I don't agree. It was equally competent, which is to say, no competence was displayed. But it didn't have the constant cryptocuck and quantumsuck bullshit and they didn't put reich or nazi or their name into the spam filter.

Your understanding of physics is over a century out of date. Get with the times.

Oh look, a denialist that got its feefees hurt. Suck it up, snowflake coward.

I have the karma, you've got a purty mouth

Uh, some of us in Windows land use PS/2 for NKRO gaming.

The "editors" have one job, engagement. Slashdot has always been social media, but it wasn't enshittified until B!zX bought it. It was only half-assed.

Even fucking up the summary increased engagement here, as it got you to post, so you're teaching them the wrong lesson.

What I posted is flamebait because it made some manchild uncomfortable about reality.

AGW denialists are the dumbest denialists.

What we should have been doing is supporting nature to help us survive climate change.

At this point we're well and rightly fucked, and we earned it.

We're not doing the things we already know how to do in order to address this situation, which is specifically why we're cooked. We deserve it for watching it happen.

I abandoned Ubuntu and went to Devuan, so I got rid of snap and systemd at the same time. Good riddance to both pieces of garbage.

The United Nations overwhelmingly said it was justified, and more to the point, was authorized by the U.N. Security Council, and one of the two resolutions was unanimous; the other had 5 abstentions (the usual suspects). The United Nations overwhelmingly said Russia's invasion of Ukraine was unjustified. These are not the same.

Afghanistan provided material support to and knowingly harbored a terrorist organization that hijacked aircraft and flew them into the World Trade Center, killing thousands of Americans.

A rational person would say that it has been in their interests for many years. Russia has continually attacked its neighbors on so many occasions that I've lost count. And Russia's tendency to buddy up with the most tyrannical world leaders and support them against international punishment for crimes against humanity has made the world a far worse place on an ongoing basis almost continuously since World War II.

The world would almost certainly be better off if Russia's current leadership were buried under a ton of rocket rubble. Yet the U.S. has not attacked. Do you honestly believe that it is because they haven't brought Ukraine into NATO, and because that extra 200 miles compared with Finland is an insurmountable distance? Do you honestly believe that if NATO decided to go to war with Russia, Finland wouldn't have helped even before they joined NATO? Or Türkiye, or Georgia, or Azerbaijan, or any of the other dozen countries bordering Russia that pretend to be friends with Russia out of fear, but actually hate Russia's government and would love to dance while watching it burn?

Tell me you're not serious. Russia isn't afraid of NATO attacking it. Russia just recognizes that every country that joins NATO is one more country that it can't bully into doing what it wants them to do. Russia recognizes that it won't be able to put puppet governments in NATO countries, because the elections will be monitored more closely. Russia recognizes that it won't have the level of regional power that it currently enjoys because of its aggressive, bullying, almost sociopathically militaristic behavior towards its neighbors.

Again, if Russia is doing nothing wrong, Russia has no reason to fear NATO. The problem is that Russia is pretty much always doing something wrong. And that's the real issue here. The last time the U.S. invaded one of its neighbors was 1846 to 1848. In that same time, Russia in one of its various incarnations has probably done so triple-digit times.

And to the extent that Russia does fear NATO because of a genuine belief that NATO is going to invade, that's just because its what they would do in their place. In other words, it's irrational, and represents Russia's gross failure to understand the rest of the world, coupled with a naïve belief that everyone else would act like them if they could.

Let's see:

• Serbia: Stopping mass genocide (on my list of reasons above).
• Kosovo: Stopping mass genocide (on my list of reasons above).
• Libya: Enforcing UN no-fly zone mandate (peacekeeping, on my list of reasons above).
• Afghanistan: Defensive/retaliation for a direct attack on the United States (on my list of reasons above).
• Iraq: Not a NATO mission. The only actual NATO-authorized action in Iraq was providing training for Iraq's security forces *after* the 2003 mission.

Care to try again?

In comparison with Russia, yes, it's tiny. Russia's military was somewhere around 3 million including reservists, versus 980k for Ukraine. And Russia has almost five times the population, which means almost five times as many people who could potentially be conscripted.

The part you're conveniently omitting is that the number is that low only because so many of them died. Russia has *lost* over a million troops since the war began three years ago. The fact that only 150k were in the battlefield at any given time only makes that number more shocking, because it means they sent wave after wave of people to be slaughtered.

Put another way, Russia has already *lost* more troops than Ukraine ever had.

I maintain my original statement.

If you're not confused about what company they're talking about, then what's the problem? A lot of nerds were talking like that back when these products were new. Before it was most commonly written into Micro$oft, people were putting a dollar sign into Compu$erve, to the point where I'd see it written that way more often than not, e.g. on Fidonet threads. Then I got into UUCP (first with UUPC, then Waffle, then SCO UUCP, then AmigaUUCP...) and I would see it written that way on USENET. It's tradition.

There were Unix nerds that looked down on Windows. There were Mac nerds that looked down on Windows. There were Amiga and Atari nerds that looked down on Windows. Back then there were still active VMS nerds who looked down on Windows. And they were all correct, and it's still correct. You can obviously do real work on Windows, but it's not worth the pain. Sadly, it became the de facto standard for working with government, and you needed to run it in order to interface with it as smoothly as possible. Its popularity is like the dollar, it's just too inconvenient to do anything else. Except, "suddenly" (decades of fighting/figuring out how to go around it later) it isn't.

Wine and derivatives run a lot of software very well, but indeed run a minority of it very poorly or not at all. Microsoft and Adobe software are the primary candidates for not running even slightly, and if they do, they definitely do not work right. If you need that software, there is no particular sign that Wine will run it well any time soon, though it will run some of it sort of okay. I've tried quite a bit of it. If you need that software, then you will need Windows, at least in a VM.

Specialized software either works great or fails pathetically with little in between IME. Drivers can be a big problem though, because the software can be looking for the drivers very specifically. If you have Windows software to go with hardware whose interface dongle is not mostly just a ch340 or something, you are probably gonna have a bad time.

Practically everything works great with Linux these days, though. Standards have mostly won and Linux is taken seriously. OSS is now also generally taken seriously and even preferred in solutions large and small. The dependency on closed standards and platforms is waning, and while that's no comfort to anyone forced to run Windows for some compatibility reason now, at least it's becoming less of a problem. Even people who think Windows is fine now recognize that they don't want to be stuck with a dependency on a specific version of it.

If you own a publicly traversable road, then it's not surprising that there's some rules you have to follow for placing them out for notifying people of a hazard. Otherwise it shouldn't require any maths