MLK never stops being relevant and right to a ‘T’.

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.

Yes, but the architectures they are dropping are older 32-bit ones. That’s why I said support is “dying”, not “dead”.

The changelog itself notes that this is about 32-bit support:

Debian’s support for 32-bit PC (known as the Debian architecture i386) now no longer covers any i586 processor.

Understandable, but still kind of sad to see support for 32-bit dying. Mostly because it makes me feel old. :P

Been playing Avowed, and enjoying it a lot. It’s a really good AA rpg in the POE universe, and the worldspace is probably the prettiest I’ve seen in the past couple years. I think the last time a game really 'wow’ed me with visuals, to the point that sometimes I just stopped to appreciate the view, was TW3.

Also played some Avorion, which scraches my Eve Online itch without having to actually play that, and Mabinogi (Frieren crossover event), which was the first game my partner and I played together 15 years ago. It’s gotten so many QoL updates in that time that there’s almost no ‘grind’ anymore, and it’s so much more laid back than other MMOs, and has so much content.

Plus, Trump likes the dictator club. He’d rather he, Putin, and Xi spent those dollars on presidential yaughts and focused on locking up dissidents than having an arms race among buddies.

This is my read too.

The part about not wanting this to become Reddit is more about content and site ethos, not size.

And sure, there are some ex-redditors whose views may not be welcome here, but there’s no need to put disclaimers in every comment.

I expect a solid 8/10 game, given The Outer Worlds and POE. Looking forward to the exploration more than anything.

I get called a Luddite (which honestly makes me preen) at work because I am very skeptical of new technology ever being fundamentally different than some already-extant tool. Almost everything billed as new is just an iteration on something you already have, or if you don’t have, don’t need.

SaaS and I/PaaS has been a horrible shift in the industry, because it takes a truth (that most orgs don’t have the people or expertise needed to run large-scale environments and the tools needed to support and secure them), and entrenches that in policy by handing the money you could be spending training people to do it, to another org, further shrinking that knowledgebase in the industry. It was bad enough when that signing-over of core responsibilities was happening with small IT companies via MSPs (who were only ever supposed to be “IT for non-IT companies”), but *aaS has pushed that to mid and even large companies.

It was supposed to help IT professionals do their jobs, but the reality is that it’s just another money extraction tool, and job-destroyer.

I just got a Framework 16 about a year ago, and I’m not worried. I LOVE my fw, and I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. But I think the other commenters have the right of it, they’re probably leaning into either a tablet or a handheld game console.

There’s a difference between having a monopoly and abusing it

Sure, but whether Valve fits the definition is debatable. Being highly dominant does not automatically make something a monopoly. At best you could call it an imperfect monopoly/ imperfect competition, because substitutes absolutely do exist, but they’re not mostly close enough to be truly competitive. It’s also important to factor in that 4/5 of the largest games on PC are not even on Steam at all: Fortnite, Roblox, Minecraft, and League of Legends. PUBG is the only one of the top-5 that’s on Steam.

Valve runs a couple of online casinos that target children specifically

I’m interested in which of their games that have loot crates you think are targeted specifically at children? Basically all of their games, but especially their games with loot crates, tend to be targeted towards adults. Hell, TF2 came out in 2007, which is 18 years ago, so no one who is a child today was even alive when it came out. It’s mostly elder to mid-Millennials. You can dislike loot boxes (I do), but don’t try to paint Valve like they’re Roblox or Epic Games.

everyone else missed the moment to start competing and Valve gained monopoly unopposed.

Other platforms were around before Steam was fully dominant, but they tended to be focused on the creators’ first-party games, and excluded other publishers and titles from using their platform. Desura and Central/Impulse both had decently large user bases. Stardock Central actually preceded Steam’s release, but was overtaken because Stardock was mostly just using it for its own games, but also billing the service more as a way to unify your physical and digital libraries, and to provide patches and whatnot, whereas Steam went all-in on digital-only.

because it’s impossible to move people who amassed content libraries over the years

Yes, but this is sadly just the natural reality of digital sales. Because you are buying a license, it’s not trivial from a company’s perspective to make those portable, and the company you’re moving the license to is then having to host your content without ever actually receiving the money for it, which isn’t super appealing. GOG actually tried this for a while(GOG Connect), where you could essentially redeem your Steam games to your GOG account, but they realized it wasn’t worth it (especially since there isn’t game parity on the 2, so most people have to keep Steam anyways).

