LOL- thanks

>"So to be clear what you said:"

It thought it was pretty clear. I don't like containers because native packages are better, I don't like or use Wayland, and I left NVidia because of poor support. And although I am not a gamer, and don't like their choices of how it is offered, and I don't game, it is still a good thing and I hope they develop it even more and offer other choices.

>"I'm not surprised you wasted your time, I'm surprised someone modded you up for your irrelevant (by your own admission) nonsense"

Then read it again. It wasn't nonsense, nor irrelevant. Perhaps the modder liked that I support it DESPITE it not being offered in a way I would like if it were something I would use.

>"You should be supporting this, especially since you have no skin in the game yourself."

Isn't that exactly what I wrote?

>"OGC looks like a little emoticon of a guy holding his dick."

Have no idea what you are talking about. The website has no emoticon. Their logo appears to be the black bold san-serif "OGC_" with the underscore being blue and flashing.

https://opengamingcollective.o...

>"In the 30 years I've been using Linux, I've never once been able to get it fully working on consumer hardware."

You either have extraordinarily bad luck or this is just nonsense. I have managed hundreds and hundreds of Linux machines of all types for decades, the majority being desktops and laptops. I have huge success with "fully working" on the overwhelming majority of "consumer" (however you define that) hardware. I have had zero major issues on any install on any platform, ever, in at least the last decade (probably longer). And before that it was extremely rare to have a major issue. I am not alone.... I don't have extraordinarily good luck. Most everyone I know who runs Linux (and I know a lot of people who do) have had nothing but positive experiences.

>"Trust is earned over time and we are committed to building it back with the Windows community,"

Utter nonsense. I am about 99.9% sure you will not remove the blocks requiring certain unnecessary hardware, remove requiring Microsoft cloud logins, and remove the "AI-ification" of most everything. Those are probably the three most requested and upsetting things you have done, among many. If you don't address those three, everything else is mostly meaningless.

I am glad I don't have to use MS-Windows on any of the hundreds of machines I use/manage. They are all Linux.

Flatpack? Blech, would want native. At least it isn't Snap.
Radeon- Check. Left NVidia due to poor Linux experience.
Wayland? No thanks.

Good thing I don't game. But it is nice to see they are making an effort! Hopefully more good stuff coming. With all the Linux Steam hype/improvements/excitement going on, this is a great trend.

>"Itâ(TM)s not particularly accurate from AI."

Things rarely are :)

>"recognised as legislatures of constituent nations with competence over culturally foundational areas such as language, culture and identity policy, reflecting national-status recognition"

Can you say "Quebec"?

>"that US states do not constitutionally enjoy. For example, Wales imposing statutory Welsh-language duties across public life."

Until recently, any State could also do that with language. I will say what we have for several decades is an out-of-control, out-of-Constitutionally-valid Federal Government. The USA was set with small, specific and listed powers granted to the Federal Government and *EVERYTHING ELSE* was a power of the State or the Citizens. Pretty clearly written. Not so well followed, though.

>"More broadly, the differences between life in, say, Scotland and England are much more striking than the differences between life in, say, Arizona and Maine."

Um, have you traveled to many other far-flug States? Things can be pretty darn different in a whole lot of ways :)

>"My inner 14-year-old from the pre-consumer-internet 1980s is hearing "You can't have access to the public library"

Not even remotely the same, and you know it. And even then, children didn't have access to the "library" 24x7, could not stay there as long as they liked, and what was in the library was well curated. And the library doesn't try to kidnap you, groom you, request or send nude pictures, shame you, or actively prey on your insecurities. Please, get real.

>"People see shit. They deal with it. The real world has people in it."

*CHILDREN* see ***t, can't understand it, develop mental issues with it. Then they and society has to deal with it.

>"Parents already have those "tools""

Some of them, yes. Others no.

>"The problem is some, potentially now a majority, do not want responsibility for raising their children, and do not want the financial burden of having someone else do it for them."

Yes, that is a major problem. Perhaps *THE* major problem. Although in this case, there wouldn't be much financial burden, it is more of time/effort. I would prefer government put effort into furthering the tools for parents/agents instead of trying to strip the privacy and autonomy of adults in an effort that is not going to actually help anywhere near as much as people think.

