More like the manufacturer has stated that this car is meant to be built by the user themselves so they can understand it and maintain it by themselves, but then the user outsources it to a car builder who thinks one specific way of doing things is better (nothing wrong with it) instead and they slap their own branding on it. Then if the car breaks down due to a part incompatibility, the user doesn’t know what shit to do.

I mean I get it. I am not an Arch elitist or something. Manjaro is doing something nobel. But it just goes against Arch’s philosophy of building and maintaining your own system and being responsible for it. That’s why I don’t see the point of Manjaro other than beginners saying “I use Arch btw”.

Arch derivatives that don’t do anything to the core packages or the root system seem very pointless to me. Because you can setup Vanilla Arch to be exactly like that derivative if you wanted to since Arch being a DIY distro. Arch based derivatives create unnecessary fragmentation in already fragmented Linux world. Arch itself is targeted for intermediate to advanced users to build a system from base.

It makes sense to make derivatives from Debian or Fedora because they have a lot of stuff packed in them for them to be user friendly and work out-of-the-box experience — then derivatives can add from or reduce from to make a distro designed for a specific use which can take much longer time than if the user did it by themselves since those parent distros are usually targeted for non tech enthusiasts.

Yeah but Manjaro’s stable repo is around 2 weeks behind Arch’s. So basically any package in the AUR that has newer dependencies might not work well with packages from Manjaro’s repository. So basically you leave out Arch’s main feature half-broken. Thus, usually, people recommend to run pacman+flatpak instead of AUR. Vanilla Arch has worked flawlessly for me. Once an update borked my system but it took like 10mins to rollback and restore to a working snapshot with Timeshift. And has been running flawlessly since then.

Arch is pretty rock stable when you have minimal packages and not the most bleeding edge hardware.

Then why not just update vanilla Arch itself on a monthly basis? Or just use something like Fedora or Bazzite. Using Manjaro kinda defeats the whole purpose of using Arch Linux. It is like getting someone to select your custom PC parts and letting them build your PC. You technically still have a custom PC but is it really?

Why don’t people just use Arch directly instead of using derivatives? Well… I can understand using something like CachyOS as it has a different kernel with optimisations but Manjaro feels very irrelevant. If you just want Arch Linux with simple installation, just use the archinstall script. Regardless of which derivative you use, Arch based distros are going to be heavy maintenance than something like Bazzite, Mint or Ubuntu.

Even your web browser is a decent PDF reader. Also LibreOffice Draw shows PDF pretty well and you can also edit it to some extent.

Try onlyoffice and slowly try to shift to libreoffice with open document formats. Or just skip that part and move everyone to the web versions of office. Also if you guys are on office 2010, the last time I ran it via wine, it worked completely fine.

I hope that but power users don’t dictate the technological development 🥲. Everything is made for people who want it “user-friendly”.

It won’t die. My country alone will have almost a billion Android users and those cheap Androids are all they can afford and know.

Until Linux Phones get good, we are seeing a very rough sail ahead. Or just hard fork Android ig if it’s a logical option.

From the comments I realised that you westerners don’t seem to have a concept of MRP (Maximum Retail Price) where you can’t sell the product for more than a specific price anywhere in the country set by the manufacturer per batch. It is inclusive of all sales taxes. Your prices seem to vary according to the demand lol. So if anyone charges above that it is usually added in the bill as Card processing fees and very few businesses do that because people get furious over here in India.

Aaahh it hurts our business…. please don’t…. we can’t collect data now aaahhhh…. open source = communism = economic losss aahhhhhh…. why are you being anti competitive grrrrrrrr….

In India we do have affordable public healthcare but 99% of it is so shit, corrupt, with pretty poor medical infrastructure, long waiting, unhygienic surroundings, poor security, poor air conditioning, and so on. So that one has to visit a private hospital or clinic to get treated. And most of the times they don’t accept public healthcare insurance coverage like ESI (Employee State Insurance) or Ayushaman-Bharat so you have to shell out extra out of your pocket to get a Private Health coverage plan. If you have a private plan, the private hospitals then submit invoices with higher fees to the insurer to mint more money from them thus reducing their cash to pay for other patients. The central government barely allocates any budget to healthcare and education.

