Reminds me of my zealously religious family members, they can take any argument and twist it into supporting their beliefs.
Aren't the Republicans the reason why this began?
Does this apply to chromium browsers too?
I use arch as a daily driver. Very seldom have any issues, and any issues I do have are from the software. I.e. mesa breaking vaapi, grub breaking boot, etc.
Use stagnant software if you can't spare 5 minutes once in a while rolling back problematic packages.
You're asking for statistics in bad faith of the argument. Seems like you're the one slap-fighting here - if you wanted to actually engage in logical discourse, you'd have presented statistics yourself, which you have not.
There's obviously no statistics on the rate of how many bear-human and male-female interactions happen. One rarely happens, the other happens billions of times per day. We can prove that bears are more aggressive and dangerous than humans though.
In one black bear study 88% of fatal attacks were a result of the bear being the aggressor. Note that black bears are known to be timid of humans, and notoriously not aggressive.
- https://sapl.ucalgary.ca/evds_info/content/black-bears
- https://bear.org/bear-facts/how-dangerous-are-black-bears
So, statistically even the more timid bear species are wildly more aggressive to humans than humans to bears. Unless you have data that proves that men are more aggressive to women than bears are to humans, this is the closest we get to proving men are statistically safer than bears.
You're asking for the rate of violent bear attacks on humans during a bear and human interaction, and the rate of violent male attacks on women during a man and woman interaction.
You're just discarding every opinion as "toxic masculinity" which is actually worse than engaging in logical discourse.
I'll do everything in my power to empower women and make them feel safe. This thought experiment has unfortunately been detrimental and used to attack men.
"It's not you" - yes, and nothing I said made it about me at all. See how fast you went on the offense on a completely neutral comment? You should listen to your own advice and listen the points being made equally as much as you're lobbying others to do.
So if men are statistically safer than bears and women's safety is most important, then you agree "bear" is the incorrect choice?
I'm just trying to figure out all these incoherent memes.
I've had more issues with most distros than arch.
The narrative around Nvidia seems to have done a complete 180 in the last year or two. I'm skeptical that it's as good as many are stating.
Are these OSS drivers maintained by Nvidia? Or is it Nouveau?
No need to apologize, you're the first person to actually calmly and willingly discuss the topic without completely dismissing being disagreed with.
I know you're not the originally comment I was replying to, but you conveniently moved the goal posts. The context of the entire conversation is whether TikTok specifically should be shut down because it targets children for it's own gain. You're now arguing that social media in general has negative impact on society and children, which I agree with, but is completely skewing the conversation and was, in no way, the central point of the discussion.
So your opinion is that all social media platforms that deem to have negative affects on society should be shut down? Do you not see what's wrong with that? You're saying humans can't decide whether or not they want to use social media. You should understand how absolutely absurd that is - that is a completely dystopian totalitarian dictatorship idea. It sounds like a chapter in 1984.
Agreed. We're both being downvote because we're not part of the hive mind.
Most of the links provided are about how children were easy to advertise to and TikTok was not properly protecting them. That's a completely different discussion than "tiktok is targeting children".
I want to be a supporter of keeping children safe, but I don't think banning tiktok will help anything other than create 5 new platforms that will make letting kids safe even harder
Edit: that last argument is a straw man, but you get the point
Kids using tiktok and tiktok specifically targeting children to use their platform are distinctly different. Just because kids use tiktok doesn't mean it's because they were lured there. Those metrics only identify that tiktok is popular among youth, which is not an indication of malice whatsoever.
I appreciate your opinion, but short video clips on Mobile devices are nothing inherent to children. Now if tiktok was giving you pokemon for signing up or posting of their platform, then there'd be a valid argument that they're targeting children. (I feel like there was a pokeball collaboration with tiktok once, but I can't find a source to support it)
Getting back to the original context - the argument that Tiktok should be shut down because "it's short videos on mobile platforms that's popular among teens" is lunacy. Everyone is throwing shade at me and not realizing how absurd their argument is.
I'm not acting in bad faith either. I don't care about the fate of tiktok, but I'm seeing a trend of vilification without proper logical discourse. It's disconcerting to say the least.
Tiktok's stance is rather meaningless because they'd never admit wrongdoing. I'm more curious how does tiktok target children with their platform? How do they lure them to it and why?
Then the conversation becomes: What standards should social media platforms be accountable to?
Unrelated to original comment
Please find two brain cells to rub together to understand the context of the original comment. You've gone on a complete nonsensical tangent akin to mental illness
Unrelated to original comment