You’re ignoring all of the warning signs because they didn’t screw you over yet.

I must have missed where I said Valve would never do something bad? But yes, I don’t believe in condemning someone for what they might do in the future, preemptively. If and when Valve goes darkside (probably when Gabe dies, and it ends up under new management), they should be condemned. Acting as though they’re bad just because they’re dominant in the market is silly, though; they didn’t get there through anti-competitive business practices, they got there through others failing to do better.

M$ did hella shady, monopolistic stuff (patent theft, market manipulation, very likely corporate espionage, and certainly most visibly prefferential treatment of their own software ecosystem and sabotage of third party software on their platforms) to create and enforce market dominance. Unless Valve has been doing something I’m unaware of to kill other platforms, they’re not really similar situations.

It might be. It hasn’t been tested in court.

I lean towards ‘no’ because I do not see moves on their part to actively attack other distributors, but I admit I have not done research on this subject.

Based purely on having used many other distribution platforms, I think they (Valve) just legitimately have the best service currently. Everyone else either kinda sucking (GOG, as much as I love them), or really sucking (EGS, Origin, UPlay, etc), and losing to you in the market, doesn’t make you a monopoly.

You added “only” in there. You can compile a game for each OS natively (and many games do). Native in this context refers to the binary itself (ELF, EXE, bin, etc), and the OSes that can run it without using some kind of compatibility layer.

This instance doesn’t have downvotes, and a lot of people upvote the article to boost visibility, not necessarily because they agree with whatever or whoever the article is about.

ShallowReveal

Man pages, help files, and commented configuration files galore

Technical documentation != Tutorials. Not even remotely.

Linux support forums might be hostile to entitled noobs looking for a handout and a quick fix

“Oh so you use Linux? Name every distro (to prove you ‘put in the effort’ to my standards)”

Sarcasm aside, Lime Buzz is completely correct; FOSS as an ecosystem has cultivated an air of ahem techno-elitism, and that severely undermines its actual usefulness as a tool of individual freedom or certainly resistance. If a tool requires a bunch of X (time, money, base knowledge, etc) in order to utilize, it’s not going to be useful to people who do not have that resource to spend on it. Which is going to be the majority of any given group. And that has really made it as an ecosystem much less important than many other concerns. Individual projects can still be important, but Linux is certainly not going to save us from Authoritarianism.

Corporations pay for support services. The code is free (as in speech). No one ever claimed that the support was also (or even should be) free.

Corporations may unfortunately be people, but people are certainly not corporations, and shouldn’t be expected to pay for everything corporations do.

If you believe that Linux actually helps people- that it materially improves their lives over being trapped in a predatory tech world built by for-profit entities who are happy to sell their customers out to a fascist government- then you are conceptualizing the relationship between Linux evangelists and new users incorrectly. We’re not providing sales and tech support in that case, we’re providing them aid. And aid workers don’t ask people to show how much they’ve tried to help themselves before offering them help.

And if you don’t think Linux actually aids peoples’ lives, then you just agree with Lime Buzz that

There are far more important things to worry about and to do.

Relative to people in their country, sure. But China can’t and isn’t interested in flying over to the US to arrest you if you talk to their AI models about Taiwan being its own country, whereas no one should have any doubt that OpenAI or any other US AI company is happy to tell Trump’s administration who’s been asking it about LGBT+ issues or other topics the US government is now against.

It’s not whataboutism anymore, it’s literally that both are evil authoritarian governments, but one (US) has physical access to US users, and the other doesn’t.

Knowing more about AI makes people less open to having it in their lives

Is it just me? Doesn’t this feel like the more natural way to frame this? There’s something about the title that feels like people are being encouraged to know less about it.

I’d be interested if anyone has insight into the mental/ linguistic mechanics of this.