• 0 Posts
  • 80 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: October 7th, 2023

help-circle



  • I’m thinking this comes from the consideration of taking imagery at the root of people’s brains when they hear Linux. Reiterating elements of the Windows or Mac UI over the decades, even if they had small visual changes, enable a significantly large population of the world to imagine the desktop even just while mentioned in a passing. Anyone that doesn’t use either of these OSes at least can have a basic imagery popping up about it due to constant advertising of the desktop via direct ads, support pages, tech websites using generic desktop images, screen shares, etc.

    Linux is wild west in this regard. Everyone knows how Windows or MacOS looks like thanks to their abundant copies of descriptive bounty posters, but only other Linux users are familiar with other Linux desktops and that is usually as the names of fellow bounty hunters.




  • I’m not porposing or defending any approach here, where do you draw the line between the decision to address the underlying issues and catering to creating isolated environments to shelter the marginalized groups, tho?

    I get that taking a breather in a safe environment to help with self-esteem and love is critical so as not to sink below that threshold of constantly feeling overwhelmed that is different for everyone, and I’m in no way seeing a one-day thing as anything else, but as public coordination events, how do you draw the line between the two I mentioned above? First example of going beyond giving breathing room to making a segregation comes to mind as the “pink buses” in which only women are allowed to be feel safe from men that some right-wing politicians bring up from time to time as a similar topic on addressing the cause vs treating the symptom or even causing different problems under such intention.






  • Thanks for the detailed explanation about publicly traded companies, but what I wonder is the privately owned ones being forced to sell out, if there is such a thing.

    For example, lets say Proton is owned by a few shareholders or just one, and it is not openly traded unless the shareholders make personal agreements to sell out or anything like that. If Google came with a truckload of cash and told these shareholders to sell their shares to Google, can they simply refuse the offer no matter how big is the pile of cash or the benefits of the offer, or do they have to find a legal reason to keep their shares? I mean, even the question sounds stupid and the answer should be “yeah you can just keep your share and run the company however you like, as long as you don’t go public listing”, but with all the concerns about the buyouts talked all around this last few years, the premise looks like it is hard to hold out.


  • What is this buying out talked about something not escapable if not some legal reorganization is made? It has been being talked about other companies, too, and it sounds like if you have a form of a company, you can’t legally refuse monetary offers from someone to buy your company.

    Is there such a legal mechanism that forces an owner to sell out if an offer is made, or is this more about proofing a company against CEO/shareholder personal sell out decision?



  • They meddled with the Islamic countries beyond what befalls them, and they helped the worst of the extremists come out in the instability they helped create.

    Besides, being some of the worst offenders on climate pollution per capita by far and making someone else’s homes burn to global warming first was bound to create these refugees whether those ecuador countries were stable and tried to counter the local symptoms or not. I’m not saying advancing the comfort of human living is a sin or anything zealous like that. All I’m saying is that glossing over personal and corporate consumption while neglecting apt measures in favor of decoy policies and trying to reflect the blame somewhere else was bound to have the problem become bigger and more apparent.

    They reap what they have sown over the last few decades. Trying to put up a gunship and gunboat barrier over Greece while bribing the corrupt Turkish president to keep over millions of Syrian refugees, let aside others flooding illegally in groups of hundreds from Afganistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, etc. will work so far to keep the facade on.

    Rising fascism in Europe is not a defense against the religious extremists. It is due to desire for continuity of personal comfort and freedom in the face of reckoning day, by ensuring those who they fucked over can’t come near and try to share in their abundance of resources.




  • With one, you have to be cautious against infrequent exaggeration. With the other, you have to work your way through their constant denial. Both are not on point in scale of truth, and both can be used to completely subvert it for some intended purposes, but I think one is closer to the truth more frequently and by a lot than the other.

    You can definitely pick the exaggerating side to start with, then work your way to the truth as much as you can from there and you’d be closer to it than starting with the other one, having a lower rate of going astray.