No matter how you slice it, there’s a gap between how the economy is doing and how Americans feel about it.

Why do they keep insisting that we are the ones that are wrong? The economy isn’t their numbers. The economy is a real thing, proper operation of which ensures well fed people.

The purpose of an economy is to fond optimal distribution of resources for people. Ultimately it’s people that need all the things, right? Either things are materials to produce things for people, or products useful to help other products reach people.

If the people think that’s not working, it isn’t working. They’re not just parroting what they see on the news, they’re living day by day, minute by minute in this environment. They see what day to day life costs for them. They’re wrong but the eggheads tracking the over fitted model are right? When a measure becomes a goal it ceases to be a good measure, that’s where the disconnect is. If you want to fix the economy then quit pretending your metrics are more important than people’s standard of living.

The internal microphone is on the same board as the webcam in laptops.

Pop the bezel and disconnect the cable when not in use.

Quotes from in the article:

They don’t like our decisions, and they don’t like how they anticipate we may decide some cases that are coming up. That’s the beginning of the end of it

There are groups that are very well-funded by ideological groups that have spearheaded these attacks. That’s what it is.

So I was responding to the parent statement, he said when there’s disinformation democracy doesn’t work. Well in order to avoid disinformation, you need strong control of information flow. That sounds a lot like a dictatorship. The people you vote for control what you know about them, that’s not democracy. So if democracy doesn’t work because people lie, and democracy doesn’t work if information is controlled, then democracy doesn’t work, right? Interestingly, he confirmed lower in the thread that he does not believe in democracy.

I’m with you, all news is controlled propaganda. I don’t follow any of it as a result. It is sad, but all we can do is try to live in the world we are in. I don’t let it get me depressed, I just carry on.

An anarchy is an environment where no one controls the application of force. Information has nothing to do with it.

Seems to me you don’t like democracy and only use it as a means to an end.

Well, that’s dismissive. You don’t think that these people are reacting to genuine concerns they have? Not even some of them, some of their concerns?

In an environment where nobody controls the information, people will lie. If democracy doesn’t work when information flows freely, doesn’t that mean democracy doesn’t work?

Sure, but that’s not how it starts usually.

When people feel ignored in a democratic country, they begin to feel like the democracy they live in is a sham or that democracy itself doesn’t work.

Votes like this aren’t necessarily about “we need a different direction” and more about desperation and/or anger. They want to show the elites of their country that they still have the power, they want to cost them something for treating the population like it’s there to be harvested from, they want to shake up the status quo at all cost.

They want to prove to themselves that their vote still matters.

Letting it get to this point is really bad governance. Once you get here, either they win, or they don’t. And of they don’t, most of the people who support them have their suspicions confirmed, they don’t live in a democracy, they voted and didn’t get what they want, again. This creates a division that is difficult to come back from.

How so? The parties they’re competing against are incumbents, and often, there are laws preventing them from campaigning. If anything they’re at a disadvantage policitally, and yet they’re winning. Obviously, what they’re offering is popular for some reason.

Well, they win because they get votes, what is it that they’re unhappy with that they’re drawn to the potential leadership of these parties? I’d start with that. These are democracies, so these parties can’t gain power unless they offer the citizenry of their countries something they want.

Yeah you’re right it’s refresh databases, my bad.

I have never, once, run into an issue due to rolling release. I have never once read the news before updating. I’ve never had an update on arch break my system, never.

“Bleeding edge” is beta or alpha releases, people running those are the guinea pigs. All packages in default arch repositories are release versions, intended for use by users.

It is always expected to update your system periodically, no matter what distro or even software you’re using.

None of these are actual problems

Yes, and I argue that this is true of new users as well.

normally just works

Yes, very user friendly

excellent wiki to get answers.

Yes. All users of systems, new, intermediate, advanced, and of any system, including windows and Mac, google stuff sometimes and look for information. This is probably one of the most important components for any software, the more easy it is to find information the better it will be. You can’t find anything up to date on Ubuntu anymore, you’re in a forum with a post from 2008 following outdated information.

expected to read the wiki

yes, when using software it is expected that at some point you’ll want to look at documentation, so documentation needs to be detailed, accurate and up to date.

