Doesn’t all immutable distros have updates that can’t be cancelled and that will either complete or not change anything?

I only just started learning about immutable distros so I may be completely wrong but it’s how I understand them to work when reading about it.

Isn’t that just their nomenclature for immutable?

What’s the difference between an atomic distro and an immutable one?

How come?

It’s it’s a command that is regularly used it should be baked into the gui somehow.

I need Hdr and vrr to work and a replacement for madvr that can make movies look as good as it can.

That’s what’s holding me, and multiple people I know, from moving to Linux.

The hdr and vrr seems to be about there but as far as I understand there’s still not an equivalent to madvr.

That depends who you ask.

Thank you. I read through the article and it does indeed say that scientist think we could experience 10m sea level rise over the coming centuries.

I read a lot about this issue around 10 years ago but I can see that the scientific consensus has changed since then.

I’d like to see those sources. Sea level rise is sloooow!

No I did not gloss over that. I’m not sure how you could miss my point that much.

I think my example is entirely relevant. The reason I sometimes condone murder is when I don’t find it morally wrong, so obviously that’s also what the discussion is about.

You’re whole argument about not being able to condone a criminal act without having to change the laws makes very little sense to me.

Back when slaves were legal it was illegal to kill a slave owner. I understand that and I think that’s how it needed to be. You can’t have laws that killing someone is legal.

On the other hand I don’t morally condemn the slaves that rose up and actually did kill their “owners”.

I absolutely can say something should be illegal but in certain cases I’m cool with it happening.

I challenge you to find a single person arguing in favor of making murder legal. I’ve never seen or heard anyone do that.

I think it can be needed sometimes throughout history when the inequality between rich and poor becomes too great, that doesn’t mean I think it should be legal…

I know those models and am all for them. I’m Scandinavian so I’m not at all for eye for an eye type of justice.

The original comment I was replying to said something along the lines of “these people don’t understand justice”.

I was just pointing out that justice is a feeling more than anything else. You can point out that restorative justice is a better way for society to go and it works better for most individuals too but if someone says that they don’t feel like justice has been served you can’t say they’re wrong.

They just have a different opinion on what justice is.

I agree 100%, but I was never discussing what should be legal or illegal… Obviously any murder should be illegal. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.

That doesn’t change my opinion that sometimes murder is needed to affect change and sometimes it’s even the morally right thing to do…

You honestly thought I was advocating for making murder legal?

What does flat earth has to do with this? The shape of the earth is NOT an opinion. It’s a provable fact.

Justice is a feeling. It’s not a factual thing. You can’t scientifically deduce whether justice has been served or not in a specific case.

Some people think eye for an eye is justice, some have other ideas of what justice is.

I’m not saying all people who struggle are lazy. Quite the opposite.

You should probably take a look at how many hours the average young person had to work a week to pay for their education or to pay rent back then,compared to now… The numbers I can find suggest the average college aged person had to work around 18 hours a week to pay for their own education back in 1970. Today they have to work 61 hours a week.

Saying the younger generation doesn’t have it harder in most western countries is objectively wrong.

I think pretty much everyone agrees with your take here. People are just saying that if kids are struggling and parents can afford it, it’s weird for the parents not to help out financially.

Obviously the circumstances matter and if the kid is struggling because they’re lazy or a drug addict you don’t want to enable that but if they have their own kids and are working full time I would always support my kids financially if they needed that and I was able to.

Obviously parents are entitled to spend their own money but generally if kids are struggling parents want to help.

Your post makes it sound like the current young working generation has the same lived experience as people who are retired. That’s just not the case at all. It’s much harder for the average person to save up money and buy a house now than it was in the past.

You think I did that?

I’m Danish and here your 2 parties would absolutely fit the categories I described. No exaggeration what so ever.