I didn‘t kill „everybody“. I killed the king, his family and his guards and maybe his ministers or generals

Not how civil wars work unfortunately

No, I am a member of one of many militias

Which makes you a part of the military power of the new rule. So yeah.

Yes. Thats how war works.

Yes. That’s my point actually.

Exactly

Ok, but that’s worse. You do get how that’s worse, right?

When you killed everyone in a coup, you are by definition a new military. You might prefer less authoritarian system now, but all your friends who are running around with rifles trying to do a coup are in it for power, it’s just how the selection process goes, for everyone bright eyed idealist who will immediately relinquish his absolute authority that he just won by fighting a civil war, there will be 10 people who fought in civil war to get this absolute authority.
We know that, because actually I deceived you earlier, it’s not 19th century now, and we already saw how that happened. And also, both technologies and situations are different now

Then you get your single shot rifle and storm the the king’s palace with it, against a bunch of people with single shot rifles, kill them all, kill a king, all his family, and thus establish a military goverment. Because it’s apparently it’s 19th century now.

Will they be upset if I complain or what?

That’s, just, like, you know, your opinion, man

Hey, if you’re poor, just sell your house and your car, that you have when you poor. Everyone has at least couple of houses to sell, right?

Where the fuck have you found whatever weird esoteric distribs you are talking about, and why on earth did you went with those? Depending on the answer to the question, I kind of understand how you managed to make Arch “perform poorly” whatever that means in that regard, you need to have at least basic understanding to use Arch (or treat it as an opportunity to learn).
But you don’t start your experiments with something from third page of Google, at that point you’re an alpha tester.

I wasn’t saying that we have everything available for Linux. Not yet, anyway. I was saying that whatever we have there is usually free and very customisable.
People committing from Windows and especially Mac infrastructure think that since they spent hundreds of dollars on software they use, they will have to do that again if they will swith to Linux. For a lot of people the thought of free software just never crossing the mind

I think you are talking about the situation that might be true 15 years ago, vut right now you’ll be hardpressed to find anything that doesn’t work out of the box on any modern distribution. I don’t know what plugins and dependancies don’t work on your machine, but I assure you it’s not a universal experience, far from it.
Also, most of the software that you use on Linux is free, so you don’t “buy” new couch if your old is built specifically for your old house, you learn to sit on any of the new ones that you can get for free at any moment

Nothing. He just used it here with angry intent and he should’ve removed it. And not change for non-sweary anger, if that isn’t clear

Oh yeah, when your boss has anger issues and curses you in email, you really want to politely talk to him and ask him to stop. That will show them that you’re a little spineless sucker and can be shat on indefinitely.

Yep. In this email it is done using them though.

The society would be better if we collectively eat everyone who is hoarding money above some level. Physically, literally, eat them, with mustard and mayo.
But since that probably isn’t happening anytime soon, we have to make them stop playing their stupid fucking games with things that humans need to survive, like, for example, housing. Let them buy and sell and invest and shortly squeeze to the moon whatever bullshit people don’t use, yachts for example. But when they do it with real life stuff it’s harmful for the humanity

The article kinda conflicts the two. It talks about financial situation, but then it just asks “Do you eat three meals a day?”, and doesn’t ask you to clarify why. I for example can describe my financial situation as precarious, as they want me to do in the article, but it doesn’t mean I can’t afford food.

Well yeah. If I sit at home on Sunday playing videogames, I’m OK eating once a day and maybe having some snacks. If I bike to the mountains, I eat my weight in food. If I work intensively, I might have three meals a day, but sometimes I’m OK with two and a coffee with croissant for breakfast even then.
You seem to paint it like it’s some kind of a bad thing

You understand what the word “visualisation” means, right?

I’m glad that the only problem with my comment you have is that number. Yeah, it might be described as slightly less than that, depending on how you define struggling, some people are perfectly fine with being one medical emergency away from a bankruptcy, and not struggling at all about it. But for the broader point it doesn’t matter, really.

Republican party made a lot of effort to gut Medicare as much as possible, and they are quite successful when they want to destroy something that helps other people.

Had. It got destroyed.

Doesn’t have to be