By that logic you also don’t feel bad for people who die in car accidents because from the first time they got behind a wheel they knew of the possibility. You should also not feel bad about people who are ran over, from the first time you walked outside your parents told you it was a possibility. Every time you go outside you’re risking being hit by a car, so don’t expect me to cry when that happens, right?.. Right?..

No, life is full of dangers, and ODing is just one of them. Most people who OD are in a bad situation and started using drugs to cope, and then it took control of them. Almost none of them made a conscious decision to OD, and one could argue their road to using that amount of drugs was also not entirely their choice, after all lots of those cause chemical dependency. Think about this, someone is stressed at work, they’re offered a cigarette by a friend who smokes daily, they smoke it and feel the stress going away, are able to focus and get through that tough spot, so they do it again next time they’re stressed, and then they start to get more and more stressed, but now they’re hooked, and trying to quit will be extremely difficult… Would you really not feel bad if that person developed cancer because he was stressed once and a friend offered a cigarette? How is ODing any different?

-It requires an arbitrary use-agnostic choice of value. Why 10 million? Why not 5? Why not 50?

Why are tax brackets the value they are? Would you say that tax brackets are a bad system? They also rely on an arbitrary use-agnostic choice of value.

-it requires an arbitrary time scale. Why 5 years? Why not 3? why not 10? Why not limit once in a lifetime?

Same reason taxes are calculated over yearly income and not every 2 years or 6 months. It’s also arbitrary, it’s just an arbitrary you’re used to so you don’t question it.

Both cons you found for my solution are also present on tax brackets, i.e. arbitrarily defined values and length, by that logic you also think tax brackets are a bad idea.

The reason why I said 10 Mil over 5 years is to try to exclude as many legitimate use cases as possible. For starters we’re talking about people, not business, there are legitimate reasons for a business, particularly large ones, to take much larger loans. But for people? The largest expense on a regular person’s life will be the house they buy, and 10 Mil is WAY above the average price for that, if someone is buying a >10 Mil house I’m okay with them getting taxed on the loan, if they managed to get a 40 year 0% loan (impossible) they’ll already be paying 20k per month, might as well pay some more on top of it. But wait, you might say, what about smaller loans that compound to >10 Mil, that’s why there’s a 5 year limit, this means the person needs to loan over 2 Mil per year, which is simply not possible for someone unless they’re mega-rich, because again they would need to be paying >20k per month.

And yes, those are arbitrary values and probably they need adjusting via research and experimentation, but again the same is true for tax brackets, and I think everyone agrees those are a good idea.

This answer you acknowledged my proposal, therefore I now believe that you understood it, on your first answer you suggested I had a definition of income/non-income loans, which is not at all what I’m proposing.

Read my answer before replying, I provided a solution for that’s and it’s a solution based on the astonishing difference between what high middle class people and super rich make.

I’ll repeat it, every dollar you take from a loan gets tallied, and expires after 5 years. Whenever that value goes beyond 10 million you start paying taxes on the loans. You, or any high middle class person, won’t be able to take that many loans in such a short period of time, simply because it would mean that you need at least an income of 2 million per year just to repay those loans, and I think we can agree that’s not high middle class.

This way there’s no loophole on the type of loan.

Yeah, and this should showcase just how bullshit the system is. IMO every one of those 100 trades in the middle should be taxed, this removes bullshit from the system, you can’t buy a contract saying you’ll buy the stock, because that would be buying something of that value and would be taxed. We need to start seeing those 100 trades, as what they are, i.e. a way to try to rig the system.

But then the value goes WAAY up. Let’s assume you live in a very good house, and mortgage it you’re able to get 5 million out of it. Do you think someone like Jeff Bezos could live for 5 years with that?. You can do it fairly straightforward, everytime you take a loan, the full amount of that loan gets added, after a period of 5 years that value disappears, if at any point that value goes above 10 million, you start paying taxes on it. And the higher it goes the more tax you pay on it, just like how income tax has brackets, and just like how up to certain values are exempt.

For you or me if we were ever loan 10 million over 5 years we wouldn’t have a way to pay it back. For an Uber wealthy they do that fairly quickly, Bezos mention costs 600k a month, so he’ll get into the first bracket from just that in a year and a half.

People need to realize just how big the gap is, there are plenty of ways to tax extremely rich people without affecting the middle class by just putting the bracket so high up that it’s impossible for a middle class to reach it.

If a bug that was fixed over 7 years ago is your best example of security failure in systemd I think that’s proof enough that it’s safe.

You went on a tangent, my point is that larger attack surface does not necessarily equate to more risk. As an example my kernel has controller support even though I have never plugged a controller to it, that grants it a larger attack surface, but does not make it less secure in any significant sense of the word. Therefore just claiming larger attack surface is not a valid criticism on it’s own unless you can provide examples of actual security flaws.

Yes module is not the correct word, but that’s nitpicking, the concept is still the same, it’s a binary that depends on systemd, that’s a developer choice, same as using GTK or Qt, there are up and downsides to choose what your program depends on, the developers of systemd-logind decided to depend on systemd knowing the downsides, and distros decide to use it also knowing of them. As for your question possibly the answer is that the added difficulties of making it system agnostic did not compensated for the low user base, same reason most games don’t have a native binary.