We need to change the norms and culture. That isn't easy.

>"there really are meaningful differences between the autonomy of the four home nations of the UK and American states or Canadian provinces."

Indeed, there are differences. I am not an expert in the differences, but would guess the autonomy of a USA State is actually much greater than that of a British sub-nation. Especially true before Britain left the EU (which put yet a further authority above them). I decided to give AI a try at that and got this:

"A U.S. state generally has more autonomy than a British nation, as U.S. states have their own governments and significant powers under the federal system, while British nations (like Scotland or Wales) have devolved powers but remain under the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. This means states can enact laws and govern independently in many areas, whereas British nations have limited legislative powers."

Have no idea how accurate that is (I find AI is often wrong or "confused"), but it does agree with what I thought was the case.

>"British English"? Is that some kind of cultural genocide, robbing England of its language?"

English is the lingua franca now. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "British English", it is done all the time to denote the English as used by Britain vs. other countries, which have some significant variations. Nobody denies that the central development of English came from England.

>"You know that each country in Britain has their own language, and the one from England is called English."

England is no more a country than one of the States in the USA would be, or Provinces in Canada. One can argue over semantics endlessly, but effectively, Britain (Great Britain/UK/whatever) is the country, based on modern conventions.

Even Wikipedia says:

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a country in northwestern Europe, off the coast of the continental mainland. It comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland"

I stress the "*A* COUNTRY" part, which is not a "collection of countries". And also note the use of UK and Britain is interchangeable.

I can't answer for that poster. But much of the "base issues" has to do with not interactively preparing children for what they will be exposed to. And that is difficult, especially if there are no controls. It needs to start with restricting access and then gradually giving more exposure as they mature. Instead, parents are just allowing children to have devices, with little or no controls at all.

Children shouldn't have unsupervised access to unrestricted, internet-connected devices. It goes way beyond social media. Children shouldn't be browsing the open web, sending/accepting texts/IMs/calls/photos to strangers, or using any app they want. Restrictions to those can be done by parents and their agents without trying to force the burden on a few "social media" sites which then penalize adults. That is where the effort should be focused- giving parents and their agents more effective tools and changing the social norm around children and devices.

Once there is suitable control, the parents/agents can then tweak those controls and whitelists to gradually expose the children to additional platforms. And decide which contacts children can communicate with. And as part of the lockdown, the devices can signal to platforms that they are restricted (perhaps with an actual or "mental" age) and those platforms can adjust what THEY present. All voluntary.

>"I haven't read the standard (why bother?) but I'm guessing that while the platform won't know your true identity, authorities will be able to reconstruct it when they need to. Which is what this is all about"

Bingo. You have to trust that third party is safe. Which it likely won't be. And it doesn't solve all, or even the majority of the problems....

The issue is that children shouldn't have unsupervised access to unrestricted, internet-connected devices. It goes way beyond social media. Children shouldn't be browsing the open web, sending/accepting texts/IMs/calls/photos to strangers, or using any app they want. Restrictions to those can be done by parents and their agents without trying to force the burden on a few "social media" sites which then penalize adults. That is where the effort should be focused- giving parents/agents more effective tools and changing the social norm around children and devices.

>"Also, you also don't have evidence of what you think is happening. Then, the difference between us is that I'll only believe it once I have evidence and you believe it without evidence."

Did you READ what I wrote? I never wrote or claimed I had any evidence. I never wrote that I thought they were able to break into messages or that I believed they were.

I wrote that it is POSSIBLE and we CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE because the platform and code is not open (it is closed).

People regularly pay $1000 or more for a single screen flagship. 2 screens is double, $2000. Three screens is triple, $3000. Seems like they are just doing simple math here. Of course, we know the price shouldn't scale that way, but whatever.... if it doesn't sell enough, they will lower the price or discontinue it.

I admit, it sounds neat. But it also looks overly thick and heavy/bulky. I don't need a "super thin" phone, but I also am kinda used to not having a brick. I don't use/obsess over a stupid phone anywhere near enough to spend even $1000 on it, which is why I buy midgrades for $300 to $400. And usually keep them for 5+ years. So $3000 for a phone does seem insane to me.