No, it’s not just about stalkers, it’s about harassment in general. But even if it were, even stalkers are still people and don’t work fundamentally different.
Feel free to show any research proving me wrong, but unless you find any, the reasonable position is “humans work the same on this topic as on others”.
I know, but it still didn’t fully remove it.
Sure, but it doesn’t have to be fully removed to have an effect.
The thing is that there really is no price, nor was there ever one. Your suggestion that you think there is demonstrates that the way blocking worked gave people dangerously wrong ideas.
Sorry, but you don’t get to redefine how humans work. There is a price, because friction reduces the likelihood of people following through. Removing that friction increases the likelihood of people following through. You might not want to believe this to be the case, but please read studies on the topic - it’s just how humans work. You don’t get to dismiss negative effects because you don’t believe in them.
Twitter massively reduced visibility for logged-out users, so just logging out doesn’t help, you have to log into a different account. This additional fraction reduces the amount of harassment a lot. Not sure that being “more honest” is worth the price, especially when an info box could achieve the same without making harassment easier.
I see where you’re coming from, I used to hold the same perspective. But there were already a couple of “unrealistic” plot elements before that - like the gravitational anomalies in their house, or the conveniently-placed-and-magically-kept-open-and-large-enough wormhole, which doesn’t seem much less Deus ex machina than the tesseract at the end.
Maybe the biggest difference in perspective is in the “power of love” - I don’t think the plot is using that as a solution, that’s just Coopers interpretation. The solution is the tesseract created by the future humans, which isn’t that much more unrealistic than the wormhole. It was a unique and visually incredibly interesting interpretation of the supposed singularity at the center of a black hole, and sadly there’s probably no way we could ever even form theories on what that might look like.
In the end, I’m not sure there’s anything less unrealistic that could finish the plot, and I’m fine with the sci-fi elements. But that doesn’t make your view any less valid!
What do you mean with “love dimension”? Are you talking about the inside of the black hole? That was explained with the future humans constructing a space that Cooper could understand, navigate, and use to transmit the data necessary for human survival to his daughter. Love is what made his daughter believe in him and attempt to decode the message, but the space itself had nothing to do with love.
Nothing that happened in the movie could have been successful without love, it allowed humanity to do what shouldn’t have been possible.
To start off, I believe there was a very narrow path that led to humanities survival - kinda like that Doctor Strange scene in Infinity War. Had things happened differently (Cooper wasn’t the pilot, they didn’t go to the ice planet, Cooper didn’t sacrifice himself) humanity would have been doomed, and all those things happened due to love.
And only love is what allowed Cooper and his daughter to actually bridge time and space, because if she didn’t love him so much, she wouldn’t have attempted to decode the gravitational messages - she wouldn’t have believed this to be possible. But she did believe in him, and she did believe that he would still be out there and trying to save them.
None of the things they attempted would have worked without love, and none of them would have meant anything without love. In the end, the story is all about human connections driving us to attempt the impossible, and that’s a lot more powerful than some scientific MacGuffin could ever be.
I couldn’t disagree more!
I first saw it in a completely empty theater as a teen. The visuals are obviously amazing, and I really liked the story, until the last bit - back then I was annoyed that they suddenly jumped from scientific accuracy towards feelings and emotions.
It took me a long time to properly understand the metaphor and message, but now I love it all the more!
She finally allowed us to extend past ball-shaped chickens in a vacuum.
You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding my point, as I didn’t mention the average person’s intelligence in any way. All I’m saying is that minimizing the effort required to really try multiple distributions is a terrible way of introducing people to Linux. It will only lead to frustration and rejection. Choosing your bread doesn’t require investing dozens of hours.
No, it absolutely is hard, and those are bad comparisons. Growing up you interact with bread and cars, and you build a preference based on what you’re taught and what you experience. If I go into a new store and see a dozen types of bread I’ve never eaten, I can still make inferences about their taste, texture etc. This is not the case with Linux distributions - if I’ve never used Linux before, I literally don’t know what the hell I’m doing.
And it’s absolutely unrealistic to expect your average person to try a few out. They won’t be able to decide on technical grounds, and they’ll have to use the distribution for some time to build enough experience for a preference. Going back to your car example, it’s like suggesting people buy a few cars and decide which one they like (since they don’t have the experience to make judgements based on short test drives) - you’re asking them to invest a lot of time for something they don’t really need or want.
People learn how to do that while growing up. The same doesn’t apply to software, people usually choose what they know.
It’s 2024 and this guy still can’t read.
Do you have an example where Rust devs wanted to break backwards compatibility? The complaints I’ve seen were mostly “I don’t want to learn another language, so your Rust stuff will be broken by us”
I’m not a vegan. Their argument was literally that morally there is no difference in the amount of death caused by any person for the purposes of consumption.
Ah yes, the old “I accidentally stepped on a fly, might as well exterminate the whole biosphere” defense
Okay, but why do you tell me that I’m wrong and keep going on about unrelated points? I don’t care if the user-facing name is different from the binary name. I have no position on the topic.
I corrected a wrong statement (who is responsible for the .desktop file of an application). You tried to counter-correct me, but did so on an unrelated point (who displays the application name? I’m still not sure). Positions on whether .desktop files defining separate names is good aren’t relevant.
Your Mint/Xed example doesn’t show what you think it does. Mint doesn’t just ship with .desktop entries for a bunch of applications, they are still managed by the respective developers and part of the packages themselves. Mint is also the developer of Xed, so the repository is in their organization, but the .desktop file is still part of the package. If you install Xed on any other distribution, you’ll still get the same .desktop entry, because it’s part of the package.
That is all I’ve been talking about. I’m not sure how your reply relates to that, but it would help me if you tell me what you’re arguing against.
No, your Desktop Environment doesn’t have a huge list of package names to app names. It has a list for all your installed packages, but the list entries are part of the packages.
If your system doesn’t have gnome-system-monitor installed, you won’t have the corresponding .desktop file, because it’s part of the package. It would be incredibly wasteful and unnecessarily complex for your system to get shipped out with .desktop files for all possible applications.
I don’t even finish a 30 pack before expiration