Ah, so with udev you meant systemd-udev, in that case the answer is the same as systemd-login, complaining that a systemd module doesn’t work outside of systemd is ridiculous.

• Systemd-init has a larger attack surface compared to runit, openrc, or sysVinit.

So what? Linux Kernel has an even larger attack surface, the size of the attack surface is a moot point without examples of attacks being made

• Systemd-logind relies on systemd, so we need to adapt it for non-systemD distributions to ensure compatibility with certain applications like GNOME.

Yes, systemd modules depend on systemd, that’s like complaining that a GUI application depends on X.

• Udev also depends on systemd.

It doesn’t, that’s ridiculous, several distros don’t use systemd and still have udev

• SystemD is specific to Linux, which makes porting software to *BSD even more challenging. It’s uncertain what the future holds, and there may be circumstances where Linux becomes unusable for you (e.g., compatibility issues with your laptop). Having a good alternative that doesn’t require relearning everything is generally beneficial.

If your laptop doesn’t run Linux it will not run BSD since BSD has less hardware compatibility than Linux. Also BSD is a different system, you’ll need to relearn a lot of things, how to enable services is just one of them, and a pretty small one at that. And Finally there are forks of systemd that work on BSD, the reason it’s not used there is not technical.

• SystemD-based distributions often come with more than just “systemd-init.” They include additional components like logind, resolved, networkd, systemd-timers, etc. However, many people still prefer using the alternatives they were accustomed to before systemd became popular, such as dhcpcd and cron. Consequently, having both sets of tools installed can increase the attack surface.

Again, more attack surface does not mean anything, to add to that example most people use the precompiled kernel that comes with their distro instead of compiling a leaner one to diminish attack surface, because that’s irrelevant. You could have said let’s your system bloated which would be a somewhat valid point, the answer being if the person cared they would uninstall one of the alternatives, but you chose the most insignificant aspect of this, if there’s a vulnerability in your computer it’s 99.99999% coming from whatever you exposed in that computer, e.g. SSH, Nextcloud, etc, chances of an attack coming through systemd are so ridiculously small it’s not even worth mentioning, and if ever someone discovers an escalation privilege or something similar on systemd the fact that everyone uses it will make the fix available in 24h on most major distros.

There are reasons to hate on systemd, but you didn’t provided a single valid one.

Don’t know what kind of program you’re running but… No.

My Linux has updates every week, which means that if I was on Windows to keep everything the same up to date I would need to check every website to see which app released this week, maybe this week Firefox had a new release, maybe next week it’s mullvad VPN, and next week is the NVIDIA driver, but if I hadn’t checked all of them I would not know which ones have a new release.

Also if you want adoption you need to make your product easy to use and not ask them to become experts at how things work

Agreed, but also you should have options so that power users can take advantage of it.

Do you think all bike riders know how to adjust their derailer or even care to know?

Do you think that bikes should not have gears since most people don’t know how they work? No, because even if you don’t understand the mechanics you can understand the general terms, and even if you don’t understand gears you can just not use them, same as a package manager. Options is always better.

if Linux requires users to understand how to do things manually in the terminal then the “year of the Linux computer” will never happen.

It doesn’t require it, you’re ignoring the fact that OP could have just clicked download and download an installer same as he would on Windows. But if you can use the terminal and understand package managers you can use Linux in a way that Windows is impossible, if you can’t you can still use Linux in the same way you would windows with all of the sales downsides.

The problem is that for most users, when their setup is completed they won’t need to play with it for a while so after that any time they need to install something new through the terminal it means losing time to find instructions again.

Which is why it’s better to understand what you’re doing than blindly copying pasting. You won’t need to remember these since whatever you want to install if it’s not on the repos you’ll have to google it same as if you were on Windows.

Also on Windows the steps are: Download the install file, double click it, follow the on screen instructions to automatically install the program, then every week or so go back to the website, check if a new version was released, if so download it and install it again. If the configuration would be destroyed by doing this first, make a backup first, if the new version is not backwards compatible for configuration move the existing configuration changes so that you get the new default after install and can apply your changes afterwards.

That’s closer to the truth, and you need to do that weekly for every one of the dozen or hundreds of programs a person has, no wonder people don’t update their programs on Windows and become susceptible to lots of exploits over time.

Also, read my option 1, which is what most websites offer you first, i.e. download a .deb and run it which is the equivalent of Windows, with all of its downsides. For example if you go to that website that OP posted and click on downloads you can select Windows, Mac or Linux, and you can download an installer that way and be done with it. But only Linux has a better option that takes a couple more steps but saves you lots of time in the future.

This is one of the hardest walls for people to jump over mentally, from scavenging the internet for binaries to using a package manager.

I think ideally one should understand what they’re doing, I think that if you did you would realise it’s not hard, just different from what you’re used to. Usually you install things using the graphical package manager, of which there are a lot, since I don’t know which one you are using nor have I used any of them in a long while, I’ll use the terminal as an example (same reason the site uses terminal commands), but all of this is almost assuredly possible via GUI.