This problem you’re talking about with packages A B and C and wrong versions and stuff, I’ve never run into it. I’m sure it can happen, but I’ve never seen it. I have run into it on Debian based systems, every time I’ve tried to run one for a few months I get broken dependencies and stuff due to mismatched versions. Basically every problem after your edit applies to all package managers, forcing yes on dialogs (the “y” in -Sy) is always dangerous, “apt purge” and “apt autoremove” to clean cache and remove unneeded dependencies, this stuff isn’t unique to pacman, and again, I’ve only ever seen it on Debian, it’s theoretically possible on arch but a guarantee on Debian that you’ll run into these problems.

But we are getting lost in the weeds. Give someone an endeavorOS installer and a Linux Mint installer, will there be a noticable difference in ease of use? No, there won’t, generally what determines user friendliness is the DE. The few things they could get stuck on are in the terminal, that applies regardless of the distro, and the big difference is the package manager, and like I’ve said, I’ve never had pacman break, I’ve had apt break something every time I’ve run it for a few months.

The wiki just likes to make the details available. Installation of nextcloud is as easy as pacman -S nextcloud

You’re comparing a simple install guide with the entire detailed documentation of a package. of course the package docs are going to have more details.

Ignoring details is not the same as being user friendly. Having a bunch of corpo marketing pictures of slightly above average people smiling on video chat in your installation docs does not make something user friendly. Is this really the metric we are going by, how little information is in the documentation?

Dude thank you, someone who actually tried what I’m recommending weighing in.

OK I’m gettimg frustrated now, because you’re making literally no points at all, and now you’re quoting yourself. A whole lot of words saying absolutely nothing.

You didn’t lay out “fault in my logic”, you just asked me what I mean by robust. Do you have anything to actually say or do you just like the sound of your own voice?

In what? What???

How is arch hard post installation?

OK, so Debian is not rolling release, arch is. If rolling release causes the system to implode, doesn’t that make arch more user friendly?

I’m the one that’s says the only thing unfriendly about arch is the installation. That’s a point I’m making. And truth be told, most of what a user interacts with is the DE, installation is the only real sticking point between all these systems at this point, that and package management. Outside of installation and the package manager they’re basically the same as far as the casual user is concerned. And for arch, once you get past the installation, it’s package manager is just better than apt. And EndeavorOS does the installation for you. So it’s better.

What do you mean with robust here?

If you’ve ever “held broken packages” you’ll know what I mean by robust. I’ve had an entire distro upgrade break in Debian, it seems with a Debian system, eventually, you’re wiping and reinstalling because something broke. I have had this happen to every single Debian system I’ve installed since the gnome2 days.

When I talk about Debian and arch, I’m also talking of their downstream distros. So Mint would be a desktop oriented downstream distro for Debian. It inherits all the problems that come along with Debian, just as Manjaro or EndeavorOS would inherit anything that comes along with running arch. This is all in addition to any issues caused by those distros themselves.

I wouldn’t recommend any new person install arch, in fact I don’t even do it because I get tired of the installation process. I’d recommend someone install EndeavorOS, which is just arch without the installation issues. If someone wants a Debian based system, I’ll recommend Linux Mint, but if you don’t already know why you want a Debian based system, if you’re just looking for a desktop that works, I’ll recommend EndeavorOS because the underlying Arch system is just IMO better than a Debian system.

Also, I used to be a gnome2 guy, then Mate and then xfce, but these days I find xfce breaks on upgrade no matter what system it’s running on, and it’s incredibly bloated these days. So now I recommend KDE, I find it to be really nice, though I don’t use it (I’m nuts and so run a tiling Wayland setup) but for people looking to replace windows, just have a desktop that’s close to what they’re used to, I’ll say EndeavorOS with KDE, or secondarily, Mint with KDE, and I think that about covers anyone’s general desktop needs.