HiddenLayer555

I want to stab whoever thought this was good enough

Eh, they probably outsourced it to some firm that's paying the devs McDonald's wages at best. I wouldn't try that hard for that little money either.

Companies tend to change names to try and get away from their history. Like how Philip Morris became Altria.

Don't let them. There's no such thing as deadnaming a company because it was never alive in the first place. If their old name carries the baggage of how horrible they really are, keep using it and don't let them forget.

No, he didn’t. That didn’t come about until Dante in the 13th century.

Just a few of the many times the New Testament (from the NIV bible) mention hell, or the idea of people going to a place of fire and/or eternal punishment:

Matthew 5:29-30 "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

Matthew 13:41-42 "The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Revelation 20:14 "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

Revelation 21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Luke 16:23-24 "In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’"

Matthew 5:22 "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Matthew 10:28 "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Mark 9:42-48 "If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’"

2 Peter 2:4 "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;"

Luke 12:5 "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him."

Starting to think Christianity has used fear of eternal torture to ensure people's faith since long before Dante. He made up the idea of hell having different layers for specific types of sinners but sure as hell didn't invent the concept in general.

Stop painting Jesus as a communist figure. He's not. He and all other Abrahamic religious figures are the enemy of communism and must be destroyed along with the billionaires. Communist Jesus is as much of a modern fabrication as White Jesus is.

The idea that the guy who literally started a 2000+ year cult revolving around "worship me or go to the lake of fire" and whose teachings have been used to justify everything from slavery, to colonialism and destruction of non-Christian cultures, to burning people for heresy; has anything to do with communism is fucking ridiculous. Have you ever actually read the bible? I have, he's still an insufferable piece of shit by modern standards, just because he's less of a piece of shit than all the other religious leaders he interacted with doesn't make him a good person. Also, the Bible is pretty damn unreliable as a source for how the Jewish leadership of the time actually acted, since the entire book is framed as "look how much they suck and how much better Jesus is, now reject Judaism and worship him." Of course they'll paint the Jews they're trying to break away from in the worst possible way and Jesus in the best possible way, and even with their best efforts to make him the "perfect human who never sins" there are still plenty of instances of him being an asshole.

Because speaking out against colonialism raises the question of whether "Canada" should even exist.

Decolonization necessitates the removal of the currently ruling government so obviously they wouldn't support it.

"I'm not boycotting Israeli companies, but their offerings just don't fit our business requirements at the moment."

You know, like how employers legally reject you based on ethnicity/gender/etc without saying so. Use that right back at them.

A lot of those are open ended questions being forced into a 1 dimensional spectrum of agree or disagree, and/or have weakly defined terms whose meaning are not consistent between individuals.

I wanted to provide just a few examples but got carried away, so here's every question I personally found some problem with:

Society is chiefly driven by individuals and ideas.

Define "chiefly driven." I could argue that it is by definition because society is made up of individuals so that's the only driving force, like how ocean currents are the convergent result of molecular interactions because that's what the ocean is made of. But I suspect they're trying to get at the idea that convergent actions of groups of individuals can't be accurately modeled by studying the behavior of an individual in isolation. Both are valid IMO.

Bureaucracy and inefficiency are always inherent in centrally planned economies.

What does it mean to be bureaucratic or inefficient?

Marriage is a patriarchal social construct that should be phased out.

It's fine to have marriage if that's what both consenting adults want, but it shouldn't be the only option. On the other hand, things like common law partner legislation can get messy when it automatically applies to people living together that fulfill some arbitrary criteria, regardless of whether they actually intend to be partners. An alternative thought is that romance and reproduction between consenting adults should be a purely social phenomenon, not a legal one, and the government should not get involved whatsoever.

Industrialized farming practices must be abolished even if it leads to lower outputs.

Depends on what you're farming and which industrial process you're using. Something like a vertical hydroponics facility should be treated differently from spraying synthetic fertilizer and pesticides on fields should be treated differently from factory animal farming, etc. "Industrialized farming practices" is too general for a single agree/disagree answer.

Local planners, rather than national planners, are more efficient at running a planned economy.

I don't know of any socialist or capitalist country that only has one and not both.

Prisons are oppressive and antiquated institutions that need to be abolished.

Define "prison." You can assume it's like a Soviet gulag, or a Western prison, or something else, and your assumption influences your answer because you likely have different opinions of them.

It is acceptable for humanity to suffer to some notable extent in order to preserve the natural ecosystem.

Define "suffer." Are we culling overpopulated regions? Are we denying Indigenous groups their cultural practices such as whaling or seal hunting? Are we limiting recreation like camping and hiking for the sake of ecological protection? How you interpret suffering significantly influences your answer.

A highly centralized planned economy is not socialism but rather state capitalism.

Depends on how it's implemented and what it's inspired by, and it's not a binary "socialism" or "state capitalism." Just saying "centralized planned economy" with no further context is insufficient to make a decision.

A centrally planned economy based around computers is a concept worth investigating.

Again, computers or no computers is not the important part here. What are the actual policies and structure of the economy in question? I doubt there are any economies today, socialist or capitalist, that doesn't use computers.

