The plural of anecdote is not data. Read my other reply which contains actual data and several scientific papers on the matter. Plus in the beginning of that video, even if for just a second, you can clearly see the dog is very uncomfortable and panicking.
Yes, but people with trauma tend to look at things emotionally and not rationally. People who were attacked by dogs wanting to ban dogs is as valid as people who were mugged by a black person wanting to bring back race segregation. But the truth is that several studies have shown no correlation between breed and aggressiveness. Not to mention that people misidentify Pitbulls. Also breed specific legislation is not the answer.
Lots of dogs become very still when feeling threatened, there’s even a saying “barking dog seldom bites”, and while that is just a saying and a bark can be a threat becoming very still is also a sign on dogs in general. I’ve never personally had pitbulls, but have seen dobermans and German shepherds do it, when that happens the owner or the person needs to reassure the dog that nothing is wrong, but most people just see the dog quiet as okay with the situation instead of the truth that it is frozen with fear much like a human would.
I would bet money that that guy’s friend was a piece of shit that abused the dog. There is a strong correlation between race and attacks only when you don’t normalize for living conditions. If you normalize by that there’s no significant difference between dog races. The thing is that assholes, especially assholes who want to put their dogs in pits to kill other animals, seem to like pitbulls, and if you spend your life being tortured and forced to kill other beings you’re likely to attack others as well. Repeat after me, correlation does not imply causation, Pitbulls being responsible for the majority of deaths while accounting for a small percentage of the dogs is a correlation, you can’t conclude any cause, and saying pitbulls are aggressive would be a cause.
He’s voting and supporting the people who claim he doesn’t though. OP is like a Jew in 1930s Germany who has a friend that supported the Nazi party while at the same time never having raised an issue with him being Jew. While he might directly not believe that OP doesn’t deserve to live, he’s giving power to people who do.
That makes sense, I guess I haven’t thought of it that way. BTW for the plug&play feeling a Steam Deck is as console-like as it gets, I’ve had mine since launch and it’s by far one of the best purchases I’ve made.
Others have already answered the main question here, but I have a different question for you and a couple recommendations.
I’m a Playstation gamer looking into moving to Linux gaming as the next Playstation might not be able to play physical games.
While I’m happy to see more people flock over, you’re also not going to get physical games here, so not sure what’s the advantage for you.
As for recommendation, many have replied that your system doesn’t meet the minimum requirements, but there are other management games that you could play that would run okay on your system, my main recommendation is RimWorld it’s an amazing colony building game, and a lot more in-depth than Frostpunk, plus it should run on your machine.
Nope, you’re missing the point entirely. It’s about versions not frequency. For example Ubuntu 16.04 used python 2, despite python 3 having been released for 8 years at that time and other distros like Arch having migrated to python 3 years before. Now, Python 2 still got regular updates that Ubuntu released, but Ubuntu 16.04 was maintained until 2021, whereas python 2 reached EOL in 2020, that means that for 1 year Ubuntu was using a deprecated and unmaintained version of python.
One could also make the argument that Arch broke a lot of stuff when they did that upgrade, and there’s an argument there, but it’s not as simple as receiving less frequent updates.
If you want to talk about breakage we can, as long as you understand that’s not what people mean when they say stable. About breakages Arch doesn’t break that often, or at all, I can’t recall a single time my system broke for an update or for something that was not entirely my fault.
No, you’re still not understanding, say libX current version is 1.2.3 and we have two distros A (a stable distro) and B (an unstable distro). libX now releases 2.0.0, A remains on 1.2.3 B moves to 2.0.0. libX now releases 1.2.4 which despite being just a patch breaks everything. A update and breaks, B does not.
Stable just means stable API, it says nothing about system breakage. System breakage can happen regardless of stable API, and it’s up to distro managers to not release a package that breaks their diatro, and the Arch ones are excellent at their job. An update breaking Arch is as likely to happen as on Ubuntu, but an upgrade on Arch can break other stuff which on Ubuntu can only happen when doing a version upgrade.
Again, stable doesn’t mean what you think it means. An unstable system is not one that breaks, but one that doesn’t keep a stable base. For example, Debian will not update a major version of almost anything, since that could potentially break dependencies, so it is stable even if it released patches as fast as Arch. On the other hand Arch is unstable, even if upgrading your system never broke anything because it can at any point change the version of any library you have installed.
it’s a good beginner distro because getting thrown into deep water is how one learns to swim.
It’s exactly like getting thrown into the deep end, if you don’t know how to swim you’ll drown. No one learns to swim by getting thrown to the deep end, and you’re more likely to have a bad experience and be discouraged from trying it again.
every one of the Linux users that wants to be elitist about their distro runs arch based on how hard it is.
Which always makes me laugh because I use Arch mainly because I’m a lazy ass and want something easy to maintain.
Counter-counterpoint: Newcomers have enough things to learn and worry about without having to worry about unfucking a broken Arch installation.
Unfortunately it’s not, on Reddit and now on Lemmy I see lots of people recommending it, they think the installer is the problem so they recommend something that has a GUI installer but is Arch afterwards, without realizing that creates more problem than it solves. And when pressed they even say stuff like “I started with Arch and was fine”.
He’s exaggerating, Arch has never broken the system with an update, but it has broken some components in the past. Most of the time you just rollback the package for a couple of days and you’re fine to update again, but you can’t expect a newbie in Linux to know that. For someone who’s already having to adapt and learn a lot of stuff just to get their daily use adding instability to the system is a recipe for disaster.
Normal enough procedure for you and me, not for someone who’s learning Linux and has no idea what any of that means and needs proton VPN for work.
This is what people need to get through their heads, you’re an expert in the field, this comic applies https://xkcd.com/2501/
You’re focusing too much on the installation process, if installing Arch was the whole of the problem things like Endeavor would be a good recommendation for newbies, but they’re not. Arch has one giant flaw when it comes to being beginner friendly, and it’s part of what makes it desirable for lots of us, and that is the bleeding edge rolling release model. As a newcomer you probably want something that works and is stable. Arch is not, and will never be, that, because the core philosophy is to be bleeding edge rolling release. If you’re a newcomer who WANTS to have that and doesn’t mind the learning curve then go ahead, but Linux has enough of a learning curve already, so it’s better to get people started with something they can rely on and afterwards they can move to other stuff that might have different advantages/disadvantages.
We’re talking about the general case here, I’ve recommend Arch to a newcomer in the past, he was very keen on learning and was happy with reading wikis to get there stuff sorted, but realistically most people who’re learning a whole new OS don’t want to ask questions and be told RTFM, and RTFM is core to the Arch philosophy.
He’s exaggerating a little bit, but he’s not entirely wrong. Arch does have bleeding edge packages, and if you haven’t ran into an issue because of that you probably haven’t been using it for long. Now, it almost never is system breaking bad, but it might be GUI breaking bad, or it might require editing configs by hand, and I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve seen people complain that an update broke something only to be a pacsave/pacnew file. Arch philosophy is incompatible with people who’re learning the system now and just want stuff to work. Just because it worked for you doesn’t mean it will for others.
So are Dachshunds, what’s your point?