deleted by creator

The meme is mostly a relic from the days when installing Arch was a very involved and mostly manual process – it wasn’t to the level of LFS, but you had to configure most of the base system, and it would leave you with a pretty bare-bones setup (no GUI by default, etc). So it was a pretty big hurdle and successfully installing it did give you a bit of nerd cred, though even then the “arch BTW” meme was tongue in cheek.

These days it’s just one of the most well-supported rolling release distros, and it’s got automated installers and GUI spins just like any popular distro. The two biggest assets are the AUR and the wiki.

NixOS does kind of feel like the spiritual successor in terms of effort to set up, and in that immutable OSes are kind of the next big thing, like rolling release was fairly unconventional when Arch was taking off.

That’s kind of overzealous. I would expect most desktop users to run kernel updates without being plugged into a UPS, this is functionally identical. It’s not like it’s an unrecoverable error, but yeah if you’re updating a critical system you should have redundancies in place.

Yeah it seems half the commenters missed OP’s clarifying comment and just think he started a kernel update with 2% battery life.

In a comment he clarified that the laptop was plugged in and there was a power failure. Regardless, chrooting in should be a fairly straightforward fix.

I don’t think lack of precaution was the issue here given that it was an unexpected power failure, but it is a fairly easy fix with a chroot.

I think there’s value in pushback against popular but problematic software. Some people just don’t realize that, for example, WhatsApp is owned entirely by Meta and is known to collaborate with law enforcement, which are two facts that entirely undermine its main selling point.

I’d rather gatekeep than lie to people, which is what you’re doing if you’re claiming that using Linux for gaming on your home PC doesn’t require a good amount of knowledge and a willingness to learn and fix things. If you get a steam deck or a pre built Linux gaming pc, yeah, just about anyone should be able to use those without issue. But any gamer looking to run non-steam games, or even steam games that aren’t well-supported, is going to run into edge cases and optimization issues, and not everyone wants to put in the time or effort to figure those out when Windows does most of it for you.

If you’re rebooting to fix an “fps issue”, you don’t understand what’s causing that issue. It doesn’t sound like you’re looking for advice, but to others scared off by this, this sounds a lot like a user who got in over their head and started mucking with things they shouldn’t have.

facepalm it’s not an “ad tracking component”, it’s a test of a new API that, if adopted, will let sites opt in to a much less invasive anonymized system for evaluating the effectiveness of their ads, instead of the current crazy amount of personal data they scrape. The data is anonymized in a double blind scheme, and it’s already way less data than every ad is grabbing.

All of which can be disabled.

Do you pay rent (to someone not in your family)?

https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment

Check out the second and third paragraphs in particular.

This initial implementation is just to test the actual API, so I don’t believe sites using it will be blocking the other tracking yet, but once this API is tested and starts to see adoption, the goal is replacing tracking with this anonymized attribution.

It’s enforced by the websites, they opt into this API. It says that everywhere you can read about this.

In the entire pitch, the announcement, this clarification, and all the technical data? Read literally any of it again and you’ll see that this is the whole point of the API.

Again, no, that’s not true. This API is only used by sites that opt into it, and in so doing, they are disabling the normal tracking which is far more invasive.

… No, it does not. The ads are currently already tracking clicks and conversions, on top of a whole boatload of other personal data. This API instead provides them with just the click and conversion data, divorced from the personal data and then aggregated with all the other site visitors.

Being against this proposal basically means you trust random websites and ad companies more with your data then you do Mozilla and LetsEncrypt.

… No, I’m saying that a given site hosts the specific instance of an ad. That site has control over what the ad can harvest, and if they’re opting in to this PPA API, that information will be anonymized and much more limited than it currently is.

It does not collect any more information about you. It provides far less information than pretty much every ad is already collecting, and that information is anonymized. It does not affect ad blocking solutions.

So, serious question: what are you not understanding here?

This is misinformation. The setting in question is not a “privacy breach setting,” it’s to use a new API which, for sites that use it, sends advertisers anonymized data about related ad clicks instead of the much more privacy-breaching tracking data that they normally collect. This is only a good thing for users, which is why the setting is automatically checked.