Especially if you’re using raid5 for multi disk.

Snaps have had a permission system for at least 5 years now.

I’m quite aware. I’m currently a maintainer of packages in all three formats.

I simply don’t understand how this is any different from the fact that Ubuntu doesn’t include RPMs?

It’s the exclusivity to snaps and nothing else that bothers me. Like, you don’t have a choice but to use snap for some packages.

Seems like a weird take. Before snap came along this was true to the same extent of Ubuntu with Debs. The fact that they’re migrating some of the packages they maintain (that also happen to be the trickier ones to maintain as deb files) to snaps doesn’t prevent you from getting another repo that has the package as a deb and using that any more than your distro not having the latest version of an app prevents you from downloading and building a tarball.

The Ubuntu Core Desktop demo at SCALE this year actually got me pretty excited for my desktop in a snap, or at least for playing with that. The closest analogy I have is to NixOS, since it’s way more flexible than just an immutable base.

If I can get some sort of KDE Neon type distro with immutable apps and desktop, I could potentially switch my family over to that and manage it all remotely (really big deal since my family is spread across 3 continents). Landscape is pretty good at remotely managing Ubuntu Core (I’ve not found anything even close for NixOS), so I’m hopeful this would reduce my management work when my family’s current Chromebooks need replacing.

Missionary but with a bunch of kinky German bondage equipment.

That’s hard to say. With the current makeup of the supreme court, it’s likely they’d simply declare any law protecting abortion rights as unconstitutional because mumble mumble and get away with it. But what’s preventing them from doing even that is that Republicans (thanks in large part to politicised redrawing of district boundaries) have a majority in one of the two legislative bodies, so the Democrats couldn’t pass that protection regardless.

So likely the minimum that’s needed to codify abortion rights would be a Democratic majority in both legislative houses and a Democratic president.

On the topic of coalitions: The US doesn’t have coalitions in the ways many other countries have, partially because of the way the president is elected. Voters have a separate item on their ballot to elect (electors who will then vote in the electoral college for) the president. The way this occurs is through first past the post, where the largest portion of the votes (even if a minority) gets all the electors in that state (except in Nebraska and New Hampshire, where the state breaks it into districts). I’m in Michigan, for example. In 2016, Donald Trump got 47.5% of the vote in Michigan to Hillary Clinton’s 47.3% and thus got all 16 of Michigan’s electoral votes (out of 538). Had 11,000 more people voted for Clinton (let’s say, by not voting for the Green party), she would have won Michigan’s electoral votes, which is a 3% swing in the electoral college, but given that most states are pretty much guaranteed to go one way or the other (e.g. Indiana is a safe Republican state while neighbouring Illinois is a safe Democratic state), those 11,000 votes would be massively influential. This is why “swing states” are so stupidly pivotal in US elections.

So because of all of that, there’s not an option for the Greens to join a coalition, even if they wanted to (which I don’t think they would, as the US Green party is currently under the control of a Russian asset and it’s well known that Putin wants a Trump victory).

The American electoral system is ridiculously, stupidly backwards and basically designed to empower certain people over others. If there were a parliamentary democracy here the US, and probably the world (given the US’s love for foreign intervention), would be much better off.

The overturning of Roe vs. Wade was a direct consequence of Trump’s election, as it was the three justices he was able to appoint (including Mitch McConnell’s fuckery about Merrick Garland) who changed the Supreme Court’s makeup to include so many right-wing partisans.

Voting third party is telling the system that you don’t have a preference between the two candidates who have even the slightest chance of winning. It sucks that there’s such constrained communication one can do (and we need a better voting system), but in the short term, the three options I’ve listed are what you have the options to communicate.

What I’m going to have to explain to them is why I voted “don’t care” in 2016. That’s a mistake I will forever have to live with. But if I can convince a few people not to make that same mistake, I will at least be able to reduce the harm I did.

You can vote for fascism if that’s what you want, I reject it.

You’re literally making the choice to put fascism in power. I’m trying to stop you from making the same mistake I made in 2016.

you can vote Green or PSL

You sure can if you believe that making an insignificant point in a ballot box is worth more than the actual lives of people who would die because of a Trump administration but not under a Harris one. But if you want to make an actual difference. the ballot box is one of the very few times you need to hold your nose and do the uncomfortable thing of choosing liberalism over fascism.

But if you’re okay with fascism, sure. Go and make your vote a spoiler that helps the fascists win. I’m sure the people who die because doctors who were scared to provide medically necessary abortions will be grateful that you did the morally superior, but entirely ineffective, thing.

That’s a non-sequitur, because that’s not what’s happening by any means. But thanks for ceding the point that you’re okay feeling morally superior by doing something that’ll get more people killed.

Look, if you don’t care about LGBT folks, women who need abortions, asylum seekers, etc. you can pull that “don’t care” lever. But “I care about making a symbolic, but ultimately toothless, gesture about Palestine more than I care about the lives of thousands, possibly millions of others” is what voting third-party is telling the system right now. If that makes you feel morally superior, we’re at an impasse because I don’t know how to explain to someone that an action to save lives is more powerful than an unrealistic gesture about saving even more lives, but which will realistically increase the amount of death and suffering.

Then vote Greens or PSL.

Sorry, I’m not going to vote “don’t care” on genocide no matter how many faux leftists pretend it’s the morally superior option.

Yeah, the “you’re voting for genocide” argument is also ridiculous, as the choices essentially boil down to:

🔲 One genocide (with a potential of partial mitigation)
🔲 2+ genocides (and the one being even worse)
🔲 Don’t care (in green)
🔲 Don’t care (in yellow)

etc.

Genocide is bad. That should not be a controversial statement. I will use my vote to choose the least genocide that it has the power to choose, and I will use my other energy to advocate for less (and hopefully zero) genocide.

You don’t have to like that fact. I certainly don’t like it. But this is exactly what harm reduction looks like.

“I hate noobs. So glad I never was one.”

- That same toxic fanatic

You mean Windows 2000?

I believe the common terms now are “domme” and “sub”