Why is chrome a blocker? For the pre-game UI?

Surely it’s the game window that matters.

Which proves homeopathy. I bet you haven’t been plagued with Marilyn Monroe recently.

First thing is to realise that accepting it isn’t:

• Giving up
• Being happy about the situation
• Being cold or heartless
• …or anything else that others might imply it is.

It’s just accepting it as reality so your rational brain can work without your emotional side always getting in the way.

It’s also not necessarily a “one and done” thing. Some days you’ll be better than others, especially initially. Some days you’ll be a mess.

The risk associated with being on a public forum has changed massively. Yes the data was always out there, but the ability to turn it into personally identifying information was not.

People are still grappling with that change.

Scanning people’s entire history for political leanings, etc? That’s some deeply dystopian stuff right there.

Yep. It’s Cambridge Analytica and Palantir level shit.

Apparently he’s got sketches of them in his notebooks going back decades.

Honestly, if an attacker has shell access you’re toast regardless. I know you shouldn’t be able to escalate privileges, but better to never let them on the machine.

Most security in industry only holds because employees have no interest in attacking, or knowledge how to attack, their employer.

Don’t need specifically SU by my understanding. Just any suid executable.

That’s not how the word gimp was used. It was a cripple. Somebody with a gimp was somebody with a limp.

Ironically, that stability is probably why AMD target Ubuntu. They don’t want everything else on the bleeding edge. Just their bit.

Well yeah. As a cis man it’ll be the only affermation you’ve had this decade.

If you have a swap partition setup that’s larger than the RAM the Linux will hibernate into it. Trouble is a lot of people don’t bother with swap partitions these days.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Power_management/Suspend_and_hibernate

No

I think framework are worthy of support even though the company is American.

1. Regardless of who you buy from… Manufacture including assembly is done in east Asia. That’s where most of your money is going.
2. Framework are not tech giants. They’re a small company battling giants.
3. The ethos of ownership, repair and upgrade needs supporting.
4. They’ve been following through on their promises.

So yes, I’m not buying US goods as much as I can also. I make an exception for Framework. They’re the resistance in an occupied nation.

Did any leaders from the protests come forward to implement the change they wanted?

You can bring a system down, but if you don’t replace it you leave a power vacuum. Generally those are filled by the worst people.

Does seem like something snapped in Glen Greenwald. Once a good investigative journalist. Now a conspiracy freak.

How banks lend money isn’t controversial. How governments spend and collect money isn’t controversial. Those are just points of fact. The controversial part is the government being able to spend before it has tax levels which “support” the spending. That’s what I meant. MMT says that’s an available choice. That’s all.

Many mainstream economists will say that unchecked spending is reckless and you risk hyperinflation. Now we’re in to policy choices though. Regardless, if you spend without worrying about the other side of the equation (tax) they’d be right. However, that’s a strawman argument because that’s not what is being said.

I’ll be honest, I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument against MMT, and I’ve looked. I started off sceptical, but I now think it’s a useful framing tool. Every counter I’ve seen doesn’t address what it actually states, rather what they imagine it states (normally unchecked spending). If anyone has seen a good factual argument against MMT I’d be interested.

So these ideas are the basis of modern monetary theory (MMT) i.e. the theory of modern money, not that it’s a modern theory of money. There’s nothing very controversial here, in that the “theory” is just a description of how things work when you have a fiat currency. The controversial parts are what you do in your fiscal policy once you think about things this way.

Stephanie Kelton is a vocal proponent of this style of framing. She’s been an economic advisor to Bernie Sanders and is the author of “The Deficit Myth” which explains these concepts. She also gave a TED talk on the concepts.

Richard Murphy is a UK proponent who writes a blog and has a YouTube channel where he explains the concepts.

There are others, but these two are a good way in. Searching for them, and also the the phrase “Modern Monetary Theory” should get you lots of talks, interviews and articles on both sides of the arguments.

“All the money” assumes there’s a finite amount of money. There isn’t. In a fiat currency, like the Dollar, Euro or Sterling, banks create money when they lend, and the money disappears again when the loan is repaid. This is what a banking license gives you; The ability to make loans without having the existing money to back them.

Government spends by telling it’s bank (The Federal Reserve, ECB or BoE) to lend money for the things it wants to buy. Taxes then repay that debt and the money doesn’t exist anymore.

In an economy where huge amounts of wealth is horded, there’s a problem of liquidity. All of that wealth is idle. It’s not circulating and there becomes a danger of economic collapse. Therefore more money has to enter the system, either through government spending or commercial banks making loans.

Horded money is also money that isn’t going back to banks to repay the lending. So the amount of money in existence goes up, driving the value of that money down. This is inflation. One dollar can no longer buy as much as it used to as it’s value has gone down.

So, billionaires cause:

• Large amounts of commercial debt to inject replacement money into the economy. That is, personal debt or corporate debt.
• Inflation caused by that cash injection

Sound familiar?

Now a government could choose to raise its spending so that it injects the required money into its economy, rather commercial banks doing it. The advantage of that is that they can balance that with raised taxes, so inflation doesn’t get out of control. They can also choose who to tax and protect areas of the economy.

Most governments don’t see it this way, arguing that they can only spend what they take in taxes (The “government spending is like a household budget” argument). This has been false ever since they all came off the gold standard. They can spend what they want and they can tax what they want. The difference will drive inflation, so has to be kept reasonable, but if they don’t spend enough the commercial banks take over and will absolutely drive inflation.

So chop-sticks are “Oneks”