dillekant

This is fine. I don't mind a diversity of opinion here. I agree that Proton is a stop-gap solution, and that most older games are going to need it, and newer AAA games are not going to support Linux all of a sudden.

However, I do think that we should continue to encourage developers to create native builds when they can. Indie devs tend to do this and it's a pretty great experience. Not only that, it often enables playing on unusual devices such as SBCs. For example, UFO 50 was made in Gamemaker, which offers native Linux builds, and it's already on Portmaster. You basically can't do that with Proton.

My problem is calling people who want Linux native games misguided or wrong. I really don't think that's helpful.

I wish he wouldn't repeat the idea that Proton is acceptable to game devs and Linux users shouldn't demand native games. I'm much closer to Nick's (from Linux Experiment) idea: That these games work as long as a company like Valve pays for Proton. The day Valve stops is the day these Proton games start to rot. For archival, for our own history, and for actual games on Linux, we should want Linux native games.

The thing is, the "no tux no bucks" crowd doesn't advocate for other people to say the same. The proton crowd is actively telling the "no tux no bucks" people to shut up, and it's not very nice. We need a multitude of views to succeed in the long term as a community.

Oh wow this is Bevy and Rust?! RIP to everyone saying no "real" games are made in Rust.

Bespoke

Voting isn’t going to do shit.

Convince the people around you to protest and vote.

Which is it?

The issue is, the "wisdom" isn't "don't worry about personal emissions", it's "take voting extremely seriously. Become a single issue voter, that issue should be climate"

But there's a psychological thing where people take the discount today and the payment later.

Yet another reason PC is superior.

I remember thinking this in 2005 odd. I said something to the effect of "If you think Climate Change doesn't exist, start an insurance company" Unfortunately, turns out all insurance companies weren't really pricing in climate...

Not a premium user but Youtube has poisoned its own waters with its algorithm. You can see the "top" content basically gaming that algorithm as well as it can. Literally every part of it from the title to the thumbnail to the content itself is hollow except for the skinner box.

It's a pretty tepid way of thinking about the issue to be honest. In a strategic sense, basically any move Microsoft is forced to make for actual (rather than apparent) security makes it harder for them to do things in a way which creates lock-in. Yes, they will use it to push for DRM, as another commenter noted, but that's another apparent security solution. In the long term, this is a positive, but it's not an immediate and direct benefit, as the blog post notes.

but you expanded the example with food availability

No, the example is always about "moving the problem elsewhere" which is the essence of colonialism, so when coming up with a neat solution, one must always ask "is there a problem I'm moving elsewhere?". The food needs to be grown somewhere. The land is effectively in permanent use by your stomach. You can't pretend it doesn't exist just because it's somewhere else.

Are you advocating that houses would be better for farming and animal rearing given the lesser land availability?

I'm saying apartments do not solve a problem here. Villages have collections of small houses and then some farms. Some of those houses are a bit further out, and some are in a cluster. That's required because of the different job roles of the individuals in that society. Perhaps we should design with respect to those different job roles and optimise for internalities, bringing our lifestyle in line with our usage.

that septic tank would need to be routinely emptied somewhere

You can use it in biofuels and treat it with nature, then turn it into fertiliser. It is a resource. See how that internalises the usage? You are taking the big loops of "I need big government to solve this problem" into a "my community or family can solve this problem?"

would it be inconceivable for the much greater surrounding land to be co-opted for farming and animals?

That's not how it works. It ends up being a wash due to just how much land is used for farming vs just living. I'm not arguing for McMansions here. I'm arguing for single storied, sometimes detached housing in a "community configuration". Shared gardens and farms, and a mix of earthships and townhouse style developments. Keep the sustainable "loops" small.

Because land in villages is typically owned by several different families who are unwilling to share it

Even pre-capitalist and non-capitalist communities have a village like structure. Even nomadic tribes have a village like structure. They know how to share. We don't need multiple stories.

Overall, the problem with advocating for higher density is often a statement of denial, similar to the "zero waste" people. Pretending that you are only using the space you sleep in and discounting all the space you use for food, and treating your problems as "waste" which is just thrown away and forgotten or left to some big government to deal with. This is the opposite of Solarpunk.

What are you talking about. It's an island. Where are the animals for the kebabs? Where are the "groceries" coming from? How much power does it take for the "single" sewer line? Who said the houses would have a sewer line and not septic tanks? What roads? I'm not arguing for the thing on the left, I'm saying there's a reason why we have been building villages in village shapes and not in apartment shapes.