I just don’t buy new ones. I have a Nokia E90 Communicator and that’s it.

Redditors came over, what do you expect.

Trisquel is literally the most popular libre-only distribution, endorsed by the FSF, it is hardly obscure. Parabola/Hyperbola are libre-only Arch derivatives, and EXE GNU/Linux is the only distribution shipping out of the box with TDE.

Trisquel is the only one out of those that is really friendly for newbies, admittedly, but given that it has Gentoo in there out of all things, it just seems like a very “Reddit” distribution list.

There is nothing wrong with Devuan, though? It is a very solid distribution built by a team of people who constantly work on improving and supporting alternative init systems. Just because you seem to consider it a “rage fork” out of ideological reasons doesn’t mean it isn’t good.

Eh I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to know many distros such as Trisquel, Parabola/Hyperbola, EXE GNU/Linux and so on, leading to odd choices. It also has false information here and there, and the “do you want a Windows-like or a macOS-like UI” question is pretty asinine.

I will switch to Hurd as soon as it is in a usable state but so far my experiments unfortunately never really worked out.

“old”

It might be because I am European, but I could cook in every hotel I have been in.

1. Thinkpads are popular, well supported, generally well built and sturdy. The indie startups may or may not provide proper support, have the proper experience to build a good product and are harder to find resources for.
2. Thinkpads are cheap and easy to get for the power they contain. Devices like the Purism phone are extremely expensive for just a tiny bit of the power and plenty of problems in tow.

I never liked the stereotype of “homophobes are just closeted gays” because (1) people can just be hateful without any deeper reason, (2) it somehow blames homophobia out of all things on gay people themselves and (3) it provides plenty of opportunity for people to be homophobic to homophobes in the name of gay rights.

It’s kind of like those oh-so hilarious pictures of Putin and Trump in make-up, kissing. The entire joke is “oh imagine if they were gay, how emasculating and humiliating!” This line of thinking always struck me as homophobic.

Like sure, it happens often, but by far not always, and it’s harmful to imply that’s all there is to homophobia.

Wonder how this will be used by state actors… I guess we can say goodbye to having queer thoughts in secret, or to having involuntary intrusive thoughts with illegal content, suicidal thoughts without forced hospitalization…

There are structural issues in academia and society that make it much more likely that these institutions and control mechanisms are used to uphold the status quo rather than help.

As I said, in the age of race science, a scientific editor would not accept any non-racist paper for being “inflammatory”, “extremist” or “an outlier”. Peer review does no good if your peers have biases. Replications only work if someone cares enough about you to replicate your experiment, let alone in fields without experiments at all.

“Big pharma” has better things to do than produce purposely harmful medicine. Fortunately, poisoning your customers is a big danger to profitability. If at all, a “traditional medicine” approach that was not a scam would be immediately adopted, marketed and commodified by the pharma industry, not suppressed and fought.

That argument falls apart if the scientific world is imperfect in some way. It was not that long ago that “race sciences” were a rather undisputed thing, even worse if you get into the psychiatric field, eugenics and all.

On the one hand, good on them for removing conspiracy theories and harmful fake medical information. This is an important step to preventing this kind of abuse and grifting.

On the other hand, “discouragement of professional treatment” is pretty vague. In a world where there are such massive issues within psychiatry especially, with forced clinic stays, abusive “therapies” like conversion therapy, irresponsibly administered medication and plenty of bigotry within the medical community when it comes to hot issues like intersex people, trans people, narcissism or schizophrenia, discouraging some people from going to that is an important part of disability and mental health activism.

I hope this will not be used in that way.

That’s exactly why most socialists propose free re-education and social support for those coal workers so they can take different jobs in, for example, renewable energies.

Firing an entire industry without any support to follow up on those who lost their jobs is tyranny. No content writing house is seriously interested in helping their “AI”-replaced workers to resettle in a different job.

I agree, yeah; but to an extent, people who write extensively about “AI ethics” also are part of the AI hype. Making these word probability models look like some kind of super scary boogeyman that will destroy literature, art and democracy is just cynical PR for them.

Yeah, but that is a very real ethical question about usage of it as a tool. We could have the same discussions about any kind of machinery. Those are fine questions to ask.

I am more talking about those “ethical questions” that assume the so-called “AI” might be sentient, or sapient, destroy the entire world, destroy art as we know it, or have any kind of intent or intelligence behind their outputs. There’s plenty of those even from reputable news sources. Those that humanize and hype up the entire “AI” craze, like OpenAI does themselves with all this “we are afraid of our creation” sci-fi babble.

As someone who has worked in an academic manner with LLMs, it is infuriating that we are even discussing whether we can “trust” a statistical model that imitates language. It’s a word generator. It’s not a black box. We know what it does. We developed it. It’s like having a society-wide discussion around the ethical ramifications of keyboard auto-suggest on your phone.

Most people just do not want to support software of someone who actively works to strip other people of their human rights.