Using a USB device might work well for this! You can do basically exactly what you want but your whole OS is on a USB drive. You’ll get native performance for everything except disk read/write. If you use a fast device with a fast USB interface you might not even notice.
There are a few that are nice.
QEMU-based options work well. Boxes for GNOME uses this.
My backup option is always virtualbox with guest additions installed.
The originsl artist is fash. Unfortunate, because they’re talented and have a nice style.
They still get the wall tho.
capitalism bad
Many people are saying this
Capitalist competition leads to monopoly by its very nature. You can “compete” best by gaining monopoly power and that power is self-sustaining. That power also enables company owners to pay their workers less for more work and will also operate internationally to impose corporate will on entire nations, with those monopolies tying the entire political system to their own interests.
The silver lining is that monopolies lay bare the practicality of central planning, a common goal of socialists in power. The system competes, eliminates its own competition, and still manages to more or less function via its own bureaucracies. Nationalize under socialists and you just cut out the redundant bureaucracies and begin making work respond to social need rather than profits.
Why do you want to do this? If it’s just to try out different distributions, I would suggest using per-distro virtual machines or USB drives instead.
About 1/4 of Dems polled think marriage between races is a problem. Closer to 1/3 for Republicans, but I assume you’d concede that they’re white supremacist.
Beyond the overt and Hollywood education-level white supremacy, there is institutional white supremacy baked onto our systems and Dems are 100% there to entrench it, as white supremacy still serves an economic function of creating marginalized subclasses.
Here’s an easy example: remember the George Floyd protests? The ones against racist police violence? Where BLM and related groups around the country were demanding defunding for police and investment in communities? All of the major protests were in cities, cities run by Dem city councils. Almost none of them did anything in that direction at all, and those that did rolled it back. Now, most of those cities are pretending that defund did happen so that they can give even larger budgets to their still-racist (personally and structurally) police.
I can’t think of a single Dem I’ve talked to about defund or BLM or even just structural racism that hasn’t committed “baby’s first thought about black people” errors that are largely just rationalizations they picked up from Dem politicians. To be fair, most of them have been white, but it’s still embarrassing.
That’s Cafe Press, good Consumer
War is not particularly complex, it’s just not something liberals are usually willing to understand as it challenges their little mythologies (many of which you repeated here).
Relatively simple questions are unanswerable by that framework, not even approximately. Let’s try some.
Who pushes for war in the first place? Where does the impetus come from? Normal folks don’t wake up and say, “yeah I’d like to destroy a country and its people 4500 miles away”, and they definitely don’t have the power to make war happen.
What gains the consent of the country to support and maintain war? Why do anti-war movements, even with millions of people, fail to stop war?
Why do the wars end? When they achieve their purpose? What purpose was that?
Who benefits from the wars? Are they involved in the process?
Of course, the driving factors here are simply capitalism and its political lackeys, attacking from multiple angles to ensure its seat of empire will achieve the desired ends by pushing and by removing obstacles. The impetus is a series of battling foreign policy think tanks, politicians ready to support military spending, a friendly (and racist!) media apparatus, and war profiting companies paying every single one of those groups to keep the heat up for the next boondoggle. Constant vilification of established “enemies” and attempts to create new ones, usually targeted at countries that undermine the power of the global seat of capital and therefore its ability to exploit labor and resources internationally.
This is why Saudi Arabia is an “ally” while Iran is an enemy. All things the same, Americans would be just as racist towards both, care just as little for their lives, know just as little about them. But one cozies up to the hegemony of international capital and the other does not, so you are to hate the one and not the other. Scads of anti-Iranian think tanks and propaganda while the Saudis get occasional mention and can even murder journalists on US soil and get away with it. It’s not actually that complex so long as you don’t believe lies about American democracy, “freedom”, interest in peace, liberal world order, etc.