I heard about a case from Bihar (one of the least developed states) where they constructed a public hospital for millions of dollars (which is very high thus some corrupt official or politician ate that money) only for it to be incomplete and abandoned.

Lol if you can’t counter and actually bring new insights to this debate and instead accuse the other person that their response is pasted from some stupid LLM, then your cause of spreading veganism has failed.

So this is the end of debate then. Please don’t reply. IDGAF about vegans at this point.

When the logic collapses so hard you have to summon a child sex offender.

I literally answered your points of concern one by one with sources and you call it ChatGPT like some “gotcha” lol.

Have a good day.

I don’t think veganism actually solves major problems like ecological decline, climate change, antibiotic resistance, pandemics or any public health issues especially once you look at how these issues play out in reality rather than in an “influencer idealised” narrative.

1. Climate Change & the “14%” number is very nuanced

Livestock is definitely responsible for around 14-15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That number comes from lifecycle assessments by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)that include feed production, enteric fermentation, manure, land use change and processing, not just the emissions from the animals themselves. (FAO))

That figure is usually misinterpreted or understood:

It isn’t directly comparable to the way energy or transport emissions are counted; those are measured differently. (FAOHome)
Roughly 1/3 of total global emissions come from food systems overall, and within that portion, the livestock share varies depending on methodology. (ipcc.ch)
Other studies show the livestock share can fall closer to 12% of total global emissions when measured differently. (OECD)

So yes, livestock contributes significantly but it’s misleading to treat that figure as a simple causal claim that eliminating meat will solve climate change. Deep cuts in fossil fuel emissions from energy, transport and industry are still the dominant needs.

2. Reducing livestocks doesn’t automatically eliminate animals

Even if people eat less meat, that doesn’t guarantee livestock populations disappear. Animals don’t just vanish because Williams decided to not eat meat:

They may continue to exist for milk, labor, manure, cultural or economic reasons.
Reductions in consumption don’t automatically translate into reductions in livestock biomass or methane outputs unless there are explicit policies to manage breeding and animal numbers.

This means the assumed climate benefit is not automatic and depends on how production systems are actually managed, not just what people choose to have on their plates.

3. Reducing livestock doesn’t mean Less Food

Cutting livestock doesn’t reduce the need to produce calories or balanced nutrition. You still need to produce protein and micro nutrients at scale. That typically means expanding crop production which has its own environmental costs (fertilizer use, land conversion, water use, transport, processing). The narrative that plant crops are automatically lower impact ignores the fact that:

Many plant based proteins are highly processed and energy intensive.
Removing animals from small & mixed farming systems will actually reduce soil fertility and increase reliance on synthetic fertilizers.

4. Antibiotic Resistance

The core issue isn’t simply that people eat animals but it is how antibiotics are regulated, prescribed and used in both human and animal systems. The FAO projects that without policy changes, global antibiotic use in livestock could rise by up to 30% by 2040. (DownToEarth.org)

It correlates with a lack of proper regulations and overuse of antibiotics in both human healthcare and industrial farming.

5. Many problems are Western Industrial Systems problems

A lot of the environmental framing around livestock comes from industrialised, Western models of agriculture (feedlots, monocultures, long supply chains). In much of the Global East, livestock production is integrated into local food supply systems and serve roles beyond just meat supply that provides manure, traction, nutrient cycling and financial assets (I don’t like to see living beings that way but that’s the way it is). Treating Western industrial problems as universally applicable heavily ignores these differences.

6. Nutrition & Public Health vary by context

Claims that veganism improves public health assume widespread access to balanced plant based nutrition & supplementation. In many parts of the world like big vegetarian populations like India, protein and micronutrient deficiencies (iron, B12) are widespread public health issues. Meanwhile animal source foods actually provide dense sources of these nutrients that are difficult to replace without reliable supplementation and access.