Mine is an ancient Thinkpad, the true weapon of our Lord!

Yes! Potatoes are the way, as our ancestors taught us!

Oh man, I WANT THIS THING! That is what I call a cool feature in home design. Time to think how to do it relatively cheaply in my study…

To give it credit, Japanese cars are now among the best in class, and can be enjoyed on a global market at a “reasonable” price. Took them a few decades to get there though. When/if Chinese manufacturers get to that level - that would be a win for the common consumer anywhere. And European companies with their trend to sell less, but more expensive, cars, will likely be outcompeted.

Ah, so you mean the one supplied by AMD themselves? Good, thanks.

Thanks! Can you walk me through here: what exactly is a Free software driver? As with everything in linux - you either know, or don’t)

Thank you, that helps.

The fiddling bit is not that i am particularly against, it just requires learning things that have no other use for me outside of playing a random game in my free time (so spending that valuable time on learning about OS internals instead of things i actually care about).You can call me a perfect user for windows - i just am tired of them trying to track me, changing their shit constantly and pushing their services within the product i paid for with my own money. Hence linux.

So what i am looking for is an out of the box experience that will not turn my eyes red.

A question here: plan to upgrade to 7800xt sometime in the near future. The card is quite new, so i have doubts after your reply above. I am mainly gaming and do basic office stuff (Libre office is enough). Also, though I can install Ubuntu - press X to win type install works for me - I am new to linux, so not big on fiddling with obscure packages. Just want games to run well - so, in this specific usecase, what distros would you recommend to try?

AI is not overrated. We just don’t have it yet.

What an analogy! Summarises my experience with Win vs linux. Still on “early dates” with linux, but it does get better and better, while MS seemingly deliberately tries to alienate me with every new update. Won’t be a returning customer!

As long as it does not involve kids - why would we care?

Both parallel parking and backing in are a part of the bloody exam for a license here in the UK. So the people who are unable to should not have a license in the first place. And that is before we start talking about the outsized trucks americans are so obsessed with. I tend to think we should all redo the exam every 10 years or so just to make sure we are still fit…

Same here. Was surprised to read this comment, went to the Android app, played a few playlists. Shuffle is off by default, first song on a list starts playing. Switch it on, go to another playlist, it is still off by default. Is it some a/b testing by Spotify I am lucky not to be part of? Would certainly cancel my sub if that was the case.

I mean, there were quite a few elements of the ux I was mad about, like promoting stuff I’d never want to listen on the front page just because Spotify paid a gazillion to creators, but shuffle is not it.

It is also illegal to be in, at least in the UK where your instance probably is. Fixed penalty illegal, not prison time.

But he actually can not. He must have promised the world to shareholders, so now he has to deliver.

Lets give it to him, he is really good at it!

I do have that setting! Thank you. When I was doing the set up i concentrated on denying permissions and blocking useless stuff, and missed this one.

Teach me! How to do that sound routing?

Judging by the length of your replies i make a conclusion that either the topic in question is rather important to you, or you just enjoy arguing. In any case - thank you, it is always a pleasure to have a meaningful debate. Cannot say that the topic in question was ever in my focus (I am getting agitated mostly about personal rights and freedoms in general, rather than this particular sub-case), but your time committed deserves a slightly more detailed response. Also, thanks for a particular paper you mentioned - I enjoyed reading it, and it only highlights the differencies in our views. So let me use the same way of responding to specific lines in your posts. “You completely miss the point of that question” - nope, you provide a specific example of a killer, I respond that killing anybody is bad. The big question is how to define this “anybody”. Based on that single paper you mentioned - the only one I ever read on the subject - this is indeed a central question of the whole debate, as both sides recognise the unacceptability of killing. I draw the line at birth, you do it sometime before. Oversimplification, I know, but I have no intention to contribute to the whole debate with my humble attempts on writing a tome. All I am saying - and it seems you agree, but that is up to you really - is that there is no definitive way to establish the bulletproof concept around abortion rights, so there is no ground to impose a restriction on a woman to do as she sees right. “You abandoned the bodily autonomy argument” - how so? I did not mention it in the short reply, that is true. But I stand convinced that bodily autonomy is the inherent right of every single person living. Moreover, the vaccination case does not contradict it, if taken together with the principle of limiting one’s rights by rights of others. I do not see who’s rights are affected in the abortion case (with a potential exception of a father who could really want this particular baby). “Thats literally what legislation is” Moral code evolved into the legislation, that is not something to argue against. Moral norms, however, as argued by evobiologists, were initially based on natural factors that helped the population to survive and expand. Killing one of your kin is bad, sleeping with your sister or your father is bad, stealing food is bad etc. Then there were less obvious additions and then there come religions that totally screwed it all. The whole idea of a proper legislation is to remove everything arbitrary (as it violates someone’s rights with no purpose) and keep the rules that are accepted by the majority and work. Abortion ban is obviously not accepted by everyone (majoriity is to be seen for any of the sides, from what I heard about US politics, the ban is in minority), and the purpose of it is unclear outside of a particular understanding of the morality. That is what I basically am trying to say: there is no universal moral system, hence there should not be a law based on someone’s belief that something is moral or not. A good basis of a law is the natural right to live, but in my view it does not emerge before someone is born. The deprivation argument from prof Marquis is, as I read it, by his own definition too broad to be practical (animals, contraception, plants,…?).

Blondes are people, fetuses are not - that is my view. Moral arguments can form opinions, not legislation.It is ok for you to hate me if you choose to do so, it however does not grant you a right to stop me doing my immoral in your view thing. That is, unless my immoral thing infringes your rights, then we can talk and see what can be done.

As mentioned, I am always keen to accept a rational argument (as in vaccination, where there is science behind), so can i please politely ask you to point me in the direction of academic studies on the immorality of abortion? Never saw one, so forgive my ignorance.