The negative consequences of a revolution generally outweigh the advantages.

There's no way to generalize negative or positive societal consequences without clarifying what types you're referring to. What specific ones are we talking about? A revolution impacts every single facet of society and vague questions like these are not helpful. It's like asking if a mainframe is objectively "better" than a smartphone, you can't reduce it to a single answer and it depends on your priorities.

Socialist organizations are generally better off when organized loosely and decentrally.

Define "better off." There are advantages and disadvantages to both decentralization and centralization.

Any socialist country should be dedicated to exporting their ideology abroad.

Define "export abroad." Are we printing pamphlets and mailing them over or are we going full America and doing regime changes on countries we disagree with? Your interpretation will determine your answer more than your actual opinions on any given form of ideological export.

Measures to address environmental issues are unacceptable if they result in significant decreases in production and quality of life.

What kinds of production? What aspects of quality of life? To what kinds of people? For how long? Are we reducing just the quality of life of people already with the highest quality of life down to some middle level while bringing everyone lower than that level up to it? Or are we flat rate dropping everyone's quality of life by some amount, meaning the people already most disadvantaged will be disproportionately affected? There's a difference between preventing a developing country from obtaining advancements that the developed world has, and banning cars meaning you have to use public transit or banning plastic meaning you have to use less convenient/durable organic polymers.

Some small scale destruction of nature is acceptable if it notably benefits humanity.

Again, define "destruction of nature." Nature isn't the opposite to human built environment. We and everything we do are part of nature by definition so it as a label is unhelpful for determining if some action is ecologically beneficial or detrimental or whether we "should" do it. Also, this question honestly gives me the vibe that the author thinks densifying a suburb of single family houses into a vertical city is "destruction of nature" simply because there's less green per square meter.

Anyway, I tried my best to answer truthfully and apparently I'm an Eco-Marxist.

You know what, pretty accurate. I seriously "got into" socialism during my time in university studying ecology.

Love how mainstream media is trying to make us think that guy deserves our sympathy for almost dying yet any of his civilian victims who did die are "colleratoral damage" at best and "preventative anti-terrorism" at worst.

Dude's stationed near the Red Sea, gives you an idea of the kinds of missions he almost certainly did.

"I saw my life flash before my eyes" shut the fuck up war criminal. If you had a shred of morality you'd have died from shame alone after seeing your shitty life and monstrous actions before your eyes.

The people who authorized and committed this war crime deserve the Jesus Christ treatment by the Romans

This in itself is as antisemitic as it gets because it implies that killing children is a Jewish trait.

No. Correct wording is woke. And beta. And communist.

KDE is second-class to GNOME on Fedora.

It is? I ask because I've always used Fedora KDE and honesty it's been the best KDE experience I've had. Now I'm curious how much better the Fedora GNOME experience might be if it's prioritized so much more, but I've never seriously used GNOME so I don't think I can make a fair assessment. In what ways is KDE deprioritized?

are tucked away behind unintuitive context menus

That are well documented and don't change once you figure out where they are. "UX" is code for "we'll rearrange everything you need twice a year and force you to constantly re-learn our app because fuck you."

if you open the app for the first time and immediately think “this looks like it was last updated in 2003”, it’s not a good thing

Why not? To me it's reassuring because it means the procedures I memorized years ago probably haven't changed. It's the same reason people like the command line so much. Office software UI is a solved problem and arguably peaked in 2003 before MS Office started adding all the bullshit, it doesn't need to be updated every single year.

Boo. It's one of the last GUI software without user infantilization syndrome. Go use Google Docs if you want your software to coddle you.

I swear if LibreOffice starts talking to me like I'm a child like MS Office does or starts having animations that actively slow me down and spike my CPU usage just to open a menu or something.

Also, I've noticed a pretty strong correlation between "modern UX" and instability in office software. I don't think I've ever had LibreOffice crash on me, the last major UX revision of MS Office definitely crashed more often than LibreOffice, and the latest version of MS Office crashes at least once every time I have to use it taking my unsaved work with it even with autosave on. I don't know what "experience" they're aiming for but not crashing and causing data loss should probably be prioritized over making it look pretty.

The second option.

It's in the water. No food compatible with Earth lifeforms are made without water.

Reject shingles embrace green roof

To be fair, I doubt those ghosts would even bother trying to convince a modern CEO. They'd go straight to the graveyard scene and bury them alive.

I would still consider buying a cheap one for $20 (cheapest price I could find from a quick search) if privacy is your priority. Having it record to an SD card with no online capabilities is intrinsically more private than any app you can get. In fact I would specifically get a cheap one because apparently even a slightly more expensive one will have app integration.

A free alternative is an old phone you don't use anymore, permanently in airplane mode and with just the regular camera app. Can be one where the battery doesn't hold a charge anymore that you just have plugged into your car.

Or your old point and shoot you probably haven't touched since smartphones became popular. Would be a good way to make use of it again.

What's the appeal of Bazzite over regular Fedora immutable version? I've personally never had an issue running Steam on Fedora, then again I wouldn't consider myself a "gamer," certainly not my biggest requirement as far as computing is concerned.

.world users complaining about .ml on a .ml community