So when we know that these are the actors and criteria, why some wars and not others? Why not big new wars every 6 months instead of several years? Well, the interests involved are part of global capital, they respond to the rate of profit and crises of capitalism, and politicians are on their side. Both the capitalists and their buddies in Congress know that war is a “stimulus” and they count it as jobs and profits and campaign donations (legalized bribery) and good press. The opportune time is whenever it can be sentimentally capitalized on, whenever they can get away with it. When it’s hurting the “right people” at the time, where they might have to wait for consent to get manufactured first. When times are tough and “jobs” mean particularly more than other people’s lives.
And more deeply and perniciously, capitalism forms society itself, such as the white supremacist settler culture of the United States where it is never that difficult to whip up support against another ethnicity, just requires jumping through a few different hoops depending in which capitalist party you favor. The intense gullibility and susceptibility to propaganda, in part due to schools’ materials being dictated by reactionary school systems that themselves work in concert with large publishers to create verifiably false and simplistic material into history textbooks, lesson plans, etc (see: Texas’ input on other states’ curricula). The precarity forced on so many that they can’t even consider joining an anti-war movement. The normalization of American military violence and widespread societal myths about its impact, its actual activities, its history.
I don’t think any of this is complicated. It is only uncomfortable for some.
5 million dead buddy. You can’t nationalism that away unless you think brown people are subhuman.
I haven’t found one that will reasonably sell me a warranty and that has a good reputation. Warranty cost is a proxy for how likely it will be to break and is insurance against having to shell out another $1k+ over a 3 or 4 year period. System76 is the only one I’d consider and their 3-year warranty is nearly $400. Thinkpad warranties are $150 for the same level of support and $200 for the warranty where they physically fly a person to fix your computer within a couple days.
I find it completely unreasonable to request a peace talk whilst in a neighboring sovereign nation invading.
You have a very funny idea about the realities of war. By your logic most could never end. Wars are resolved through diplomacy or full collapse and loss. Your sociopathic ideas about what is “reasonable” devalues the lives and well-being of Ukrainians living through war.
This is liberal “moral victory” nonsense that no serious person believes.
That’s lunacy to think Ukrainians are being the unreasonable ones here in regards to a peace talk.
Thank you for conceding my point and implicitly retracting the claim I replied to.
Brigading is when silly posts appear on my federated front page and I make fun of your bad opinions.
Im no fan of US imperialism, but you all conveniently leave out the alternative to NATO aid in Ukraine right now.
Nope it’s mentioned all the time: diplomacy, peace talks, and to make that even possible, establish legitimacy by abiding by your own agreements. The undermining of all of these things has been discussed at length. They don’t really need to be rehashed in our spaces for the benefit of new people that don’t ask questions, though.
Without NATO aid, Ukraine will just plainly be taken over by Purine Russia.
lol RF could take over UA any time they wanted to if they took the NATO approach of completely destroying civilian life and essential resources via bombing. Military “aid” to Ukraine just keeps Ukrainian soldiers getting killed en masse, which is characterized by Russia as their compromise version of Denazification.
As far as Im concerned, Putins expansion is really helping NATOs by giving them a justification to exist
NATO obviously requires no credible justification to exist. This doesn’t matter.
This commenter thinks that when they have changed the names of things they have changed the things themselves.
you just believe in continuing criminalization of any way for that performance to make them money?
?
Please disengage
The most corrupt country in the world is the one that would be making this change during martial law and this paper, like most in Ukraine now, cover stories from a perspective favorable to the government (take that article with a grain salt of course). My point is that the article itself has a smell to it and that there are deeper components to this unaddressed in it. I also was very clear that I don’t believe in criminalizing the people on-camera in porn so I’m not sure why you’re saying the things you are.
You can see that the article frames it as an efficiency problem, which is a commom tactic for a capitalist government to do something it wants for an entirely different reason. I would suspect they want less oversight of human trafficking. The vast majority of sex work is part of human trafficking.
A conspicuously laid-out piece that quotes social media with no stated methodology.
Punishing individuals that have to act in pornography is unacceptable, but the industry itself promotes or directly involves human trafficking and preys upon a system that cannot provide enough for its people. Sex positivity is great, but this has a serious economic component.
I think a very important question is why were no non-reactionary “against” voices heard. Why only the cons? Why not a selective ban? Who really wants you to support this policy.
White people food