NoLifeGaming

Can’t wait for wider adoption and further development so I can also experience wayland

The “don’t be a soulless public traded company” strategy

One is open source and you can check the code while the other is not completely open source and uses proprietary encryption. That’s right, proprietary encryption.

Don’t take it with you, or have a faraday bag and only take it put when you’re done

I just don’t understand how car manufacturers can do this. We need better privacy laws. Also, why is it a game of always protesting and backlash just to keep our basic rights? Smh

The recent developments for Nvidia drivers on Linux have been wild. Never thought it would happen

Keep digging yourself deeper and just citing some other philosopher as if they’re infallible instead of engaging with my arguments. If you have nothing to say of substance then stop wasting my time

Never said I was smarter than them. You must enjoy putting words in people’s mouths.

And you bud seem to like to run with the authority fallacy instead of deconstructing my argument and showing it as false. A beacon of intelligence.

I understand it very well but you seem to not understand that there is such a thing as syntactical garbage that means nothing. What you’ve done is gone and applied “all powerful” to mean the realization of possibilities which cannot exist. It seems like you really wanna push that definition upon people so you can claim God is paradoxical and thus ridiculous. But your position is just as ridiculous as someone saying that an apple can both exist and not exist at the same time.

saying “all powerful” is to say that a being can realize any possibility which can exist. A possibility which cannot exist is like a squared circle. The strawman is that all powerful means to realize even things which cannot exist. In this world there are things which are necessary existence. Meaning they cannot not exist. An example would be the statement “1+1=2” that statement cannot not exist and it is true in all possible worlds. Then you have possible existence such as someone eating an apple. There isn’t anything necessary about it and the person could have very well not eaten it or eaten something else. The apple itself isn’t a necessary existence. Finally, there is an impossible existence. Which would be something that cannot exist like a squared circle. A God which deletes himself or that can create a rock heavier than himself is an impossible existence as it would contradict the very definition we’ve given God. Which is the same as saying A and not A. Or that he can both be God and not God. Thus it is syntactical jargon like a squared circle.

A similar one would be can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it. The problem with these statements is that they’re not logically sound. As this would be akin to saying, can god be god and not be god at the same time? Which is contradiction and syntactical jargon. A simpler example is like someone saying they have a squared circle.

Sounds interesting! I saw some other guy post about how you guys wouldn’t pick pro ukrainian content over pro russian and I think that’s the right thing to do. I always found it “interesting” that youtube will always promote the legacy media (in my eyes akin to propaganda) whenever you search for news or current events. Look forward to seeing where this goes and i hope you have an open policy about decisions in the search engine about what you promote vs demote. Who knows what else the other engines are promoting when people search to skew their views.

Konsole is pretty good

Wouldn’t you just be able to terminate and then run sudo flatpak update ?

Makes me think of what happened to gitlab

Is this what’s used in the steam deck?

Manjaro KDE. It just has a good setup out of the box. The AUR as well as the other packaging formats makes it very easy to install applications that I need.

Colin’s statements should be taken into consideration. Maxine liking a tweet isn’t evidence. We need a investigation that takes context into account and not just one person’s claims. I’m not saying she’s lying or she’s truthful. but rather saying that the proper procedure should be taken. And if involved parties are found to have done what she claims then action should be taken against them

Should we believe people just because they claim so? Anyone who makes a claim that something happened to them or someone did X needs to provide evidence. Otherwise anyone can just say anything about anyone.