AnIndefiniteArticle

s/Fire/Nationalize/

Reclamation of the word ´anarchism´ is the biggest change since the 90s on this front, so this is probably the best answer. Thanks for feeding people.

syzygy

Bonus points for no aeiou.

Not only that, but having the entire executive branch come down to a single elected ticket is a clumsy and low-resolution choice for voters. Especially when you consider that there are only two tickets (blue and red) to vote for.

The position of the president is superfluous and should be eliminated. A president hires people to run the executive branch. That’s how senile Biden can be so effective. He hires well. The American people should be hiring (directly electing) the cabinet, the judicial branch, the top generals, the top ambassadors, etc. Those people could vote to approve/veto bills, or do other jobs currently reserved for the president. This would mean that our whole executive branch isn’t getting replaced every 4-8 years. I bet that if people were voting for each cabinet position independently, we would see a lot more specialized candidates running, and room for third-party break-ins to smaller positions. Each cabinet position is focused on specific issues that relate to that position. This gives voters more granular control over the executive branch. Have each position up for election on a staggered timeline so not everyone is up for election at once. Force the races to be focused on specific issues by making the election be about a specific department. Maybe AOC could win Labor Secretary, but that race shouldn’t have a foreign policy discussion. Maybe Bernie could run for Secretary of State as a referendum on pulling out of the Middle East. If we are electing people to specific jobs, we can focus on those jobs instead of all the other bullshit that the election cycle focuses on. Replace the presidency with a document/constitution that outlines the checks and balances, roles and responsibilities of each of these positions.

I love organic maps and openstreetmaps. The biggest thing missing is satellite view. I like to wander around and explore an area on maps before visiting. OSM has more interesting/relevant details and better visual color coding than the vector street map on google. Google has a satellite map, which is non-negotiable for me especially if I need to quickly orient myself while driving in a new place. I use three layers loaded into qgis for planning trips: OSM, google maps satellite, and a topographic map from USGS. I sometimes use organic maps on my phone if I don’t have access to a computer with qgis. I rely on Google while on location because organic maps lacks a satellite feed.

I’ve seen sites that have something similar, including a “suggestive” tag for pics like OP’s.

http://sds.staples.com/msds/24420590.pdf

Jefferey Epstein didn’t kill himself.

Before he didn’t kill himself, he infamously ran some sex clubs.

These would be well-known examples representing a subset of what I would consider to be “problematic” sex clubs.

I would not want to be a part of a pride celebration where clubs like those have representation.

Pride is about throwing bricks at cops and celebrating our suppressed diversity, not the kinds of sex clubs that politicians go to. Pride is about tearing down hierarchies and problematic power dynamics, not fetishizing them. Or, at least, that’s my understanding of pride having never been to any sort of pride event. I know the history with stonewall and all of that, and that’s my picture of pride and what it should be.

The kinds of sex clubs that politicians go to are the only kinds of sex clubs of which I am aware, so I’m skeptical of sex clubs being represented at pride.

What kind of a “community” exists around kink? Or do you just mean the superset of communities like furries, and whatever else is out there? What’s the line between those and more problematic sex clubs?

Thanks for the leads and the good conversation. I have found that being an idiot in public and then deescalating is one of the fastest ways to gather information.

deleted by creator

Thanks for pointing out that in this case the DM is using X regardless of whatever graphical environment gets loaded when the user logs in. This really is a moot point/discussion. I’m still glad I raised it to get perspectives like yours.

You’re right that I should play around with wlroots a bit more. It’s been a while, personally. Mostly because it’s been a while since I’ve had time to just play around with my system. My life is at a point that it looks like I’ll have that free time soon, for better or for worse.

I’ll note that I do like alternative init systems for diversity and competition and because systemd was very hungry and rigid. An init system is also a bit more fundamental to system stability than a display server, so I think it’s reasonable to be critical of systemd and Wayland for contradictory reasons. Systemd has also come a very long way in the past decade plus. I have also seen it learn from the other ideas implemented in its competition, mirroring your argument. Diversity and unification are not at odds with each other, but are different parts of the same cycle of improvement.

Good to know that this has been implemented in your favorite DE! Considering how Wayland often implements things, it’s probably implemented on the DE-level, leading to a fractured configuration ecosystem. Being implemented in Wayland is different from being implemented in some of the DEs that use Wayland.

edit: if I’m wrong about that, and it is implemented in Wayland itself, please continue to correct me!

It’s not just about it being a config file, it’s also about having access to a powerful tool like xrandr within that config file.

That’s kind of my point. Something like randr is more fundamental than the DE, and its configuration shouldn’t be fractured by being DE-dependent. I personally don’t like DEs at all, and like the ability to control a more minimal system.

I’ve never needed any of those things.

I do need to change monitor configurations.

I once had an old TV that I used as a monitor that had 1027p worth of pixels instead of 1080p. Auto detection tools said it was 1080p. With xrandr I was able to modify the output to 1027p so I didn’t lose the edges of the display to the TV’s broken forced overscan design. Could you do that with Wayland?

I am serious, and I’ll tell you exactly what will change my mind. I need real tools instead of “upgrades” that have less functionality and are less usable. If Wayland (or whatever comes next) can deliver on functionality, I’ll sing its praises. For now I’m on X.

Give me real tools or get off my lawn rewilded patch of native plants and bugs!

This is why X11 is better. I’d rather have settings like this in a text file that I can copy over to my next machine than have to navigate a UI that will change on a different DE or the next upgrade.

Backwards compatibility, portability, and text-based interfaces are a virtue.

X config files aren’t “hacky scripts”, they are fundamentally more powerful, customizable, usable, and future-proof. Xrandr is a powerful and capable interface with applications across the system.

When Wayland adopts these kinds of powerful interfaces with decades of refinement I’ll switch to it. I don’t want to keep track of whether my DE uses wlroots or gnome or plasma and their independent/redundant/feature-lacking randr alternatives. Randrs should be more fundamental to the display operation than the DE. Wayland is fundamentally hacky and broken.

Edit: thank you all for the discussion. I’d like to clarify a point. I don’t just want a text file with configuration settings that implement features that I need to beg/bother the devs for. They are likely to have better things to do and it might not be a priority for them. I want access to powerful tools via the configuration files that I can make do pretty much anything if I read the documentation. Xrandr is such a tool. I don’t want setting for a feature that has to be baked into the DE which I have to beg to have implemented and which will be implemented differently across different DEs. I want flexible, dynamic, modular tools.

Yes.

These ecosystems are well studied.

This paper from the oil industry opens with the sentence “Methane-oxidizing bacteria (MOB) have long been recognized as an important bioindicator for oil and gas exploration.” We literally look for these ecosystems to know where to extract their food.

This isn’t controversial in the slightest. We are destroying unique ecosystems with every barrel we extract.