comfy

Should openly fascist people be allowed to vote [for government] in your opinion?

Why should they? As in, materially, how does society benefit from that? How does the democratic decision-making tool become more useful from it? I consider democracy to be a decision-making process, so I don't care for vague idealistic assertions like "every adult should have the right to vote" unless there's a benefit from it. And allowing an explicitly anti-liberal, anti-democratic, bad-faith opportunist (and fascism is explicitly and openly all of those) to vote is harmful to the democratic process and increases the odds of it making a bad decision.

your average truly “apolitical” person only knew the israel propaganda painted about it.

Or, were informed that it was just 'a religious war'.

Yep. Ignorance is normal, but this genocide has been so blatant, proud, prolonged and prominent in media and institutions (e.g. ICC) that for most people, ignorance is no longer a reasonable excuse.

hey i want to be your mayor but ill just fuken leave the whole state if that other guy wins

What a dedicated and loyal representative of the people!

I don’t care much about the OS people use

On a surface level, same. On the other hand, I do believe that more users, if combined with certain design and documentation choices, can enable more contributions and fixes and software support, and I believe this has already been a huge factor in recent improvements to the Linux experience like Proton.

Can’t possibly be more vulnerable than Windows

The linked article provides many examples where security techniques lag far behind Windows. Vulnerability isn't as simple as being 'more vulnerable' or 'less vulnerable', it's a complex concept, and both GNU/Linux and Windows have design decisions which make each better than the other in various ways. We need to understand security in a more nuanced way than "x is better than y" if we actually want to protect ourselves from threats.

A Linux installation can be set to run root with no password or prompt. A Linux user can choose to never update their software - one could argue that Windows forced OS updates are an improvement here. The argument that the typical user has more technical understanding is a weak defense (as in, we really really really should not rely on that) and also irrelevant when we're talking about Linux gaining a wider audience.

Yeah, unfortunate to rain in the parade but GNU/Linux definitely needs some attention sooner rather than later. Plenty of design benefits, but also plenty of pitfalls from an OS sec POV.

Average users aren't installing SELinux or Qubes so I hope no-one was actually going to reply with what Linux can do as opposed to the everyday user experience.

A few years outdated, but relevant: https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux.html

Much better than I'd expected, that's great to hear! The minor bugs are always annoying, but like you mentioned, the speed boost hopefully outweighs it.

I'd say it's because it's not a default on the most popular operating systems (Windows, MacOS, Android systems, iOS).

How would a typical user discover Firefox?

Thanks for linking Madaidan's guide, been a while since I checked those.

Definitely update us on UE, I've haven't explored the EU or Unity on Linux, and it would be nice to know if they work, because "you can use Godot" doesn't work for everyone.

Except for one, where suspend instantly wakes up the pc and is therefore unusable. But i will figure that out another day.

Is this just an automatic suspend after inactivity? Because if so, I think it the inactivity timeout can be disabled in the settings menu, as a workaround until you can figure it out.

I'm not sure what you mean by "believing in" comeuppance. It doesn't automatically happen when people do bad things, it's not a real material thing. People can do harmful things that sometimes cause people to react and punish them, and I'd say that fits your definition of comeuppance, but it's not some guaranteed or spiritual concept. So I can't say I believe in comeuppance, even when it happens.

If you mean in a sense of justice, I don't really advocate punitive justice, as gratifying as it is. What comeuppance does someone truly atrocious on a mass scale deserve? There's a point where you'd need to artificially prolong someone's life for thousands of years of torture just to scrape the surface of the suffering they've caused to humanity (let alone other creatures), some proper "I Have No Mouth" sci-fi stuff would be the necessary fate to qualify as Hitler's comeuppance. And what does it accomplish? Not much. In the end, just give them a bullet as quickly as possible to prevent them hurting more people, we can leave ironic fates to the novelists.