Never in the past 60 years has it been more clear from observing the current US administration in its international "relations" and its domestic abuses that there is no charitable interpretation.
The first thing to learn from a well-examined life and study of history is that we must always be vigilant and active to protect progress and human betterment.
The second thing to learn from recent history is that transnational petroleum interests will not quietly and meekly surrender their control, influence and interests.
We should unite and start pushing back, against MS and this general anti-consumer push towards forcing a subscription model on everything, I will never rent a computer, never pay such a subscription, go fuck yourselves corporate goons ans stakeholders.
> Linux can't be a good desktop, almost by definition.
By your problem statements 1, 2, and 3, there is never likely to be a great desktop OS. The best that we will ever have is a compromise (no cyber pun intended).
1) every OS is buggy, 2) every OS is a hotch-potch, and 3) users end up yelling at the clouds then forced to upgrade to the next version of frustration.
> who are lucky enough not to be experiencing the problems unique to Linux, gaslight you
It isn't just luck , people use Linux every day to do their jobs and pursue their interests. But if no GNU/Linux distro works for your uses, you have whatever commercial OS you are currently using to meet your needs.
As for actual gaslighting , yikes I hope that large groups of people are not conspiring to ruin your day. I personally react in a similar way when corporations tell me please wait, your call is important to us, our menu options have changed.
Rationalists and "skeptics" aren't really capable of maintaining a robust club because a) it's hard to find healthy critical thinking in societies that are still addled in a swamp of tribalism from millennia ago, and b) not believing in fables is a weak social pretext. (Hey, let's get together for pints and not believe in $somegroup's ravings.)
The application of rational thought is an educational process. With all the inherent fragility of any educational process.
Basically the whole point of the Freemasonry fraternity as well. Male only. It is dressed up with some altruistic goals and rituals, but it is a social club for men essentially.
> Basically the whole point of the Freemasonry fraternity as well. Male only. It is dressed up with some altruistic goals and rituals
Freemasonry began as a workers' guild, but the accreted "goals and rituals" take a group far beyond the simplicity of a men's shed.
The simplicity of any club rapidly becomes complex when monotheism or henotheism (any theism) is injected:
From Wikipedia:
* Anglo-American style Freemasonry, which insists that a "volume of sacred law" should be open in a working lodge, that every member should profess belief in a supreme being, that only men should be admitted, and discussion of religion or politics does not take place within the lodge.
* Continental Freemasonry or Liberal style Freemasonry which has continued to evolve beyond these restrictions, particularly regarding religious belief and political discussion.
* Women Freemasonry or Co-Freemasonry, which includes organisations that either admit women exclusively or accept both men and women."
I don't think it is complex. The theme of a social group is just there as a filter. If you like rock climbing and meet someone at a rock climbing gym that person is far more likely to be interested in things you are interested in: physical fitness, the particular mental challenges of rock climbing, etc. It was just an example. I won't analyze the sexism or male only nature of the fraternity, but I think Freemasonry anecdotally reinforces the idea that men want/need/form these kind of clubs more than women on average.
When we study this we notice very small actual bias at an individual level on socialization preference. The differences are modest and more like slight preferences. There is more overlap than not at a local individual level. What gets missed is that even though the differences are relatively small, the network effect greatly amplifies these small variances resulting in non-linear outcomes. Even small biases at an individual level essentially produce significant effect in socialization behavior.
> but I think Freemasonry anecdotally reinforces the idea that men want/need/form these kind of clubs more than women on average.
There seem to be as many Women’s Institute members in England as there are Freemasons.
And that is before you consider more ad hoc organisations like book clubs that are definitely more female dominated (though sports clubs perhaps the opposite?)
I'll defer to you of course if you have personal experience that I do not. But would it not become more complex than a "woodworking club" (men's shed) or than a brick mason's guild as soon as a complex filter such as religion is introduced?
> I won't analyze the sexism or male only nature of the fraternity
No need to analyse the usefulness of fraternity (or sorority), I think. It's just a fact that sometimes the sexes don't want to mingle. What could become problematic are cases of gender-fluidity.
As stated in TFA, this simply has not been demonstrated , nor are there any artifacts of proof. It's reasonable to suspect that there is no special apparatus behind the curtain in this Oz.
From TFA: "One vc [sic] says discussion of cash burn is taboo at the firm, even though leaked figures suggest it will incinerate more than $115bn by 2030."
Never in the past 60 years has it been more clear from observing the current US administration in its international "relations" and its domestic abuses that there is no charitable interpretation.
reply