librechad

Damn, I would be hoping it would be more inclined to using Linux in the field but who knows, maybe I might find a company that values it and utilizes it daily. I could utilize Windows 10/11 in a VM, which I would be fine using for work purposes. I wish more people would learn how to use Linux. It takes awhile but once you know how to use it, its so much better imo.

Eww Ubuntu.

Leave now. I was using Windows for years until I finally made the full switch to Linux last year. I dropped iPhone too as well for GrapheneOS. I may honestly just keep an emergency phone on me and store it in a Faraday bag, I don't see a point of carrying around a tracking device.

Use Signal Desktop and have your co workers/family call you there and/or use email. On my resume I heavily point out that I highly depend on Linux and avoid Windows. Its up to them if it will be compatible with the line of work such as becoming a Help Desk in IT. Obviously, if you need to use Windows at work, only use it on your work PC. Eventually I'll become a Linux System Admin so that'll help out. I'm so much happier too as I stopped using social media like Instagram, Snapchat, etc. You don't need that proprietary garbage.

If you want to go extreme buy an X60 and flash Libreboot on it. Also, check out the LibreCMC R1400 router by ThinkPenguin. Achieve that Richard Stallman level freedom.

Make the switch, you won't regret it.

I never felt the same buzz after my first cigarette, it felt like I was fucking drunk after my first smoke lol.

After that I was basically just chasing the dragon, I was smoking about 15-30 cigarettes a day for about 1-2 years. Never again.

I agree with the fact that it is more personalized and a lot easier to find good music to listen to. I just would hate to pay money like that because I usually stop using the service after awhile and forget to cancel the subscription lol

Why pay for Spotify or YouTube music if you can just use alternatives like ViMusic?

Your mom

I'm donating $5, not much but I love to see companies like Unity burn.

One of the hillbillies I know have a fully automatic M14 with a 20 round magazine from the Korean War. It was a pleasure to fire that thing.

Your detailed response outlines a nuanced stance on the issue, framing it within a long historical context. However, I believe that framing the issue as 'already resolved' dismisses the evolving complexities of online moderation, and how it intersects with the fluid nature of speech and social norms.

1. Historical Precedence: While it's true that bigotry has existed throughout human history, how we engage with it has evolved, especially in the digital era. To suggest that the 'tools and principles are well-established' may not fully capture the complexity of online spaces where interaction occurs asynchronously, across cultures, and without the benefit of vocal tone or facial expression.

2. Freedom of Speech: You critique the notion of debating whether we should 'tolerate the free speech of bigots.' However, even well-intended moderation can have a chilling effect on speech. How do we prevent the slippery slope where the bounds of acceptable speech continually narrow?

3. Intent vs Impact: You suggest judging people solely by their actions, but this discounts the complex interplay between intent and interpretation. Who gets to define what constitutes bigotry in a statement open to multiple interpretations?

4. Potential for Misjudgment: You accept that innocent people could be wrongly accused but say that this doesn't invalidate the act of moderation. While true, this doesn't address the ethical dilemma of sacrificing individual fairness for collective security.

5. The Role of Debate: The dismissal of debate as a tool available only to bigots undermines the basis of democratic society. Even well-established principles benefit from regular scrutiny. Shouldn't we always strive to challenge our existing models to account for new variables?

6. Moral High Ground: Your argument assumes a moral high ground, positioning any differing opinion as inherently stemming from hatred or ignorance. This approach precludes constructive discussion and leaves no room for the reevaluation of norms and rules.

In sum, I respect your position but believe that it does not leave room for the complexities and nuances of this discussion. Insinuating that only 'bigots' would want to engage in a debate about freedom of speech and platform moderation is reductive and does not further a meaningful conversation about how we navigate these tricky waters.