To install things you usually do sudo apt install , this is a huge advantage on Linux, it works similar to your phone in that everything gets updated together but also it installs dependencies separately, which means that instead of having 10 copies of the same library for 10 programs that use it (like on Windows) you get a single one, which is part of the reason binaries are smaller on Linux.

The problem with this approach is that some programs are NOT listed there, the only programs there are the ones the maintainers of your distro (Ubuntu in this case) can review and approve. So you can have a lot of different solutions for this:

The first and most obvious for Windows users is to download the .deb from the website and just run that like you would a binary on windows, i.e. double-clicking it, or from the terminal you can run sudo dpkg -i . This works, but you lose the advantages of a package installed via your package manager, i.e. you would get the same experience as on windows, so it’s not ideal.

The second way is the one they’re describing, essentially you’re adding a new repository to the package manager, that the people who wrote the program are maintaining (instead of Ubuntu guys), this is a two step process, sudo curl -fsSLo /usr/share/keyrings/mullvad-keyring.asc https://repository.mullvad.net/deb/mullvad-keyring.asc that command is downloading the file https://repository.mullvad.net/deb/mullvad-keyring.asc and putting it in /usr/share/keyrings/mullvad-keyring.asc, this is needed because repositories are not trusted by default, that would be a security nightmare, you can do this via GUI if your problem is with the terminal , just download the file and copy it to that location, it’s just harder to explain than giving you a command. Then it’s adding the repository to the repository list, the command is echo "deb [signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/mullvad-keyring.asc arch=$( dpkg --print-architecture )] https://repository.mullvad.net/deb/stable $(lsb_release -cs) main" | sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/mullvad.list that command has a lot to unwrap, in essence it’s editing the file /etc/apt/sources.list.d/mullvad.list and writing a line like deb [signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/mullvad-keyring.asc arch=amd64] https://repository.mullvad.net/deb/stable focal main" there, but because the guy who wrote this doesn’t know your architecture (e.g. amd64) nor your version (e.g. focal) he wrote a command that gets that information from your system, you can instead write the file yourself if you know those. Then install via package manager as normal.

There’s a third way which is more recent which is install via snap/flatpak which is similar to install via package manager, except you don’t add new repos.

There’s a fourth way which is manually, usually when you compile stuff you install them manually.

I know it’s a lot to take in, but I’m of the opinion that if you understand what’s happening it makes things easier.

Same reason you don’t download installers for your phone, why don’t you think it’s confusing there?

Makes sense, I actually have a tool for that sort of thing that I wrote for i3 configs (it’s called CFC and it’s here in case you want to use it https://gitlab.com/Nibodhika/cfc )

Can the file be split into different files like in Gentoo? I used to have different files for basic stuff, gaming, hardware specific, etc, so I could keep the parts of the Configs I wanted from one machine to another.

If so I’ll definitely check it out, been meaning to try Alpine since for what I understand it’s not GNU, right? Which should put a final nail in the GNU+Linux copy pasta hahahah.

I stopped using Gentoo because compiling everything was a major waste of time, but I have missed world files since then. This is a great reason to reconsider Gentoo for my next machine.

I have used Vultr and I’m quite happy with them, however I had not moved backup level data into the servers so can’t attest that they’ll work great for you.

Didn’t understood, someone broke your device and it was expensive to fix so you won’t buy that brand again? Even though if someone broke it what broke was possibly the screen which is the most expensive part on an e-reader.

My past 4 e-readers have been Kobo (I had another brand before but it was shit), the first one I had for years and forgot in an airplane, the second one I broke the screen and it was too expensive to replace, the third one I gave to a friend after having it for a few years and the fourth one I’ve had for a few months, all of them were working perfectly until the end, i.e none of them had any hardware failure. So they’re a good hardware brand, I don’t think judging them because their screen replacement is expensive (when the screen doesn’t break on it’s own) is fair.

The easiest options in order of effectiveness, and how to bypass them:

1. Do nothing.
2. Reset Windows or erase all files you don’t want to be found. To recover from this you need a specialised piece of software that will recover the files, but not the names or locations, so while the actual data is easily recoverable, the person would need to sieve through most files you’ve had in your PC since forever with no order.
3. Zero the disk, my way to do this would be to boot a Linux USB and run for example dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda, this will delete EVERYTHING on that disk, including windows, partition table and the bootloader. The way to recover from this involves specific hardware and a sterile lab, unless the authorities are investigating you it’s very unlikely someone will recover from this.
4. Multiple passes with zeroes and random data, the way I would do this is the same as above but use /dev/urandom for the if parameter, run it multiple times, then run once with zeroes. Theoretically it could be possible for the same lab as before to recover some data if the machine ran out of entropy and didn’t wrote actual random data, and someone could predict the random data and compensate for it on the residual magnetic field, but it’s highly unlikely. Almost no one would be able to recover this, and if someone can they will charge A LOT.
5. Physical destruction, e.g. drill a hole or smash the disk for an HDD, break the chips for an SSD.

All of that being said, why throw it away? Why not sell it or use it to self-host something cool like a media centre or a steam machine if the laptop is good enough.