>"I don't understand this trend to use "there's" with singular targets."

Sigh. That was meant to be "plural targets."

>"There's been a few complaints"

There is been a few complaints?

I know English can be challenging, but could the editors PLEASE put forth at least a little effort? I don't understand this trend to use "there's" with singular targets.

There HAVE been a few complaints.

>"I avoid going to the movies these days purely because of the insane amount of commercials shown beforehand."

For me, it is the assholes that go there and reek of perfume and/or weed, mess with their phones, talk, and/or bring disruptive children. It was already getting bad way before the pandemic, even though I had a fantastic theater nearby- huge screen, sharp image, really good sound, very comfortable seats (which is now closed down forever, of course). But none of that matters when others ruin the experience.

Of course, the commercials/ads prior don't help things. But neither does the quality of movies going down the toilet. Barely anything good and original anymore, just sequels/prequels or similar stories.

So, as with lots of things, I just have to hold onto those good memories from decades ago.

As it turns out, I and a lot of other people are willing to pay a fee to avoid seeing ads, so the shows do actually get funded anyway.

I hate ads with a passion, and miss the old days of the internet where people would get mad at you for advertising.

>"Either you made an unfortunate typo or you support melting children down into soap and petrochemicals :-)"

LOL! Yes, I meant "rearing", not "rendering"!

>"Right now there are two routers on the market - the ISP provided gateway and now Netgear. Basically everything else is off the market."

Incorrect. Ubiquiti Unifi is doing just fine. There are probably others, as well.

https://store.ui.com/us/en/cat...

>"The person who wrote this law must be one of the most utterly moronic person on earth"

How is it any less ridiculous than so-called "gun free zone" laws? Let's just pass a law that says it is illegal to have a gun in area X. But area X is not controlled, not patrolled, not searched, not secure. The only people who would abide such a law, and de-arm themselves, are exactly the good people who follow laws and have no intent of violent crime, including the people who have zero record and with concealed carry permits. Meanwhile, the criminals carrying illegally don't give a **** about laws and now have a wonderful target area where it is even LESS likely they will meet any resistance. The exact opposite of the desired outcome.

They might as well just pass a law making everywhere a "crime free zone. There, all our problems are solved! There is no shortage of stupid.

>"First, the gun problem is pretty much specific to the US"

The 2A is not a "problem", nor is good people owning/carrying guns. There are problems with violence, both with and without guns, and that is not "specific to the USA". There are also problems with enforcement and follow-through for existing gun laws. Worrying about 3D printers is ridiculous. But so are many other types of "gun control" like so-called "gun-free zones."

>"Second, in a country which just this year has had 21 school shootings as of today,"

"School shootings" is a semantically-overloaded term. Most are not in the school, but on property around the school. Usually those shot are also not related to the schools and often not even during school hours. I am not saying it isn't a problem, but the data are often twisted to make it sound far worse than it is. And that is the case with the article you cited. They hide the ACTUAL data, like category of who was shot, when, exactly where (inside, outside, field, woods, parking lot), and full circumstances. Their data INCLUDES self-defense use, for example. It INCLUDES non-school gang-related activity. It INCLUDES at night or non-operating hours. It INCLUDES a public sidewalk or edge of the woods, or parking area far away from any building.

>"the real problem isn't printed guns. It's a whole set of cultural, social, political, and governance flaws which need to be fixed"

Agreed.

>"Citizens of other nations don't feel a moment of panic and start scoping out shelter and escape routes when they hear some random loud bang while walking down the street."

Neither do perhaps 99%+ of Americans. The vast majority of the gun crime is focused in small geographical spots in the USA.

>"Yet ironically, the "land of the free" is now a Fascist dictatorship"

That is, of course, nonsense.

>"Leave the 3D printers alone"

Agreed.

>"That's a bummer. guess I'll get a thinkpad then, thanks"

After many years, I have yet to be disappointed with Linux on ThinkPads. And I am especially happy with the latest AMD based ThinkPads. So I do recommend them.

It is funny, at our local Linux User's Group, nearly everyone brings a ThinkPad to the meetings, sitting in front of them.

>"When will Linux be stable on the Snapdragon X?"

And your answer will need to come from Qualcomm, not from Linux. Because, from my understanding, it is their fault.

>>"what you meant to say was MS was a blue state up until the mid 1960's and what happened then? HMMMMMM"
>"Political realignment. Basically the Reps and Dems switched places ideologically."

That is a myth.

https://newstalk1130.iheart.co...

https://rickchromey.com/the-bi...

https://thehayride.com/2026/02...

https://jesterpolitics.com/202...

>"slash has rendered firefox partially inoperative... At least MY installation no longer properly updates stuff on slash."

You need to check your install/settings. I have no problem at all using Slashdot with Firefox. Or any other site, for that matter.

>"if people actually cared primarily about privacy they would not be using Chrome OR firefox."

Really? And what would you recommend over Linux + Firefox + UBO? Because with Firefox configured correctly, I don't think you are going to find a more privacy-capable browser that is high performance, open-source, and compatible with nearly all websites.

>"Been using Brave for a few years now. Just do it, no reason not to"

Yes, there are LOTS of reasons not to.

Better than using Chrome, for sure. But in some ways not. Brave is still chrom*. It still depends on Google code and pretends to be Chrome. And that means it still contributes to extremely dangerous browser monoculture. A security and "standards" nightmare waiting to explode.

Firefox (and children) is the only major multiplatform browser whose code is not dependent on Google's Chromium.

>"Which Performs Better on a Linux Laptop?"

Don't care. I am going to continue to use Firefox on all my machines, no chrom*.

1) The speed differences, depending on the benchmarks and use cases are not that far apart, with Firefox still winning some of them. Same with RAM/power usage. And Firefox wins more with effective element blocking.
2) I want to reduce my Google dependence and exposure as much as possible.
3) I want to reduce Google's control over the web as much as possible.
4) I want to support Firefox/Mozilla, whose browser is more community-driven and open.
5) I want to support truly open standards, not de-facto or forced ones.
6) I don't want a monobrowser culture, which is extremely dangerous, especially when there now only two multiplatform "browsers" left- Firefox family and Chromium family.
7) Firefox is more customizable and configurable.
8) Firefox is more privacy focused and friendly.
9) Full uBblock Origin is a must.

If your site doesn't work correctly in Firefox (which, thankfully, is very rare) YOUR SITE IS BROKEN, NOT FIREFOX.