times without needing to think.

The difference between science enjoyers and dogma stans is that the latter group slowly learned over their lifetime that heuristics helped them function in life more than relying on their ability to reason; and now not only do they depend on the exchange of heuristics between others in their group (their “ingroup” as-it-were) in order to function, but they assume everyone operates that way (it’s all they know). The scientific method is a just a vocab term they forgot in middle school, and the idea of re-evaluating your beliefs is frowned upon, because that means you must have bad heuristics!

So back to your original question, I believe the confusion happens because you and they have different implied meanings when you each ask for a source of information: You ask because you want new evidence that might change your conclusions about a subject. But they ask because they seek to discredit your source of heuristics. In their experience, if someone told them X, but then later that person turned out to be wrong, then that’s enough reason to doubt X. That’s their heuristic for doubt, so that’s their goal, to make a map of your ingroup and try to foster doubt within it.

That is the only reason in their mind that they would ever have to know your sources, the concept of empiricism is mostly foreign to them.

I would consider this post itself a liability if I were living in china. Yeah, even if I thought it were safe initially, there’s no guarantees that living there is safe long term. Like right now, people still generally consider it safe to continue living in the US, but I don’t blame anyone for choosing to leave, because there’s really no group that’s entirely safe from Trump’s hate mongering (besides sycophants).

For the record, this clip from this movie is always posted out of context. Everyone posts it for its literal interpretation, but this rant happens early in the film, and the rest of the story shows how the network it aired on figured out how to capitalize on the ratings it generated. This results in a populist, sensationalist circle jerk that is very profitable for wealthy network owners. Much like how MAGA became what it is today.

I’m not a fan of having two definitions for “lint” in the tech world. Unnecessary ambiguity.

“#2” is two words. But dropping either “I” or “pencil” would work.

My cat will eat plastic wrapping left sitting out. So yeah, he would definitely try to eat a frog given the chance.

This should just work if your Android device’s USB mode is set to Mass Storage, no extra software needed on the PC. It’ll just show up like a thumb drive.

I’m like the twin towers the way your bush got me collapsin’.

Hah, is that the main character from Disco Elysium?

People who are interested in geography, geometry, cartography, political science, geopolitics, culture, cognitive biases, ethnocentrism

I maintain that none of those people are the ones interested in this movement, and if you believe they are, you haven’t spent any time thinking about it. Again, I’m looking for any actual legitimate argument in support of it. A condescending argument from hypothetical authority isn’t going to cut it.

Yeah, I’m open to any valid arguments for why it would matter, but I haven’t seen any. People who think land size should correspond to representation are…to be more diplomatic: not making any effort to think things through.

CMV: this movement only matters to stupid people, and does not qualify as something “I should know”.

Note: Gaming performance is purely based on money spent. There’s no fundamental reason windows would have better gaming performance, it’s just that there is more money being paid to engineers and vendors to support DirectX and related tooling.

Then there’s the self-fulfilling aspect that, windows has the largest marketshare, so devs are going to spend the most money targeting it, so that they can get the most money in return, which means more people will use it, which leads to the high marketshare.

The ONLY reason Linux use is seeing the few percent blip in gaming is because Valve has dumped truckloads of cash into making it viable.

The better comparison is that distros are the operating systems (like “windows”, “macos”, and “android”), while “linux” is the kernel under the hood that end users likely never interact with (like “NT”, “XNU”, and…“linux”).

A distro represents an intended user experience. If you want a distro that has an intended user experience that is similar to windows, go with Mint or OpenSUSE. If your desired experience is like the SteamDeck, install bazzite (with an AMD GPU ideally). If that’s all you care to know, then that’s all you need to know; go use your new system how you would any other.

But if you want to dig deeper, yeah, the fact that all the distros are based on linux (and more importantly, are posix compatible) means that a lot of the software is portable across distros. But that doesn’t mean your experience on all distros will be the same. Different distros organize their filesystems differently, they might ship with different versions of core utilities based on the stability testing they’ve done, and they likely offer varying means of installing and managing new packages.

The tl;dr is, go use one distro, and then later try doing the same stuff in a different distro, and inevitably at some point you’ll go “oh, this didn’t work exactly how I expected because the other distro I’m used to handles this differently”. That’s the difference.

That’s true, but you see why you can use that argument to take every single post from any other political community, slap “YSK” in front of it, and post it here, right? That’s not really the point of YSK. At least not why I’m here.

What about people who have a habit of hitting dogs?

In theory the US Federal govt should be split into branches so that it has power, but the checks and balances between branches prevent any single branch from dominating. Which sucks when all 3 branches collude to hand all the power to the executive branch, which then wields the Federal govt to dominate the states.

For the record, a similar system where the states remain separate with a centralized governing body, but with less power than a Federalist one is called a Confederacy…so yeah, we tried that in the US once too. On the flip side, Switzerland’s Confederation seems to be working out pretty great for them.

What your describing is called a Republic. There are several benefits to such a model.

The most relevant was well summarized in MIB as “a person is smart, people are stupid”. A simple direct democracy is great until you are relying on an uninformed population to make a time-critical decision that requires expertise. If we instead elect people who are then expected to use tax dollars to consult experts, and then represent our interests by voting accordingly, we can theoretically avoid problems (such as the tragedy of the commons).

The downside happens when the representative takes advantage of the public’s ignorance, fosters it, and wields it for personal/oligarchic gain. Ideally the people are just smart enough to see that happening and vote them out before it becomes a systemic issue…

The performance is relative to the user. Could it be that you’re a god damned genius? :/

Man, we’re gonna have to change the name of the AUR because bad journalists keep thinking this has something to do with the distro.

“Arch Linux Users who go out of their way to install RAT at risk of installing RAT”